SC unlikely to reverse decision on Marcos burial – SolGen
The government maintained that that there is nothing illegal in the burial of strongman Ferdinand Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani (LNMB) last Friday.
Solicitor General Jose Calida rebutted the insinuation of Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman and other petitioners in the SC case that the burial was an act of contempt of court since they have yet to file an appeal and that the decision is not yet final and executory.
Calida maintained that the petitions have been dismissed and the status quo ante order has been lifted by the high court.
“As a result of the dismissal of the petitions, there was no further hindrance for the respondents (Palace, Department of National Defense and Armed Forces) to proceed with the burial of Ferdinand Marcos’ remains at LNMB,” he explained in a text message.
SC spokesman Theodore Te earlier said there is no existing order from the high court disallowing the Marcos funeral at the LNMB.
With this, Calida said the plan of the petitioners ask the high court for a contempt order has no leg to stand on.
Article continues after this advertisement“Rep. Lagman and other lawyer-critics should brush up first their knowledge on recent jurisprudence regarding the effect of lifting of status quo ante orders in certiorari cases before they bash the respondents in media,” he suggested.
Article continues after this advertisementHe added that with a vote of 9-5, it is unlikely that the high court would reverse its decision.
“Given the numerical superiority of the majority, I don’t think the Supreme Court will reverse it,” he stressed.
“The 9-5 decision is not only a clear margin. It’s a landslide margin similar to President Duterte’s victory over his opponents during the May 2016 presidential elections,” Calida added.
“Through its monumental decision, we are confronted by the thought that our Supreme Court never wavered in its role of being the conscience of our nation,” he pointed out.
Calida also appealed to the public to “respect and abide by the SC decision” and finally “set aside our differences and stand under united the rule of law.”
