SC asked to stop Marcos burial at Libingan pending final ruling
The fight is not yet over as those against the burial of former dictator Ferdinand Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani (LNMB) have asked the Supreme Court to suspend the burial pending pending finality of the ruling.
In a manifestation, petitioner Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman urged the high court to re-issue the status quo ante order (SQAO) enjoining the government from implementing President Rodrigo Duterte’s order for the Marcos burial to give way to the resolution of the appeal they intend to file.
If not a status quo order, Lagman said the SC should advise the Armed Forces of the Philippines or Department of National Defense not to implement the order yet until the high court ruling becomes final.
“Considering that the subject decision is not yet final and to foreclose the projected motion/s for reconsideration from being rendered moot by a precipitate burial of the late President Ferdinand Marcos in the Libingan ng mga Bayani, it is respectfully manifested and prayed that the Honorable Supreme Court may consider reissuing the Status Quo Ante Order and/or advising the respondents not to proceed with the said burial pending resolution of the motion/s for reconsideration,” said Lagman.
He said they have not yet filed their motion for reconsideration because they have yet to receive a copy of the decision.
They sought the re-issuance of the SQAO as they noted that the members of the Marcos family are already making preparations for the interment.
Last Tuesday, voting 9-5, the high court dismissed the seven petitions opposing the Marcos burial.
The high court said there was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of President Duterte who ordered the DND and AFP to start with the preparations for the Marcos burial.
It pointed out that Duterte’s decision is well within his presidential power provided under Article VII, section 17 of the Constitution.
Lagman is one of the petitioners who sought to block the Marcos interment. There are seven petitions filed at the Supreme Court./rga
