Martial law victims and human rights activists picket the Supreme Court to make a final

appeal to
the justices to vote against the burial of late dictator Ferdinand Marcos at Libingan ng mga
Bayani in Taguig City. MARIANNE BERMUDEZ

Associate Justice Marvic Leonen said the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos was no hero and
that to bury his remains at the Libingan ng mga Bayani would be illegal.

In his dissenting opinion on allowing Marcos burial at the heroes cemetery, Leonen said the
interment would contribute to the impunity against human rights abuses and the plunder of
our public trust.

READ: SC: No grave abuse of discretion by Duterte on Marcos burial

Heres a summary of Leonens opinion as released by the Supreme Court public information
office:

ADVERTISEMENT

Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen started his dissent, thus:

Under our constitutional order, Presidents, unlike kings, earn their honors. As public servants,
their position in itself should not be the basis to glorify them. Neither will their place in history
be determined by a successor President. Only the sovereign Filipino People deserve to
determine a Presidents place in history.

Given the present state of our Constitution, our laws, and our jurisprudence, it is illegal for the
remains of Ferdinand E. Marcos to be interred at the Libingan ng mga Bayani. The Filipino
people do not deserve such a symbolism.

Given the present state of our Constitution, our laws, and our jurisprudence, it is illegal for the
remains of Ferdinand E. Marcos to be interred at the Libingan ng mga Bayani. The Filipino
people do not deserve such a symbolism.

Justice Leonen then argued that Marcos is no hero. He was not even an exemplary public
officer. He is not worthy of emulation and inspiration by those who suffer poverty as a result of
the opportunity lost during his administration, by those who continue to suffer the trauma of
the violations to the human dignity of their persons and of their family. He is certainly not
worthy of emulation and inspiration by those who do public service, including the lawyers,
judges, and justices who simply want to do what is right, protect others, and conscientiously
and diligently protect public funds entrusted to them.

[puppquote] Marcos is no hero. He was not even an exemplary public officer. He is not worthy
of emulation and inspiration by those who suffer poverty as a result of the opportunity lost
during his administration, by those who continue to suffer the trauma of the violations to the
human dignity of their persons and of their family.[/pullquote]

His dissent focused on six points, thus:

The General Orders which were the basis for the issuance of the questioned orders of
public respondents are invalid because they violate RA 289.
Assuming without accepting that AFP Regulations were valid when issued, the verbal
orders of the President, the Memorandum of the Secretary of National Defense, and the orders
of respondent Enriquez all violate the requirement in RA 289, section 1 that those buried must
have led lives worthy of inspiration and emulation.
 Assuming without conceding that the AFP regulations were valid when issued, the
public respondents gravely abused their discretion when they failed to show, in view of the
findings of the National Historical Commission of the Philippines, that they had sufficiently
determined that there was factual basis to believe that the burial of Marcoss remains would
be consistent with RA 289 and the various proclamations relevant to the LNMB.
The Presidents verbal orders, the memorandum of the Secretary of National Defense,
and the orders of respondent Enriquez were issued with grave abuse of discretion because
they violate RA 10368.
The Presidents verbal orders, the memorandum of the Secretary of National Defense,
and the orders of respondent Enriquez cannot be justified under the provisions of the Revised
Administrative Code because there is no public purpose for the interment of Marcoss remains
at LNMB.
The actions of public respondents are contrary to the oath of office of the President
because they encourage impunity, which is the result of rewarding the person who presided
over human rights violations and who personally participated in the plunder of the public
treasury.

Ending his dissent, Justice Leonen writes:

We forget the lessons of the past when we allow abuse to hold sway over the lives of those
who are unrelated to us. Silence, in the face of abuse, is complicity.

The burial of Ferdinand E. Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani is not an act of national
healing. It is an effort to forget out collective shame, to bury our inaction for many years. It is
to contribute to the impunity against human rights abuses and the plunder of our public trust.

To deny these petitions is to participate in the effort to create myth at the expense of history.

Ferdinand E. Marcos is no hero. His remains, by law, cannot be transferred to the Libingan ng
mga Bayani.

