GESITE, REGINA M.

2016-0191

ATTY. JIMENO-ATIENZA
STATCON
THU 7:30-9:30PM

It is an understatement that this is a divisive, emotional issue. But why do many react by
arguing it is illegal? Various groups have even floated plans to block it with a court order.
Presidential Legal Counsel Salvador Panelo rebutted: It does not distinguish whether a president is
good, bad, handsome or ugly. If youre a president, youre entitled to be buried there. It is difficult to
disagree.
It is too easy for us to be fixated on legalese even if it is beside the point. Yes, Armed Forces
Regulation 161-375not a lawissued in 2000 tells us who may be buried in the Libingan. But this
is a broad enumeration that includes former presidents, government dignitaries, former AFP chiefs of
staff and generals, World War II veterans, and other AFP personnel.
It is pointless to argue this regulation since the President may change it anytime. The regulation does
not even say how to choose among the thousands it qualifies for burial in the Libingan.
Some argue that in 1992, President Fidel Ramos and the Marcos family already negotiated an
agreement on Marcos burial in Ilocos with certain conditions. But even if this was a binding legal
agreement, parties may change their agreements anytime.
Some argue that the law says more. For example, AFP Regulation 161-375 disqualifies those
dishonorably discharged from service or convicted by final judgment of an offense involving moral
turpitude. Although Marcos was not, some argue that laws such as Republic Act No. 10368 on
reparations for martial law victims establish this analogously. Others argue the burial would violate
the spirit of RA 10368 and laws on recovering ill-gotten wealth.
This supposedly deeper analysis creates many problems. The most immediate is that laws
simply need to mean what they say. Yes, we have flowery, philosophical discussions about human
rights and social justice. Most days, however, one simply needs to know when one has committed a
crime, has to pay a tax or may cross the street. It is tempting to stretch law and argue that we are
bound by words in between the lines, uncovered in a stroke of genius that allows law to intervene and
save ones cause complete with cheesy action music. If society does this each time it has a
disagreement, however, then no one would be able to read a law. It would become useless, devoid of
integrity and left to be reinterpreted each time like chicken entrails. Worse, law could be dragooned
into deciding any cause after a game of finding hidden messages. It could short-circuit democratic
debate and tell dissenters that they have no choice but to follow what the law supposedly says.
If law can say today that it is illegal to bury Marcos in the Libingan, even without explicit
language, then what might the hidden messages say tomorrow? Could some cryptic standard say the
Reproductive Health Act is unconstitutional? Could some obscure phrase invalidate our defense
agreements with the United States?
The ultimate problem is that law hijacked this way removes not only the debate, but all accountability
for the debate. After an unwise choice, people are free to shrug their shoulders and disclaim
responsibility because law made them do it. Law would become a societys subconscious defense
mechanism.

Illegal, immoral and unwise represent three very different planes. Again, this is not an essay
telling you whether Marcos should or should not be buried in the Libingan. But it asks why it is so
tempting for so many of us to categorize this as a legal issue instead of a political decision a majority
of Filipinos must support.
Are we concerned that our mechanisms for measuring majority will are flawed? That congressmen
and senators do not really speak on ones behalf? That we need a scientific opinion poll or a formal
referendum? Should we all just rally at the Libingan and see who attracts the largernot the noisier
crowd?
One must be wary of telling oneself that a majority of Filipinos cannot possibly be right. This makes
law an enticing tool to sidestep the majority and save them from themselves. What is popular, one
believes, is not always what is right.
After British voters narrowly, surprisingly voted to leave the European Union, their
government was criticized for conducting a vote on such a critical issue with no safeguards, such as
requiring a75-percent supermajority or making provision for a second confirming vote. Interviews of
voters expressing regret and confusion were aired, and some declared that they would vote differently
if there were another vote. Reports of increased Google searches for What is the European Union?
(in percentage, not absolute, terms) went viral.
Millions immediately signed a petition calling for a second vote. Nevertheless, British leaders made it
clear that there would be no revote. More fundamental than any issue of the day, a democracy must be
accountable for its choices, or it is not a democracy.
Again, this is not an essay telling you whether Marcos should or should not be buried in the Libingan.
In question whether it is mandatory or directory, it is directory based on the AFP Rules,
former president Marco entitled to buried in the Libingan ng mga Bayani. Sometime after his election
as President of the Philippines in 1998, Joseph Erap Estrada indicated his intention to approve the
burial of the late President Ferdinand Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani. He claimed that it was
mandated by law. When many of the anti-Marcos groups which included the victims of human rights
violations and their relatives expressed their vehement objection, Estrada responded with the
following statement, Show me a law that says Marcos may not be buried at the Libingan ng mga
Bayani. In short, to be buried in the hallowed ground are the remains of Filipino heroes who would
serve as inspiration and emulation of the generation when the law was enacted, today and most
especially those of tomorrow who are yet to be born.
By the very letter of the law alone, given what transpired during his dictatorial regime and the way he
was eventually deposed, it would be very hard to justify making Marcos as somebody to emulate and
as a model to inspire any generation.
AFPR G 161 374 specifically provides who are qualified and who are disqualified to be interred in
the national pantheon. It requires that they must have the qualifications and none of the
disqualifications.Paragraph 2 of AFPR G 161 374, entitled, Allocation of Cemetery Plots at the
Libingan ng mga Bayani enumerates who are qualified to be interred in the cemetery. It says, The
remains of the following deceased persons are qualified and therefore, authorized to be interred in the
Libingan ng mga Bayani:

