Anti-Marcos leaders file contempt raps | Inquirer News

Anti-Marcos leaders file contempt raps

AFP, heirs named respondents
/ 02:09 AM November 22, 2016

COURT ACTION Former Rep. Satur Ocampo and other victims of Marcos’ martial law file their petition to cite in contempt the Marcos family and themilitary for the burial of the dictator at Libingan ng mga Bayani. —MARIANNE BERMUDEZ

COURT ACTION Former Rep. Satur Ocampo and other victims of Marcos’ martial law file their petition to cite in contempt the Marcos family and the military for the burial of the dictator at Libingan ng mga Bayani. MARIANNE BERMUDEZ

Three days after being blindsided by the burial of former President Ferdinand Marcos at Libingan ng mga Bayani, anti-Marcos forces trooped to the Supreme Court seeking to punish his heirs and their “errand boys” in government for their connivance and to exhume the remains of the dictator.

The group of former Bayan Muna Rep. Satur Ocampo filed a motion to cite in contempt Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana, Armed Forces Chief of Staff Gen. Ricardo R. Visaya, Rear Adm. Ernesto C. Enriquez (Deputy Chief of Staff for Reservist and Retirees), the Philippine Army’s Grave Services Unit, and Marcos’ wife Imelda and his children—Imee, Bongbong and Irene.


The petitioners, who included Trinidad Repuno, Bonifacio Ilagan, Maria Carolina Araullo, and Samahan ng Ex-Detainees Laban sa Detensyon at Aresto, asked the court that the respondents be fined and ordered to reimburse all the public funds used for the burial (Marcos’ remains were airlifted from Batac, Ilocos Norte province, by a military chopper), and that they be detained.


“With a keen sense of cynicism, we will ask that the Marcoses and their military errand boys be cited in contempt, fined, pay up and be detained for their hasty, shady and nasty, premature execution of a ruling that is not yet final and executory,” said the group’s counsel,  Edre Olalia, secretary general of the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers.

Petition for exhumation

The group of Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman also filed a motion in court seeking to dig up whatever the Marcoses buried at Libingan last week, saying this was “premature, void and irregular.”

Saying the court decision was not yet final and executory, Lagman said the court could act motu proprio to exhume the remains immediately.

The petition named Executive Secretary Salvador Medialdea as main respondent.



Marcoses in contempt

Lagman also urged the magistrates to “determine with certainty that what was interred were the ‘mortal remains’ of Marcos, not any other artifact or a wax replica of the late dictator, since his remains could have been buried decades ago in Batac, Ilocos Norte, as he reportedly wished to be buried near his mother, the late Doña Josefa Edralin Marcos.”

Like Ocampo’s group, he planned to cite the Marcoses in contempt.

The Ocampo group accused Lorenzana, Visaya and the Philippine Army of conniving with the Marcoses for the “hasty, shady and tricky burial” of the late President even though the Supreme Court’s ruling on Nov. 8  upholding President Duterte’s campaign promise and order allowing the burial of Marcos at Libingan was not final pending a motion for reconsideration.

The group pointed out the decision did not indicate that it was immediately executory.

The petitioners said they filed a motion on Nov. 11 asking the high court to hold in abeyance the burial of Marcos pending the filing of their motion for reconsideration.

They have 15 days to have the decision reversed.

Olalia said their group would file the motion for reconsideration on Nov. 28. as Nov. 26 is a Saturday.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our daily newsletter

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

The lifting of the status quo ante order, which prevented the President from carrying out his original order to have Marcos buried as early as  Sept. 18, did not give the Marcoses the right to immediately carry out the interment and did not make the court decision final and executory, the petitioners said.


© Copyright 1997-2024 | All Rights Reserved

We use cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. By continuing, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. To find out more, please click this link.