The high tribunal voted 9-5 with one abstention to dismiss the petition filed by anti-Marcos
groups and personalities to block President Rodrigo Dutertes order. CDG

READ: SC votes, 9-5, for burial of Marcos at Libingan

DISSENTING OPINION, HIGHLIGHTS: Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno, in her dissent, affirmed that the Court must take
cognizance of the issues presented in order to preserve the Constitution as well as the
judiciarys own prerogatives under the Constitution. She maintained that the President acted
with grave abuse of discretion in ordering the interment at LNMB because it violated domestic
law and international law in relation to the obligations to do justice for human rights victims.
After a review of the applicable international agreements and protocols, the Chief Justice
pointed out that the Philippines is bound to affirmatively protect the rights of the human
rights victims under martial law by providing effective reparations, which would include
monetary compensation as well as non-monetary remedies (such as symbolic
reparation). The Chief Justice pointed out that the interment of the Marcos remains at LNMB
would be the antithesis of symbolic reparation. She also pointed out that the interment would
run counter to the duty to combat impunity as well as to preserve memoryall of which are
international commitments that the Philippines is bound to observe.
The Chief Justice also took exception to the majoritys position that the interment would serve
a public purpose, thus justifying the use of public funds. She maintained that the recognition
by both branches of governmentthe legislative and judicialthat Marcos was a dictator,
plunderer and a human rights violator would preclude the interment at LNMB as such act
would run counter to the original intention of the LNMB. The invocation that the interment at
LNMB would bring about national unity and healing, by itself, is insufficient to justify the use of
public funds absent a public purpose.
Ending her dissent, the Chief Justice wrote that:
Respondents may deny the implications of their actions today, but the symbolism of the
burial will outlive even their most emphatic refutations. Long after the clarifications made by
this administration have been forgotten, the gravesite at the LNMB will remain. That is the
peculiar power of symbols in the public landscapethey are not only carriers of meaning but
are repositories of public memory and ultimately, history.
For the Court to pretend that the present dispute is a simple question of the entitlement of a
soldier to a military burial is to take a regrettably myopic view of the controversy. It would be
to disregard historical truths and legal principles that persist after death. As important, it
would be to degrade the States duty to recognize the pain of countless victims of Marcos and
Martial Law. Regardless of the promised national unity that the proposed burial will bring, I
cannot, in good conscience, support such an expedient and shortsighted view of Philippine
history.
Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio's dissent:
Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio focused on Marcoss ineligibility to be interred at
LNMB because of the sovereign action of the people of removing him from office as President
and Commander-in-Chief.
He argued that even assuming that Marcos, as Medal of Valor awardee, was qualified for
interment at LNMB, he ceased to be qualified when he was ousted on February 25, 1986.
Citing Marcos v. Manglapus (1989), SAJ Carpio noted that the Court described Marcos as a
dictator forced out of office and into exile after causing twenty years of political, economic,
and social havoc in the country. He noted that Marcoss forcible removal in February 1986
amounted to the strongest form of dishonorable discharge from office since it is meted out
by the direct act of the sovereign people.
He pointed out that Marcoss ouster is beyond judicial review and must be accepted as an
incontrovertible fact which has become part of history. The removal was a direct exercise of
the power of the Filipino people, which could not be called honorable.
He disagreed with the majoritys contentions that Marcos could not be considered
dishonorably discharged as his separation was not in accordance with the procedures and
guidelines prescribed in Circular 17, Series of 1987 of the Armed Forces of the Philippines
because: (1) Marcos was separated from service before the circular was passed; the circular,
an administrative act, cannot be applied retrospectively to undo a final act by the sovereign
people; and (2) even assuming the circular applied to Marcos, he was still dishonorably
discharged as the incontrovertible fact of ouster that is beyond both judicial and
administrative review cannot be undone by a mere circular.
SAJ Carpio also disagreed with the position that the disqualifications under AFPR G 161-375
apply only to those in the active military service and do not apply to former Presidents. To
subscribe to this view would negate the purpose for which the LNMB was originally
established, which was to honor Filipino soldiers who fought for freedom and democracy. SAJ
Carpio pointed out that (i)ndeed, Marcos is the very antithesis of freedom and democracy
because he was a dictator as declared by this Court.
Moreover such a view would also be discriminatory against military personnel who are made
subject to both qualifications and disqualifications while non-military personnel, such as
