‘Marcos burial inconsistent with Duterte’s war on corruption’

FINAL TRIBUTE. Military officers and the Marcos family give a final tribute to Ferdinand Marcos at Libingan ng mga Bayani. PHILIPPINE ARMY

The burial of former dictator Ferdinand Marcos is inconsistent to President Rodrigo Duterte’s fight against graft and corruption.

Former Bayan Muna Representative Satur Ocampo, through the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL), on Monday asked the high court to reconsider its Nov. 8 decision dismissing the petitions against Marcos’ burial at the Libingan ng mga Bayani (LNMB).

In a motion for reconsideration, Ocampo said Duterte’s action violated Article II, Section 27 of the 1987 Constitution which requires the State to take positive and effective measures against graft and corruption.

As proof, NUPL said the Supreme Court itself on several instances, including the Sandiganbayan vs. Republic case, has forfeited $638-million in favor of the government.

“Thus, allowing Marcos the Dictator who has already been judged by the Filipino people in 1986 and even the Supreme Court as a plunderer in many cases to be interred at the LNMB on the mere reason that he, like the others, is listed as qualified in AFP Regulation G 161-375, disregards and violates not only the public purpose standard under Proclamation 86 (S 1954) but is a direct contravention and a violation of said provision of the Constitution,” the motion for reconsideration stated.

Petitioners added that Marcos’ burial would in no way be considered a “positive and effective measure against graft and corruption” as stated in the Constitution.

“More objectionable and to the point, it is anathema to and plainly goes to the opposite direction not only of the constitutional policy and standard, but the very letter of the provision that requires government, the Supreme Court included, to ‘take effective and positive measures against graft and corruption’. The questioned act [Marcos burial] is, therefore a grave abuse of discretion,” petitioner told the high court.

They reminded the high court that respect for human rights and human dignity is a fundamental principle under the 1987 Constitution.

“The President and the public respondents (Marcos heirs and the military) cannot — by any reason or logic, by any invocation of purported official powers, more so by a promise to a single family at the height of the election campaign — justify their decision without violating this very constitutional principle,” they added.

Also, contrary to the high court’s ruling that they failed to provide the legal and historical bases on the supposition that the LNBM and National Pantheon are the same, NUPL said never made such pronouncement. They said that the law creating the National Pantheon has set the standards on who should be interred at LNMB—only those worthy of inspiration and emulation.

Petitioner told the high court that while Marcos has been buried, the case cannot be considered moot.

They said the high court cannot refuse to rule on the ground of mootness in cases of transcendental importance like the Marcos burial.

“The Courts are mandated to resolve these issues if only to pass upon their merits and the appropriate remedies may be afforded for the protection of the rights of those who sought judicial intervention, or to ensure that such violations will not be repeated in the future.” JE/rga

RELATED VIDEO