Still no recognition of HR violations during martial law

MANILA, Philippines – The heirs of the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos still would not recognize at least 75,000 human rights violations committed during martial law 30 years after his ouster by the 1986 people power revolution.

The Marcos family, through lawyer Hyacinth Rafael-Antonio, supported the administration in defending before the Supreme Court President Duterte’s decision to allow the interment of the dictator at the Libingan ng mga Bayani in Taguig City.

In oral arguments last Wednesday, Antonio backed the argument of Solicitor General Jose Calida that the Marcos burial at the heroes’ cemetery would result in reconciliation and national healing.

During interpellation, Associate Justice Marvic Leonen asked if there has been any acknowledgment from the Marcos family of human rights violations committed under the regime of their father.

“There was no acknowledgment, your honor,” Antonio said.

The lawyer also told the high court that she is not aware of any plan of the Marcos family to issue an apology on this issue.

Leonen pointed out that acknowledgment from the Marcoses of the crimes committed during martial law would be necessary before the victims could forgive and the country could move on from such atrocities.

Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno supported Leonen in clarifying the issue of acknowledgment by the Marcos family on human rights violations.

Sereno quizzed Calida where the P10 billion for reparation to the human rights victims will be sourced, with the latter saying it comes from the recovered money in the Swiss accounts of the Marcoses.

“The money stolen from the Filipino people will be paid to victims, where is the acknowledgment, the confession? They’re being paid by the taxpayers,” Sereno pointed out.

In response, Antonio argued that the sentiments of martial law victims “should not have a bearing in the court of law” as the only issue in the case is whether or not the assailed decision of Duterte to give Marcos a hero’s burial is allowed under the law.

Calida supported this argument, saying that the Duterte administration acknowledges human rights violations committed during martial law.

He stressed that reparations of martial law victims have already been underway and would not be affected by the burial at the heroes’ cemetery.

He also lamented why the SC allowed several petitioners, including former Commission on Human Rights chair Etta Rosales, to recount their ordeals during martial law era via individual testimonials during the oral arguments, which he said were not relevant to the legal issues at hand.

Calida also argued that the over 14 million votes garnered by dictator’s son, former senator Ferdinand Marcos Jr., in the vice presidential polls last May elections could prove that the nation has moved on from the martial law era.

The Marcos camp was also asked by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa why they did not take legal action to seek burial at the heroes’ cemetery in previous administrations.

Antonio said she is not aware of the reason for this but stressed that “although they (Marcoses) have not filed a case, they have been asserting their right.”

The remains of the dictator have been kept in a mausoleum in his home province of Ilocos Norte since 1993 when then president Fidel Ramos allowed the corpse to be returned to the Philippines from Hawaii where Marcos died in 1989.

In 1992, the Ramos administration forged an agreement with the Marcos family for his burial in Ilocos Norte. It was found, however, that former first lady Imelda Marcos wrote a marginal note saying the burial site was only “temporary.”

Calida told the SC that the agreement is no longer binding under the present administration, invoking Duterte’s residual power under the Constitution.

But Sereno pointed out that government spending on the Marcos burial cannot be justified just because it was a campaign promise of Duterte.

“There is a campaign promise, that is a political purpose. That is not a defined public purpose and one cannot use public money to fulfill a campaign promise,” the Chief Justice explained.

Leonen also questioned what appeared to be the Duterte administration’s “selective portrayal” of Marcos as a “president, war veteran and soldier” in justifying the interment of the dictator at the heroes’ cemetery.

“Why is it that the government wishes to take only the part of the life of Marcos and highlight it to use it as a justification to bury him in the Libingan ng mga Bayani but tones down the other portions of this individual? Which part of President Marcos is president and which part is the part of the person being accused?” Leonen asked Calida.

“Mr. Marcos is also named in Republic Act 10368 as having provided the atmosphere for at least 75,000 human rights violations during martial law and yet the administration now wants not to take that into account and use only a portion of the life of this individual as justification to bury him at the Libingan ng mga Bayani,” the magistrate pointed out.