former Presidents, are subjected to the qualifications but not the disqualifications.
SAJ Carpio disagreed with the majoritys position that there was a public purpose for the
interment of Marcoss remains. Defining public policy as that principle which holds that no
subject or citizen can lawfully do that which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or
against the public good, SAJ Carpio maintained that the President must implement the law
considering the highest standards of promoting the public good as embodied in the
Constitution, international law and municipal statutes. Accordingly, SAJ Carpio argued that the
DND Memorandum is contrary to public policy as it would violate RA 10368. The President, in
implementing the law, must observe the standard of recognition of the rights of human rights
victims. Marcoss interment at LNMB will cause injury particularly to human rights victims of
his regime and the sovereign people who collectively ousted him. For this reason, he argues
that the burial at LNMB is contrary to public policy.
Finally, SAJ Carpio points out that public funds cannot be spent for a non-public purpose.
Marcoss ouster by a sovereign act of the Filipino people constituted a dishonorable discharge;
consequently, his interment at LNMB serves to convert his burial into a private affair of the
Marcos family. No public purpose is served by transferring his remains to LNMB and public
funds cannot be used for this purpose.
Associate Justice Leonen's dissent:
Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen started his dissent, thus:
Under our constitutional order, Presidents, unlike kings, earn their honors. As public servants,
their position in itself should not be the basis to glorify them. Neither will their place in history
be determined by a successor President. Only the sovereign Filipino People deserve to
determine a Presidents place in history.
Given the present state of our Constitution, our laws, and our jurisprudence, it is illegal for the
remains of Ferdinand E. Marcos to be interred at the Libingan ng mga Bayani. The Filipino
people do not deserve such a symbolism.
Justice Leonen then argued that Marcos is no hero. He was not even an exemplary public
officer. He is not worthy of emulation and inspiration by those who suffer poverty as a result of
the opportunity lost during his administration, by those who continue to suffer the trauma of
the violations to the human dignity of their persons and of their family. He is certainly not
worthy of emulation and inspiration by those who do public service, including the lawyers,
judges, and justices who simply want to do what is right, protect others, and conscientiously
and diligently protect public funds entrusted to them.
His dissent focused on six points, thus:
1. The General Orders which were the basis for the issuance of the questioned orders of public
respondents are invalid because they violate RA 289.
2. Assuming without accepting that AFP Regulations were valid when issued, the verbal orders
of the President, the Memorandum of the Secretary of National Defense, and the orders of
respondent Enriquez all violate the requirement in RA 289, section 1 that those buried must
have led lives worthy of inspiration and emulation.
3. Assuming without conceding that the AFP Regulations were valid when issued, the public
respondents gravely abused their discretion when they failed to show, in view of the findings
of the National Historical Commission of the Philippines, that they had sufficiently determined
that there was factual basis to believe that the burial of Marcoss remains would be consistent
with RA 289 and the various proclamations relevant to the LNMB.
4. The Presidents verbal orders, the memorandum of the Secretary of National Defense, and
the orders of respondent Enriquez were issued with grave abuse of discretion because they
violate RA 10368.
5. The Presidents verbal orders, the memorandum of the Secretary of National Defense, and
the orders of respondent Enriquez cannot be justified under the provisions of the Revised
Administrative Code because there is no public purpose for the interment of Marcoss remains
at LNMB.
6. The actions of public respondents are contrary to the oath of office of the President
because they encourage impunity, which is the result of rewarding the person who presided
over human rights violations and who personally participated in the plunder of the public
treasury.
Ending his dissent, Justice Leonen writes:
We forget the lessons of the past when we allow abuse to hold sway over the lives of those
who are unrelated to us. Silence, in the face of abuse, is complicity.
The burial of Ferdinand E. Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani is not an act of national
healing. It is an effort to forget our collective shame, to bury our inaction for many years. It is
to contribute to the impunity against human rights abuses and the plunder of our public trust.
To deny these petitions is to participate in the effort to create myth at the expense of history.
Ferdinand E. Marcos is no hero. His remains, by law, cannot be transferred to the Libingan ng
mga Bayani."
Justice Caguioa's dissent:
Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa pointed out that the order to inter the remains for former
President Marcos at LNMB is contrary to the Constitution, the law, and several executive
issuances that have the force of law, as well as the public policy that the Constitution, the said
laws, and executive issuances espouse and advance.
He pointed out that the argument that burying (Marcos) in the LNMB does not make him a
