Thursday, February 16, 2017

PREFERRING DICTATORSHIP TO DEMOCRACY?

“mas kailangan ang bansa natin ang desiplina,kaysa demokrasya, kaya kailangan pa 1,2,o tatlong marcos para tumino ang pilipinas.”

Si marcos parang sa china ang batas niya, mas nanaisin ko pa na walang kalayaan kesa ngayon na malaya k nga puro paghihirap nmn, tignan mo ang china at singapore ang pamamahala ni.marcos the same, nakamit ang kalayaan kaya nga malaya pumatay,malaya magnakaw,kalayaan para lamunin ang kaban ng bayan yun ba sasabihin.mo na kalayaan, lintek na kalayaan.”

We have already restored democracy, no matter how limited it is. Do you mean to say that dictatorship or one man rule where we will have a President/King for life just like in the middle ages is far better. Ok, this democracy is not what we want. It merely restored the elitist democracy prior to martial law. But that only means that the struggle for a genuine democracy of the people remains and must continue to be fought for.

Lord Acton said that power tends to corrupt and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely. And that is what the Marcos dictatorship was, where all governmental powers were in the hands of one man. Is that what we want. Under the Marcos dictatorship, there was no press freedom. This freedom in the internet would not even be possible. Is that what we want? I agree with you and condemn the subsequent administrations which continued to serve the interest of the elite. But most certainly, I do not agree that the Marcos dictatorship is better than a government where there is a separation of powers, where each branch of government can check the abuse of the other.

People were arrested for opposing the dictatorship and have stayed in detention for years without being charged at all. Is this what we want? We remain slaves of an unjust and exploitative system after Marcos. That does not mean that we have to restore a rotten system which we have already toppled.

We have courts before which do not have independence as the tenure of judges was dependent on the whims and caprices of Marcos, who can be removed by Marcos anytime. These are courts then which cannot have the objectivity to rule on what is right and just. Is that what we want to restore?

People dream of economic prosperity. But we are not dogs who would be happy to be well fed but without freedom.

You are like the Israelites who experiencing the hardships in the desert on the way to the promise land, want to go back to their life of slavery in Egypt which they have already freed themselves from. The hardships in the desert on the way to the promise land, does not justify us going back to the slavery of Egypt that we have already freed ourselves from.

