Spirit rather than the letter of the law

It looks like our country will remain divided as dissension and disunity heighten because of the recent ruling of the Supreme Court (SC) on the burial of the late dictator Marcos at the Libingan Ng Mga Bayani (LNMB). The case actually stems from the decision of Duterte himself who allowed such burial upon his assumption into office as President. Even if he has denied it, the timing of his move in this regard has given rise to the public perception that it was some sort of a political payback for the support of the Marcoses who apparently backed him up in the last presidential election with the alleged votes of the “solid north.”

Actually, the SC decision simply declared that there is no grave abuse of discretion on the part of Duterte when he allowed the burial of Marcos at the LNMB. Nine justices believed that his action is in accordance with the law which Duterte himself cited. Under this law, an ex-president is supposedly entitled to be buried at said cemetery. At first glance, the SC decision concurred in by nine justices, appears to be correct.

Apparently these justices strictly applied the letter of the law in resolving the case. There are instances however when applying the strict letter of the law may not be in accordance with the spirit and intent of the law. And in such case, the Court should have looked into and considered the spirit rather than the letter of the law in resolving the case. Here, it is quite clear that the spirit of the law is to honor our heroes who sacrificed their lives for our country’s sake. The very name of the cemetery built pursuant to said law says it is the “Libingan Ng Mga Bayani.” Thus it is quite clear that having served as President of our country is not enough basis to be buried in the LNMB. The SC should have also determined whether Marcos can be considered as a “hero” within the contemplation of the law.

And recent history itself would show that Marcos could not be a “hero” at all, a man who has served his country well, and with distinction and nobility of character. The events leading to the EDSA people power revolution of 1986 clearly showed how oppressive and rapacious was his regime. So many tortures, extrajudicial killings and other violations of human rights were committed at that time. Plunder and looting of the government coffers were rampant. Various cases filed here and abroad showed the billions of dollars he had amassed and stashed especially in the US and Switzerland. The US Court in Hawaii has in fact awarded damages to the many victims of human rights violations which up to now have not yet been paid. All these events ignited the people power revolution that led to his ouster and escape to Hawaii.

In its decision however, the SC readily and peremptorily ignored all the above atrocities with the argument that “Marcos was not at all good, he was no pure evil either and was just a human who erred like us.” Answering this argument, Ateneo de Manila president, Fr. Jose Ramon T. Villarin S.J. said: “Such argument amounts to a monumental denial of the suffering and murder of thousands of our people and the billions of public funds stolen during those tragic years of Martial Law. Ferdinand Marcos did not just err like us. Decisions that were made during his regime were marked by atrocity and impunity. People were imprisoned, tortured and killed just for harboring different beliefs and convictions. Those years were deliberately disruptive of democracy and freedom. Martial Law was not just a stumble in the dark. It was a careful orchestration of violence and power conducted in the name of order and artificial peace.”

Another argument that the SC advanced in this regard is that the issue here is more of a political rather than a legal or constitutional question which is within the full discretionary authority of the Executive or Legislative Department to resolve. This argument however is not tenable.. When Duterte issued the order allowing Marcos burial in LNMB, he repeatedly cited the law and stressed that his order is in accordance with said law. So the issue here is not political but legal according to Duterte himself. In the case of Marcos vs. Manglapus, et.al., G.R. 88211, September 15, 1999,  the SC said that under the Constitution, it has the power to “determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. So “when grave of discretion is committed even by the highest executive authority, the judiciary should not hide behind the political question doctrine (Bernas, Primer on the Constitution, p. 265) In this connection also Fr. Villarin, S.J. likewise pointed out that the “SC misses the opportunity and its own power to affirm the enshrined principles embedded in our Constitution which they have affirmed as rising from the ashes of the Marcos administration.”

With this SC decision, the wounds of Martial Law have been reopened once more. The observation of Bongbong Marcos that it will put a closure to this sad chapter in our country’s history, so that we can move forward together, does not and cannot hold water. In fact, the decision has spawned more division, disunity and unrest in our country. Protest and indignation rallies in different parts of our country are again happening especially by the victims and even by students in several schools, who were not even around during those darkest days and years in our country’s history. These unrest and strife may linger on and increase even more if the burial is allowed. The sad part here is that even the sacred burial ground of our recognized heroes, especially our fallen soldiers may be desecrated.

The ball is now in the hands of the SC which is called upon to reconsider its decision. Or better still Duterte himself can change of mind and just stick to the previous agreement that the Marcos family entered into providing for the burial in Batac, Ilocos Norte.

* * *

Email: [email protected]