hero disregards the status of the LNMB as a national shrine, the public policy in treating
national shrines, the standards set forth in these laws and executive issuances as well as in
the AFP LNMB burial regulations. He also disagreed with the Solicitor Generals argument
that the Presidents power to reserve land for a public purpose under Section 14, Chapter IV,
Book III of the Revised Administrative Code of 1987 (RAC) was sufficient basis for the
Presidents decision to inter the Marcos remains. On this, he noted that the RAC provision (as
well as Sec. 83 of CA 141 or The Public Land Act) both required the President to exercise this
power by proclamation or executive order. The Presidents order to inter is a verbal order,
which falls short of the manner prescribed by law for its exercise.
He also disagreed that interring the Marcos remains constituted a public purpose for purpose
of the RAC considering the Solicitor Generals admission that the burial of the Marcos remains
was a campaign promise of the President to the Marcos family. In his opinion, this indicated
that the interment serves no public purpose and does not justify the disbursement of public
funds therefor.
Justice Brion's separate concurring opinion:
Justice Arturo D. Brion wrote separately to underscore his position that the Presidents act was
not reviewable for the reason that it is a political question. Stressing that such a review would
be judicial overreach on the part of the Court, Justice Brion pointed out the following:
1. Judicial review, even under the Courts expanded jurisdiction, does not empower the Court
to review allegations involving violations of statutes;
2. The faithful execution clause cannot be made the basis for questioning the manner by
which the Executive implements the law;
3. The petitioners failed to point to a specific treaty obligation prohibiting the burial at the
LNMB;
4. The Constitution, while built on the ashes of the Marcos administration, should not be so
interpreted as to prevent reconciliation and moving forward in the name of national unity; and
5. The necessity of Marcoss burial at the LNMB is a political question that had been decided
by the President, and not without support from the Filipino electorate.
Justice Perez's concurring opinion:
Justice Jose Portugal Perez also stressed the nature of the question as political and thus not
reviewable but emphasized that the President did not commit grave abuse of discretion when
he proceeded, upon his election to office, to implement his campaign promise to have the
remains of Ferdinand E. Marcos interred at the LNMB. Justice Perez pointed to the petitioners
judicial admissions that then candidate Duterte had promised the burial of Marcos and that
this campaign promise had been met with opposition and protest. Noting that petitioners had
admitted to having participated in the election of options and opposed then candidate
Dutertes campaign promise, it became clear that the question was then clearly one left to the
will of the people. Justice Perez pointed out that petitioners, not having prevailed in the
electoral exercise, now choose to come to the Court presenting a question, cloaked in legal
garb, that remained political. In his conclusion, Justice Perez stated that:
Whether the policy of healing and reconciliation over and above the pain and suffering of
the human rights victims is in grave abuse of discretion or not is answered by the evidently
substantial Marcos vote during the fresh and immediately preceding national elections of
2016. The election result is a showing that, while there may have once been, there is no
longer a national damnation of President Ferdinand E. Marcos; that the constitutionalization
of the sin and personification is no longer of national acceptance. A Marcos vote came out of
the elections, substantial enough to be a legitimate consideration in the executive policy
formulation. To go back, a Libingan Burial for Marcos was a promise made by President
Duterte, which promise was opposed by petitioners, in spite of which opposition, candidate
Duterte was elected President.
All in all, the redemption of an election pledge and the policy which has basis in the result of
the election, cannot be tainted with grave abuse of discretion. As things are, the issue
presented by the petitioners should not even be touched by the Court since it is a political
question already resolved politically.
Justice Mendoza's concurring opinion:
Justice Jose Catral Mendoza stated that the Court should not take part in the political
controversy because the question presented is not justiciable and that, therefore, the petition
should be dismissed. He also argued that even were the Court to take cognizance of the
petitions, the Presidents act was not attended by grave abuse of discretion as there was no
violation of any constitutional provision or law. He concludes his separate opinion with these
words:
Lest it be misunderstood, the Court is not passing judgment on whether President Marcos
truly deserves to be buried in the LNMB. It is merely exercising judicial restraint as the issues
at hand are truly political in nature and, therefore, are best left to the discretion of the
President.
The Court sympathizes with the HRVVs and acknowledges the harrowing ordeals they suffered
(at) the hands of government forces during martial law. The stigma left by the martial law
regime will never be forgotten by the Filipino people and the burial of President Marcos (at)
the LNMB will not re-write history.