Friday, January 13, 2017

Meaning and Value of Philosophy

What is philosophy? Is it important to our life? Some view philosophy as useless speculation on matters unrelated to life? Is that true? If we trace the origin of the questions of philosophy, we will realize that they arise out of our own personal experiences. What urges us to reflect are matters of great value to us.
Perhaps, at some point of our life, we have ourselves encountered the problems of philosophy: 1) Ethics: What is the right kind of life? When is an act right? Wrong? When am I responsible for my actions?; 2) Social Philosophy: What is the good society? How may this be achieved?; 3) Philosophy of man: What is man? Is man a mere body or does he have a soul which survives after death? Is man free?; 4) Theodicy: Does God exist? If there is a good and just God, why then does he allow man to suffer?; 5) Cosmology: What is the nature of the material universe? Where did it come from?; 6) Ontology: What is the nature of reality? Is it purely physical or is it spiritual?; 7) Epistemology: What may we know? How may we know and thus avoid error?; 8) Logic: When is our reasoning correct?.
Which of these questions of philosophy have you encountered in your life? What experience led you to ask those questions? What thing of value urged you to reflect? What happens as a result of these experiences? We find our self, our world or society mysterious: something is hidden from us; there is something we cannot fully understand. At this point may begin to doubt some of what we believed or held as true. This is the starting point of philosophy: our encounter with the mysteries of life.
What is our response in the face of mystery? We begin to ask questions. We seek to know the truth. We seek understanding. This is what philosophy is: inquiry in the face of the mysteries of life; man’s quest to understand himself, his world and society, what their nature is, their origin and destiny. This is the spirit that animates philosophy: the spirit of inquiry and questioning in search of understanding. Unfortunately, many today no longer ask questions or reflect? They simply blindly accept or believe without question. The spirit of philosophy then is the exact opposite of the culture of blind acceptance and unquestioned belief prevailing in society.
What urges us to reflect on the questions of philosophy? Is this just a matter of curiosity? Of asking questions unrelated to our life? There are matters that we are merely curious about? Are there aliens, living beings from other planets? Eventually, we may forget this question whether we answered it or not, as there are other more important matters that we have to attend to. What do we feel in these experiences? We are disturbed. There is some inner disquiet in us. Thus, we are forced to stop for a while and turn our attention to these questions which bother us. Why are we disturbed? Why are we affected? Because something of value is at stake: the meaning and purpose of our life. We need to eat; sleep; work. But there is a deeper need in us: the need for life’s meaning, purpose, direction.
What is philosophy then? Inquiry into the mysteries of life urged by man’s search for meaning and understanding. So when someone asks you, what is your philosophy of life or what is the philosophy behind something, i.e. education, what does he mean? He asks what is your understanding of life; what it is and its purpose. Philosophy is a search; a quest. It comes from two (2) Greek words: filos which means love and sofia which means wisdom. Philosophy then means the love of wisdom. The Philosopher then is a lover of wisdom. We see here the humility of the philosopher. He does not claim to be wise but only to be one who is in search for wisdom.
What is wisdom which the philosopher is seeking for? Is it wisdom for instance to live only in order to eat? No, for we do not live in order to eat only. Why? There is a deeper reason in living than merely eating. So we will ask further, “but why do we eat?” Our mind will not be satisfied until we discover the deepest or ultimate reason why we are living. This is what wisdom is: the knowledge of the deepest or ultimate reason or cause of things. Unfortunately, we oftentimes mistake a shallow reason as the deepest reason. This is foolishness. It is foolishness to live simply in order to eat. Some consider money as the purpose of their life. Is that wisdom of foolishness? Money however is but a means. Thus it is foolishness to mistake it as the very purpose of human existence and to make it as the lord and master of our life. What about almsgiving as a means of helping the poor, is that wisdom? No, for it is a mere palliative and not the cure to their poverty. No matter, how much alms we give, the poor will remain poor, until we are able to address the root cause of poverty. Is it wisdom to value a person because of his being beautiful or handsome? Beauty as some say, is only skin deep. That is foolishness for one mistakes mere appearance which pass away as what makes a person, his nature or essence as a human being.
But what use is this knowledge, if we do not live by what we know; if what we know does not effect any change in our life or society. In the ultimate analysis, knowledge that is not lived is also foolishness. Wisdom then is not only knowing the truth but living the truth. The true philosopher is not one who simply knows what goodness or justice is; but a good and just man. The true philosopher is not only one who understands things but whose understanding effects a change in himself, his world and society and thus who acts to transform himself, his world and society. The true philosopher is a living example of truth, goodness and justice; one who fights for justice and freedom. Ironically, in living the truth, some philosophers have dies for the truth. That is not easy. But there lies the challenge of philosophy.
Like Philosophy, science is also an effort by man to understand himself and his world. How does science do that? Through observation and experimentation, science seeks to know discover the workings of nature, how it moves or behaves, in order to discover the laws that govern it and how the forces of nature may be used to respond to the day-to-day needs of man like food, health, communication transportation, etc. (this is called technology). Despite the benefits brought about by science, experience shows that it can also be used for evil. For instance nuclear power may be used for medical purposes, yet it may also be utilized to create weapons of war and destruction. While in view of the discoveries of science, man now has a greater mastery of nature, he has so far failed to master himself. He remains enslaved by his weaknesses like greed for instance. While he has advanced in his knowledge of the laws which govern nature and their uses, he remains to have a vague understanding of what man is, where did he come from and what ought to be the purpose of his existence. This need is answered by philosophy. This thus is the difference of philosophy from science: science is man’s efforts to discover the laws that govern nature, so that they may be used to respond to his immediate needs, philosophy on the otherhand is man’s efforts to understand himself and his world, so that he will know the direction his life ought to take.
Like philosophy, religion also seeks to give direction to human existence. It also gives answers to some of the questions of philosophy. They however differ in the means of seeking the truth. Philosophy proceeds in its inquiry by means of man’s reason alone, religion on the otherhand proceeds with the aid of what it views as divine revelation. The basis of assent in religion is faith (believing though we do not fully understand). In view of this, some philosophers view religion as blind adherence to an illusion. Others, recognizing that man’s reason has its limits are open to the possibility that there may truths which are beyond the rech of natural reason. While this may be true, the philosopher will not readily accept things by faith. He will push his reason to its limits in his search for answers. Even articles of faith, he will try to comprehend as far as possible. His faith, if ever he has one, is not a blind one, but a faith seeking understanding. Thus in philosophy, there is no room for blind uncritical acceptance. He would not be easily swayed by the voice of custom, of the crowd or the majority. This but means that in philosophy, the basis of assent is reason and evidence; that each man has the obligation to think for himself and form his own judgment as regards what is true or good. That is the challenge of philosophy. That is the challenge of life.

