Libingan burial payback – Marcos victims
AFP FILE PHOTO
President Duterte’s nod to the interment of the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos at Libingan ng mga Bayani is payback for the campaign donation he received from the Marcos family, a group of martial law victims has claimed.
The group, one of six petitioners asking the Supreme Court to block a hero’s burial for the late strongman, on Monday urged the tribunal to consider President Duterte’s admission that Ilocos Norte Gov. Imee Marcos had provided financial support to his campaign.
All about the money
The petitioners, led by former Commission on Human Rights Chair Etta Rosales, filed a manifestation on the eve of a possible ruling the high court may render today (Tuesday).
“It’s all about private transaction, it’s all about money,” the group said in a statement. “(The President’s) acceptance of money from the eldest daughter of the dictator… casts in an entirely new light the repeated assertions by administration officials that (his) decision… was ‘in fulfillment of a campaign promise.’”
In a speech before local officials from Luzon on Oct. 4, Mr. Duterte said that Imee Marcos was among those who financed his campaign for president.
Article continues after this advertisementMarcos on Monday said that allowing the burial of her father at Libingan would “heal the country’s wounds.”
Article continues after this advertisementSpeaking to reporters outside the Supreme Court compound on the eve of a possible ruling on the contentious issue, she urged those opposed to the interment to heed President Duterte’s “call for national unity” by respecting his decision to grant the wish of the late strongman’s family.
No certainty
“Whatever our sentiments, we will all be united… and our wounds will heal if we allow [my father’s] burial,” Imee said.
Theodore Te, Supreme Court spokesperson, could not say with certainty if the 15-member tribunal would issue a decision today.
A source, however, said the high tribunal was “likely to postpone” a decision, “possibly within a month.”
“The magistrates are still deliberating this very sensitive issue,” said the source, who asked not to be named for lack of authority to speak on the matter. “There’s no draft resolution yet.”
RELATED STORY