What is black can be called white but it cannot turn white by the mere calling

the burial violates Philippine law and international law in relation to do justice for human
rights victims

Marcos' burial at the LNMB would be the exact opposite of symbolic reparation.

as pointed out that the legislative and judicial branches of government recognize Marcos as a
dictator, plunderer and a human rights violator.

is not an act of national healing." "It is an effort to forget our collective shame, to bury our
inaction for many years. It is to contribute to the impunity against human rights abuses and
the plunder of our public trust."

Sereno said that President Rodrigo Duterte acted with grave abuse of discretion because his
executive order is clearly against giving justice for human rights victims, both monetarily and
non-monetarily. Moreover, the Chief justice said that public funds may not be used to honor
Marcos who was named a dictator, plunderer, and a human rights violator by the judiciary and
the legislative.

In doing so, the Decision has created unimaginable problems for Philippine academia

Is there express statute that prohibits a President from burying a former president or
soldier in the Libingan Ng Mga Bayani (LNMB)? The President's verbal orders

Marcos is disqualified from being interred at the LNMB.

 Marcos was forcibly removed from the Presidency by what is now referred to as the
People Power Revolution. This is the strongest form of dishonorable discharge from
office since it is meted out by the direct act of the sovereign people.

Marcos' interment at the LNMB is contrary to public policy.

Associate Justice Marvic Leonen

The President's verbal order, which were the basis for the issuance of the questioned
orders of public respondents are invalid because they violate Republic Act 289, which
was never repealed.

The President's verbal orders, the Lorenzana Memorandum, and the Enriquez Orders all
violate the requirement in Section 1 of Republic Act No. 289 that those buried must
have led lives worth of "inspiration and emulation."

Public respondents gravely abused their discretion when they failed to show that there
was an examination of the sufficiency of the facts that would reasonably lead them to
believe that the burial of the remains of Ferdinand E. Marcos at the Libingan ng mga
Bayani would be in accordance with Republic Act 289.

The President's verbal orders were issued with grave abuse of discretion because they
violate Republic Act 10368 or the Human Rights Victims Reparation and Recognition Act
of 2013.

The President's verbal orders cannot be justified even under the provisions of the
Administrative Code of 1987.

Associate Justice Antonio Carpio

Marcos is disqualified from being interred at the LNMB.

Marcos was forcibly removed from the Presidency by what is now referred to as the
People Power Revolution. This is the strongest form of dishonorable discharge from
office since it is meted out by the direct act of the sovereign people.

Marcos' interment at the LNMB is contrary to public policy.

Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa

The burial of former President Marcos does not raise a political question beyond the
ambit of judicial review.

For the same reasons that the interment serves no legitimate public purpose, no use of
public property or public funds can be made to support it.

The President may validly order the interment of former President Marcos in the LNMB
pursuant to his power of control and his duty to faithfully execute laws, provided that
no contravention of the Constitution, laws, executive issuances, public policy, customs
and international obligations arises therefrom or is committed.

The Solicitor General failed to show any contingency for the valid exercise of the
President's residual powers, and likewise failed to demonstrate sufficient factual basis
to justify the interment of former President Marcos in the LNMB.

The interment of former President Marcos constitutes a violation of the physical,

historical and cultural integrity of the LNMB as a national shrine, which the State has
the obligation to conserve.
Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno
1. The court has the authority to resolve this controversy under the expanded concept of
judicial review in the 1987 Constitution.

a. With the advent of the 1987 Constitution, respondents can no longer utilize the traditional
political question doctrine to impede the power of judicial review.
b. In the exercise of its expanded judicial power, the Court has decided issues that were
traditionally considered political questions.
c. The assertion that the burial is intended to implement an election renders the matter non-
justiciable.

2. The president acted with grave abuse of discretion and in violation of his duty to faithfully
execute the laws when he ordered the burial of Marcos in the Libingan ng mga Bayani.

a. Statutes and jurisprudence establish a clear policy to condemn the acts of Marcos and what
he represents, which effectively prohibits the incumbent President from honoring him through
a burial in the Libingan ng mga Bayani.
b. The AFP does not have the power to determine which persons are qualified for interment in
the Libingan.
c. The burial cannot be justified by mere reference to the President's residual powers; it is not
unfettered, and such power can only be exercised in conformity with the entire Constitution.