Thursday, October 27, 2016

NOT TRUE NA KUNG WALANG CORRUPT, WALANG MAHIRAP

NOT TRUE NA KUNG WALANG CORRUPT, WALANG MAHIRAP: This has been our sad history everytime there is an election: the one running against the incumbent says, "Magnanakaw ang nasa gobyerno, iboto niyo ako". Then the next election is held and the challenger has the same call, "Magnanakaw ang nasa gobyerno, iboto niyo ako". We fall into the trap of traditional politics, if we debate whether Miriam is corrupt or not. Corruption is only an aggravating factor and is not the root cause of our people's poverty. Just try to imagine a government that does not steal at all yet land remains concentrated in the hands of a few; education remains the privilege of a few; workers remain exploited and paid starvation wages, the Philippines remains an agricultural country and continues to fail to industrialize, so our people are condemned to be perrenial OFWs; people remain powerless, without any meaningful participation in decision making; etc. That is why, it is not true "na kung walang corrupt, walang mahirap." By espousing an anti-corruption campaign, Miriam has proven that she is no different and is a trapo herself (October 27, 2015 post).

CONGRESS SHOULD NOW WORK ON THE ENACTMENT OF THE LAW WHICH WILL DETER EXTRAJUDICIAL KILLINGS

The killings continue. Congress should now stop its investigations and proceed with the work of drafting and eventually enacting the law that will serve as a deterrent to to extrajudicial killings. Among others, said law hopefully should include the relevant provisions of the Philippine National Police Operational Procedures and these norms of conduct and procedures proposed by the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Hildawa vs. Minister of Defense (G.R. No. L-67766 August 14, 1985):
1. Police superiors are directed to exercise strict supervision and control over law enforcers ordered to make arrests, that they should not use unnecessary force and should comply strictly with the law, and accord to the suspects all their constitutional rights;
2. Whenever there is killing or infliction of injury, those responsible are hereby enjoined to immediately report the matter to their superior officers and the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) for investigation and appropriate action;
3. The National Police Commission as the entity charged with direct authority over the members of the Integrated National Police (now the PNP) should forthwith "investigate to find out who the assailant was and the reason for the death of the victim. It need not wait for a formal complaint to be lodged by the relatives of the deceased;"
4. Once the Identity of the killer(s) has been established and the latter having admitted that he is the author of the death of the deceased, the investigating officer should file a case in the proper court or tribunal which will determine whether or not the killing was made in self-defense, defense of relatives, defense of stranger or in the fulfillment of a duty," bearing in mind that "when a person is killed by another, the burden of proving self-defense or some other justification lies on the assailant. This is precisely what is needed: an automatic investigation of all killings which result either from police operations or are perpetrated by unknown hitmen. Most sadly, it is most unclear if there is an automatic investigation being conducted in these cases. The only way to deter or prevent extrajudicial killings is to make everyone aware that an investigation will automatically be conducted if killings result from police operations or are perpetrated by unknown hitmen, whether or not there are complainants. In the very first place, that a killing is extrajudicial is a conclusion that is arrived at only after an investigation. Every such killings thus should automatically be deemed as Deaths Under Investigation (DUI) and should automatically be investigated.

