Photo from Ferdinand E. Marcos Presidential Center
President Rodrigo Duterte and the Supreme Court (SC) should not take the defiance of the Marcos family sitting down following the burial of former President Ferdinand Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani (LNMB) sans finality of the high court’s ruling.
READ: Marcos laid to rest in ‘sneaky’ rites at Libingan ng mga Bayani
Veteran lawyer Romulo Macalintal said if Duterte is as he say for the rule of law, “he should be the first to show concern why a decision of the SC which is not yet final and executory could be implemented.”
The high court, on the other hand, he said “should take action on this development because it defies the Supreme Court’s existing order and the rules of court.”
“It is the Supreme Court’s duty to make a statement on this issue since it involves its decision and order which are not yet final and executory,” Macalintal said in a statement.
READ: SC ruling on Marcos burial cannot be implemented yet—lawyer
Voting 9-5, the high court dismissed all the petitions against the Marcos burial.
While it has lifted the status quo ante order (SQAO), the main decision is still subject of a motion for reconsideration pursuant to the rules of court.
In fact, petitioners filed an urgent motion to re-issue the SQAO as they expressed intent of filing a motion for reconsideration.
Macalintal cited previous SC decisions frowning on the implementation of a decision that is not final and executory.
In the 1994 case of Tolentino vs Secretary of Finance or the VAT (value-added tax) cases, the court reminded the Bureau of Internal Revenue that its decision, including the lifting of the temporary restraining order (TRO), “is not yet final and the TRO previously issued has not been lifted” when the period to file an MR (motion for reconsideration) by the aggrieved party has not yet lapsed or such MR is still pending resolution by the court. The SC said that “The Court looks with disapproval upon the manifestation (to implement the decision pending MR) which borders on disrespect if not outright insolence.”
“In other words, any attempt or manifestation to implement the said decision on Marcos burial at the LNMB pending resolution of the MRs may constitute contempt of court or could be subject to criminal or administrative sanctions to be imposed by the court,” Macalintal said.
A 1993 case of Samad vs Comelec also explained that the lifting of the temporary restraining order “is part of the decision and like the rest thereof could be the subject of a motion for reconsideration.”
“It means that, the SQAO previously issued in the Marcos case, which is likened to a TRO, is still valid and effective and the said decision, including the lifting of the SQAO, is not yet final and executory. This is so because the aggrieved parties, on their respective MRs, may still ask the court to reconsider or set aside its decision or any portion thereof, including an appeal to reconsider the lifting of the SQAO,” Macalintal said. RAM/rga