1. Medal of valor awardees

2. Presidents or commanders-in-chief AFP
3. Secretaries of national defense
4.Chiefs of staff, AFP
4. General flag officers of the AFP
5. Active and retired military personnel of the AFP
6. Veterans of Philippine Revolution 1896, WW1, WW2 and recognized guerillas
7. Government dignitaries, statesmen, national artists and other deceased persons whose interment or
re-interment has been approved by the commander-in-chief, Congress or the Secretary of National
Defense,
8. Former presidents, secretaries of defense, CSAFP, generals/flsg officers, dignitaries, statesmen,
national artists, widows of former presidents, secretaries of national defense and chief of staff are
authorized to be interred at the LNMB.
Those who support Marcos burial at the pantheon could be relying on this provision because clearly
and understandably Marcos would qualify as among those enumerated.
Unfortunately there is another paragraph in the said rules which also clearly states those who are not
qualified to be interred in the Libingan ng mga Bayani. It says, The remains of the following shall
not be interred in the Libingan ng mga Bayani:
1. Personnel who were dishonorably separated/reverted/discharged from the service.
2. Authorized personnel who were convicted by final judgment of the offense involving moral
turpitude.
Read with the statute that created LNMB, mere inclusion in the list is not sufficient. Anyone in the list
must also serve as inspiration and emulation for the current and future generation. So they must not
therefore bring dishonor in any shape or form. That is why the provision on disqualification was also
added.
Marcos cannot be disqualified on the basis of letter b. He was never convicted by final judgment of
any offense involving moral turpitude. Although we can cite several offenses involving moral
turpitude allegedly committed by him, he died before he could be charged, tried and convicted. There
are legal effects or consequences of death. In this material world, our finite courts cannot acquire
criminal jurisdiction over the soul of the dead. It would be too late for any measure of personal and
material reformation and / or retribution. The Divine courts take over for final judgment.

Letter a is another matter. Marcos was President, Dictator and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed
Forces. He installed himself as such virtually for life. There is only one way for him to be
dishonorably discharged, separated or deposed by revolution of the people who as the sovereign
authority had temporarily vested its governmental powers to him. The EDSA or People Power
Revolution of 1986 dishonorably discharged him not only for conduct unbecoming of an officer but
most significantly for killing democracy, for violation of human rights and a list of other reasons too
long to enumerate in this article.
As quoted by FB friend and author Carmen N. Pedrosa in her column I wrote, Your (Eraps) election
and coming inauguration is a necessary, legal and historical consequence of the EDSA revolution.
Without the latter, a Marcos dynasty would not have provided Erap the opportunity to become a
senator, vice president and now president..
Marcos burial at the LNMB never materialized under the presidency of Erap despite his initial intent
to approve it.
I say it is not only legally unsound but politically and morally untenable as well. For the sake of his
father and his own, the Senator should let his father rest in peace and let the positive memories
dominate and for him to focus on redemption with good deeds.