HYPOCRISY OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS

It is utter hypocrisy for private schools, particularly, COCOPEA, Atty. Estrada and Fr. Tabora to allege "...adverse financial impact of the implementation of the K to 12 program on private higher educational institutions (HEIs)." The private schools led by COCOPEA in the very first place, were the ones who drafted the K to 12 bill and pushed for the enactment of the law for their own private selfish interests (in conspiracy with DepEd and some legislators), as they made it sure that through said despotic and anti-democratic program, they will rake huge profits from government funds which will be paid to them instead of being used to build more classrooms, produce more books and increase the salaries of teachers. Fr. Tabora certainly remembers what he posted last January 18, 2011 as follows, "At a well-attended emergency meeting last night in the German Club convened by Jose Campos of PAPSCU, Chair of the COCOPEA Committee on Legislation, and by Fr. Joel Tabora, S.J., Chair of the COCOPEA Committee on Advocacy, the earlier-formulated draft of Proposed Legislation on the Implementation of K+12 was discussed and approved with relatively minor changes incorporated in the text below. Prior to the meeting, Fr. Tabora had spoken with Brother Armin Luistro on the drafted Bill; this draft represents substantially a framework of the K+12 reform. Atty. Estrada, who drafted and re-drafted the legislative proposal, will meet with the legal people of the DepEd in order to assure maximum coordination between the COCOPEA and the DepEd. The hope is that our Education President, Benigno Aquino III, shall certify this Bill as urgent" (https://taborasj.wordpress.com/…/proposed-bill-implementin…/).

