MANILA, Philippines – To be buried, or not to be buried.
That is the question which showed no sign of being answered clearly, or anytime soon: whether former President Ferdinand E. Marcos will be permitted a heroes burial at the Libingan ng mga Bayani (Heroes’ Cemetery).
The controversy over the issue of the late dictators’ final resting place flared up anew Monday when a Manila regional trial court asked Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa Jr. to respond to a petition to settle the constitutionality of the proposed burial.
Last April 18, lawyer and Social Justice Society president Samson Alcantara filed a declaratory relief petition at the Manila Regional Trial Courts, asking Branch 1 judge Tita Bughao Alisuag, to resolve eight constitutional issues posed by the controversy.
Secretary Ochoa was named as a respondent in the petition as “the alter-ego” of President Aquino.
Alcantara was one of those whose opinion was sought by Vice President Jejomar Binay when the latter conducted a multisector survey on the controversy in March. In a letter annexed to Alcantara’s petition, Binay cited him as “one of the country’s leading civic and political leaders.”
Settling the constitutional issues would “settle a controversy of national importance,” Alcantara said.
Alcantara, in his six-page petition, asked the courts to resolve, first and foremost, “whether or not the burial…[would] undermine the constitutional principle of the maintenance of peace and order and the promotion of the general welfare.”
Alcantara also asked the court to resolve whether or not President Aquino’s refusal to have Marcos buried as a hero “would be violative of social justice,” “would violate human rights,” “would be discriminatory and a denial of equal protection of the laws,” and would violate his presidential oath “to do justice to every man.”
Alcantara also asked the court to rule whether or not Marcos’ burial as a hero would “undermine the constitutional provision stating that public office is a public trust”; whether or not it would be in compliance with a constitutional mandate “to provide immediate and adequate care, benefits and other forms of assistance to war veterans”; and whether or not it would be a gross disregard of a constitutional provision stating that “educational institutions shall, among others, inculcate respect for human rights, strengthen ethical and spiritual values and develop moral character and personal discipline.”
In a three-page order issued on April 25, Alisuag gave Secretary Ochoa and the Office of the Solicitor-General 15 days to air their opinions on the matter upon receiving the court order.
“Even as the court…may refuse to exercise the power to declare rights and to construe instruments in any case where a decision would not terminate the uncertainty or controversy which gave rise to the action, or in any case where the declaration or construction is not necessary and proper under the circumstances, the Court hereby directs that notices be given to respondent and all persons who may want their opposition thereto to be heard,” Alisuag explained..