Friday, October 7, 2016

REBUTTAL OF OSG ARGUMENTS FOR MARCOS BURIAL AT THE LIBINGAN NG MGA BAYANI

LETTER TO THE SC CHIEF JUSTICE REBUTTING THE OSG ARGUMENTS ON THE MARCOS LNMB BURIAL:
Last August 17, 2016, I submitted a letter to the Office of the Honorable Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the purpose of which is to support the Petitions which have been filed seeking to stop the burial of the late President Ferdinand E. Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani. As a follow-up thereto (and to reinforce the arguments I have advanced in my previous letter, some of which are being reiterated here), may I respectfully be allowed to reply to the Comments of the Office of the Solicitor General to said Petitions as published in different newspapers and request that this Reply including my previous letter be noted and be made part of the records of the cases now pending before the Honorable Supreme Court.
This, I do pursuant to my sworn duty as a lawyer to uphold the Constitution, whose mandates most sadly are being seriously breached by the assailed Order of the President.
I do so likewise pursuant to our people’s right to the truth and to honor only those deserving their respect and veneration as well as the right not only of human rights victims but of the entire Filipino nation to be restored of their honor and dignity which the State as a matter of policy is mandated to value (Section 11, Article II, 1987 Constitution) but which were debased during the Martial law years.
I do so finally in representation of the generations still unborn who equally are entitled to said aforementioned rights and pursuant to my duty to pass to them the bitter lessons of Martial law (which the burial in a most deliberate effort to distort history is seeking to erase), lest for failure to learn history’s lessons, darkness may again rule this sad land of ours.
Our people, by reason of the violation of their aforementioned rights guaranteed by our Constitution and by International Law, most clearly will sustain legal injury if the former President’s remains are buried at the Libingan. Contrary then to the claim of the Office of the Solicitor General, Petitioners thus (or any Filipino for that matter) have legal standing to file the Petitions seeking to enjoin the burial of Marcos at the Libingan.
The OSG in a most desperate attempt to brush aside this issue, has claimed that it is a political question or one which is within the President’s powers, wisdom or discretionary authority to decide. This is not so as there are laws and thus judicially discoverable and manageable standards for the Honorable Supreme Court to resolve it (Vinuya, Et. Al. vs. The Honorable Executive Secretary, Et. Al, G.R. No. 162230, April 28, 2010). Contrary then to the claim of the OSG, the issue of the Marcos burial at the Libingan is perfectly justiciable.
The standards set by law are most clear. It shall be the burial place of the mortal remains of only “those illustrious sons of the Philippines, who, on account of the patriotism, knowledge, or other salient qualities possessed by them in life, attracted to themselves the respect and veneration of their fellow citizens… deserve the honor and privilege of reposing in said pantheon” (Act No. 1856, 1908) or those “Presidents of the Philippines, national heroes and patriots” whose memory should be perpetuated “for the inspiration and emulation of this generation and of generations still unborn” (Republic Act No. 289, 1948).
Thus, contrary to the claim of the OSG, the mere fact that Marcos is a President or soldier does not qualify him for burial at the Libingan.
It is not true as the OSG has alleged that the Libingan is not actually reserved for heroes or its purpose has neither been to confer the people buried therein with the title of ‘hero’ nor to require that only those buried therein should be treated as heroes. It is most clear in President Magsaysay’s Executive Order No. 77, s. 1954, that to honor the memory of our war dead, he saw it most “fitting and proper that their remains be interred in one national cemetery”, particularly, the Republic Memorial Cemetery. This was subsequently followed by his Proclamation No. 86, s. 1954 renaming said cemetery as “Libingan ng mga Bayani”, to make it truly “symbolic of the cause for which our soldiers have died” as well as “express the nation’s esteem and reverence for her war dead”.
President Ramos’s own Executive Order No. 131, s. of 1993 confirms this. It declares that our “National Artists and National Scientists are national heroes who, upon death, are entitled to state funeral” and thus the honor of being buried too at the Libingan ng mga Bayani.
For all intents and purposes then, with the expansion of the coverage of the the Libingan ng mga Bayani so as to include the interment of the mortal remains of other illustrious sons and daughters of the Philippines, it has already become the National Pantheon, envisioned and referred to by Act No. 1856 and Republic Act No. 289, pursuant to which legal intent and spirit Presidents Magsaysay and Ramos have issued their aforecited Executive Orders and Proclamations. This thus belies the claim of the OSG that the Libingan ng mga Bayani is not the National Pantheon referred to by law. This, the Honorable Supreme Court cannot reasonably disregard or be oblivious about.
The Honorable Supreme Court cannot ignore and be oblivious of its own declaration acknowledging that the Libingan ng mga Bayani is “the memorial park for our national heroes… and should be respected as the fitting resting place of our fallen soldiers and martyrs” (Philippine Veterans Affairs Office, Et. Al. vs. Yolanda Arquero, Et. Al., G.R. No. 161405, July 21, 2006).
That only those deserving the respect, veneration, esteem and reverence of our nation, who can serve as an inspiration and models for emulation of this generation and of generations still unborn as provided for in said laws are fit to be honored for burial at the Libingan ng mga Bayani is in fact reinforced by Armed Forces Regulations G 161-373 issued in 1986 as it prohibits “personnel who were dishonorably separated/ reverted/ discharged from the service and personnel who were convicted by final judgment of an offense involving moral turpitude” from being interred there. This, the Honorable Supreme Court likewise cannot disregard or be oblivious about. It thus cannot lawfully allow the burial of Marcos at the Libingan, solely based on the literal interpretation (which does utter violence to the spirit and intent of the law) that Marcos as argued by the OSG, was neither dishonorably discharged, nor was he was ever actually convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude.
The Honorable Supreme Court most certainly cannot ignore and be oblivious of its numerous decisions which have indubitably established that Marcos was indeed a dictator who robbed our people of their basic rights and freedoms, who violated their human rights wholesale and who plundered the nation’s wealth.
That Marcos has not met the standards set by law and thus consequently is not deserving of the honor of being buried at the Libingan ng mga Bayani is impliedly admitted by the OSG itself when it declared that “as it is written now, Philippine history is on the side of… everyone who fought and died for democracy.” “No amount of heartfelt eulogy, gun salutes, holy anointment, and elaborate procession and rituals can transmogrify the dark pages of history during Martial Law.”
While his burial will not make him a hero, it will perpetrate the lie, in clear distortion of history and in utter disrespect of our heroes and the entire Filipino nation, that Marcos, the plunderer and violator of human rights, by reason of his burial at the Libingan is a hero. That is precisely what will happen when by reason of the burial being allowed, Marcos’s mortal remains will be paraded in our streets, with all the elaborate rituals which will follow making it appear that he is indeed a hero worth emulating.
The glorious and heroic struggle of our people against the Marcos dictatorship however is already part of our nation’s historical and cultural heritage which our Constitution and our laws direct the State to conserve and promote (Section 15, Article XIV of the 1987 Constitution; Section 2(a), Republic Act No. 10066; Section 1, Republic Act No. 10086) and whose lessons on patriotism and nationalism, respect for human rights as well as the appreciation of the role of our national heroes is not only the constitutional duty of our educational institutions to inculcate (Section 3(2), Article XIV, 1987 Constitution) but also the duty of this generation to pass to the generations still unborn (lest for failure to learn history’s lessons, darkness may again rule our land).
More importantly, as I have already mentioned, it will seriously infringe on our people’s right to the truth under International Law and to honor only those deserving their respect and veneration as well as the right not only of human rights victims but of the entire Filipino nation to be restored of their honor and dignity which the State as a matter of policy is mandated to value (Section 11, Article II, 1987 Constitution) but which were debased during the Martial law years. The OSG thus totally misses the point when it considered the matter as simply involving compensation for human rights victims.
Contrary then to the claim of the OSG, President Duterte’s order to bury Marcos at the Libingan is clearly violative of the anti-dictatorship 1987 Constitution and thus is void. Being contrary to the standards prescribed by law (which is impliedly admitted by the OSG itself) it is illegal and by reason thereof amounts to an executive usurpation of legislative power, violative of the principle of separation of powers and thus is likewise void and must be set aside.

MARCOS BURIAL AT LIBINGAN, NOT A POLITICAL QUESTION; PEOPLE WILL SUSTAIN LEGAL INJURY

Last August 17, 2016, I wrote to you a letter in support of the Petitions seeking to stop the burial of the late President Ferdinand E. Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani. As a follow-up thereto (and to reinforce the arguments I have advanced in my previous letter, some of which are being reiterated here), may I respectfully be allowed to reply to the Comments of the Office of the Solicitor General to said Petitions as published in different newspapers and request that this Reply including my previous letter be noted and be made part of the records of the cases now pending before the Honorable Supreme Court.
This, I do pursuant to my sworn duty as a lawyer to uphold the Constitution, whose mandates most sadly are being seriously breached by the assailed Order of the President.
I do so likewise pursuant to our people’s right to the truth (and to honor only those deserving their respect and veneration), which will be violated by said burial as it will perpetrate the lie that Marcos is a hero. I do so moreover pursuant to the right not only of human rights victims but of the entire Filipino nation to be restored of their honor and dignity (Section 11, Article II, 1987 Constitution) which were debased during the Martial law years.
I do so finally, pursuant to my duty to help preserve in our people’s collective memory as part of our nation’s historical heritage (and bequeathing it to the generations still unborn) the bitter lessons of Martial law (which the burial in a most deliberate effort to distort history is seeking to erase), lest for failure to learn from said lessons, tyranny may in the future again rule this sad land of ours.
Most evidently, our people, by reason of the violation of their aforementioned rights guaranteed by our Constitution and by International Law, will sustain legal injury if the former President’s remains are buried at the Libingan. Contrary then to the claim of the Office of the Solicitor General, any Filipino, including Petitioners, have legal standing to question said burial.
The OSG in a most desperate attempt to brush aside this issue, has claimed that it is a political question or one which is within the President’s powers, wisdom or discretionary authority to decide. This is not true since there are laws and thus judicially discoverable and manageable standards for the Honorable Supreme Court to resolve it (Vinuya, Et. Al. vs. The Honorable Executive Secretary, Et. Al, G.R. No. 162230, April 28, 2010). Contrary then to the claim of the OSG, the issue of the Marcos burial at the Libingan is perfectly justiciable.
The standards set by law are most clear. The Libingan shall be the burial place of the mortal remains only of “those illustrious sons of the Philippines, who, on account of the patriotism, knowledge, or other salient qualities possessed by them in life, attracted to themselves the respect and veneration of their fellow citizens” (Act No. 1856, 1908) and those “Presidents of the Philippines, national heroes and patriots” whose memory deserve to be perpetuated “for the inspiration and emulation of this generation and of generations still unborn” (Republic Act No. 289, 1948).
Thus, contrary to the claim of the OSG, the mere fact that Marcos is a President or soldier does not ipso facto qualify him for burial at the Libingan.
It is not true as the OSG has alleged that the Libingan is not actually reserved for heroes or its purpose has neither been to confer the people buried therein with the title of ‘hero’ nor to require that only those buried therein should be treated as heroes.
That such is the purpose of the Libingan is most clear in President Magsaysay’s Executive Order No. 77, s. 1954, honoring the memory of our war dead, finding it most “fitting and proper that their remains be interred in one national cemetery”, which he subsequently renamed through Proclamation No. 86, s. 1954 as “Libingan ng mga Bayani”, so as to make it truly “symbolic of the cause for which our soldiers have died” as well as to “express the nation’s esteem and reverence for her war dead”.
President Ramos’s own Executive Order No. 131, s. of 1993 confirms this. It declares that our “National Artists and National Scientists are national heroes who, upon death, are entitled to state funeral” and thus the honor of being buried too at the Libingan ng mga Bayani.
For all intents and purposes then, the Libingan ng mga Bayani has already become the National Pantheon, envisioned and referred to by Act No. 1856 and Republic Act No. 289. It is precisely to realize the legal intent and spirit of said laws that Presidents Magsaysay and Ramos issued their respective Executive Orders and Presidential Proclamations. It is therefore not true as claimed by the OSG that the Libingan ng mga Bayani is not already the National Pantheon referred to by said laws. This, the Honorable Supreme Court cannot reasonably disregard or be oblivious about.
The Honorable Supreme Court cannot ignore and be oblivious of its own declaration in the case of Philippine Veterans Affairs Office, Et. Al. vs. Yolanda Arquero, Et. Al. (G.R. No. 161405, July 21, 2006), acknowledging that the Libingan ng mga Bayani is “the memorial park for our national heroes… and should be respected as the fitting resting place of our fallen soldiers and martyrs” (Philippine Veterans Affairs Office, Et. Al. vs. Yolanda Arquero, Et. Al., G.R. No. 161405, July 21, 2006).
That only those deserving the respect, veneration, esteem and reverence of our nation, who can serve as an inspiration and models for emulation of this generation and of generations still unborn as provided for in said laws are fit to be honored for burial at the Libingan ng mga Bayani is in fact reinforced by Armed Forces Regulations G 161-373 issued in 1986, as it prohibits “personnel who were dishonorably separated/ reverted/ discharged from the service and personnel who were convicted by final judgment of an offense involving moral turpitude” from being interred there. This, the Honorable Supreme Court likewise cannot disregard or be oblivious about.
The Honorable Supreme Court most certainly cannot ignore and be oblivious of its numerous decisions which have indubitably established that Marcos was indeed a dictator who robbed our people of their basic rights and freedoms, who violated their human rights wholesale and who plundered the nation’s wealth. It thus, could not lawfully allow said burial, just because as argued by the OSG, Marcos was neither dishonorably discharged, nor was he was ever actually convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude.
That Marcos has not met the standards set by law and thus consequently is not deserving of the honor of being buried at the Libingan ng mga Bayani is impliedly admitted by the OSG itself when it declared that “as it is written now, Philippine history is on the side of… everyone who fought and died for democracy.” “No amount of heartfelt eulogy, gun salutes, holy anointment, and elaborate procession and rituals can transmogrify the dark pages of history during Martial Law.”
While burial at the Libingan will not make him a hero, it will perpetrate the lie, in clear distortion of history and in utter disrespect of our heroes and the entire Filipino nation, that Marcos, the plunderer and violator of human rights is a hero. That is precisely what will happen if the Honorable Supreme Court will allow said burial, thereby consequently giving the Marcoses the opportunity to parade the Dictator’s mortal remains in our streets, with all the rituals appropriate only for a hero, thus making it appear that he is indeed one worth emulating.
The people’s oppression under Martial Law and their glorious and heroic struggle against the ruthless Marcos dictatorship however are already part of our nation’s historical and cultural heritage which our Constitution and our laws direct the State to conserve and promote (Section 15, Article XIV of the 1987 Constitution; Section 2(a), Republic Act No. 10066; Section 1, Republic Act No. 10086) and whose lessons on patriotism and nationalism, respect for human rights as well as the appreciation of the role of our national heroes are not only the constitutional duty of our educational institutions to inculcate (Section 3(2), Article XIV, 1987 Constitution) but also the duty of this generation to protect and preserve for future generations of Filipinos (Justice Padilla’s Concurring Opinion in Manila Prince Hotel vs. Government Service Insurance System, Et. Al., G.R. No. 122156, February 3, 1997), lest as already mentioned, for failure to learn history’s lessons about Martial Law, darkness may in the future again rule this sad land of ours.
Allowing the burial of Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani will most clearly violate said constitutional mandates, thereby seriously infringing on our people’s right to the truth and to honor only those deserving their respect and veneration as well as the right not only of human rights victims but of the entire Filipino nation to be restored of their honor and dignity (Section 11, Article II, 1987 Constitution) which were debased during the Martial law years. The OSG thus totally misses the point when it considered the matter as simply involving compensation for human rights victims.
Contrary then to the claim of the OSG, President Duterte’s order to bury Marcos at the Libingan is clearly violative of what it has itself acknowledged as an anti-dictatorship 1987 Constitution and thus is void. Being contrary to the standards prescribed by law (which is impliedly admitted by the OSG itself) it is illegal and by reason thereof, amounts to an executive usurpation of legislative power, violative of the principle of separation of powers and thus is likewise void and must be set aside.
Oral arguments on the Petitions, originally set last August 24, 2016 was moved to August 31, 2016. I find this as a most strange coincidence since we will likewise be commemorating on said date:
1) The 109th birth anniversary of President Ramon Magsaysay who is responsible for giving the cemetery its current name, to precisely honor our true war heroes whose mortal remains are interred there;
2) The 39th death anniversary of Archimedes Trajano, who is one of our numerous hero-martyrs, who was tortured and murdered by the ruthless Marcos dictatorship and
3) The 33rd anniversary of the burial of Ninoy Aquino, whose heroic death spelled the beginning of the end of the Marcos dictatorship?
Is SOMEONE somewhere actually sending us a message that we should NEVER FORGET for whom the Libingan is truly for and why Dictator Marcos is most unworthy of being buried in those hallowed grounds?
I have a strong feeling that the true heroes of our race, like Magsaysay, Trajano and Ninoy will be with us on August 31, 2016 when the oral arguments are held.