3. To allow Marcos to be buried in the Libingan ng mga Bayani would violate international
human rights law ad an independent source of state obligations, and would negate the
remedies provided by Republic Act 10368.

a. Under international law, the Philippines is obligated to provide effective remedies, including
holistic reparations, to human rights victims.
b. The burial would contravene the duty of the Philippines to provide reparations to victims of
human rights violations during the Marcos regime.
c. The burial would run counter to the duty of the state to combat impunity.

4. Public funds and property cannot be used for the burial as it serves no legitimate public
purpose.

a. The burial would contravene the purpose of the Libingan ng mga Bayani.
b. Respondents have not explained how the burial would serve the avowed policy of national
unity and healing.
c. The burial would promote only the private interest of the Marcos family.

Supreme Court on Tuesday junked seven petitions that sought to block the burial of former
President Ferdinand Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani confirming a Manila Times
exclusive.

Voting 9-5 with one abstention, the high court also lifted the status quo ante order issued on August 23
and extended twice, allowing the transfer of Marcos remains from Batac, Ilocos Norte to the military-
run cemetery in Taguig City. The Manila Times earlier reported the Libingan burial would get at least
eight votes.

The decision was penned by Associate Justice Diosdado Peralta. Those who concurred were
Associate
Justices Teresita Leonardo-de Castro, Arturo Brion, Lucas Bersamin, Mariano del Castillo, Jose Perez,
Jose Mendoza and Estela Perlas-Bernabe.
Those who dissented were Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno and Associate Justices Antonio
Carpio, Marvic Victor Leonen, Francis Jardeleza and Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa.

Associate Justice Bienvenido Reyes did not take part, being a classmate of Duterte at the College of
Law in San Beda.

Brion, Perez and Mendoza submitted concurring opinions. Those who penned dissenting opinions
were Sereno, Carpio, Leonen and Caguioa. Court spokesman Theodoro Te said more justices could
submit separate opinions.

One of the petitioners against the burial, former congressman Neri Colmenares, said they have 15
days to file a motion for reconsideration.

Five arguments

Peralta outlined five arguments on why Marcos should be allowed a burial at the Libingan ng mga
Bayani or LNMB.

First, President Duterte committed no grave abuse of discretion in ordering that the remains of Marcos
be buried at the Libingan, because this was done in the exercise of his mandate under Article VII,
Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution to ensure the faithful execution of all laws, it said. In short, there is
no law that prohibits the burial of Marcos at the Libingan.

Notwithstanding the call of human rights advocates, the court must uphold what is legal and just. And
that is not to deny Marcos his rightful place at the LNMB. For even the framers of our Constitution
intend that full respect for human rights is available at any stage of a persons development, from the
time he or she becomes a person to the time he or she leaves this earth, Peralta said.

There are certain things that are better left for history not this court to adjudge.

Second, Duterte was not bound by the 1992 agreement entered into between former president Fidel
Ramos and the Marcos family to have the remains interred in Batac, Ilocos Norte.

Third, the President has the power to reserve for public use and for specific public purposes any of the
lands of public domain, according to the Administrative Code.

The majority found that the allotment of a cemetery plot at the LNMB for former President Marcos as a
former president and commander-in-chief, a legislator, a secretary of national defense, a military
personnel, a veteran, and a Medal of Valor awardee, whether recognizing his contributions or simply
his status as such, satisfies the public use requirement, Peralta said.

Fourth, the court found that under the Armed Forces of the Philippines Regulations G161-375, Marcos
remains could be interred at the Libingan as he possessed the qualifications and none of the
disqualifications under the regulations.

We agree with the proposition that Marcos should be viewed and judged in his totality as a person.
While he was not all good, he was not pure evil either. Certainly, just a human who erred like us, the
ruling said.

Finally, the court said Marcos was never convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude. The majority did
not agree with the dissenting opinion of Carpio who said Marcos was dishonorably discharged by the
1986 people power revolt and thus unworthy of burial at the Libingan.

Brion, in his separate opinion, underscored that the Presidents act could not be reviewed by the court
because the issue was political in nature, a position also taken by Perez and Mendoza.
In her dissenting opinion, Sereno said the President acted with grave abuse of discretion because the
approval of the burial violated domestic and international law in relation to the obligations to do justice
for human rights victims.

She added that Marcos was a dictator, plunderer and a human rights violator.

Leonen said Marcos was no hero and not even an exemplary public officer.

He is not worthy of emulation and inspiration by those who suffer poverty as a result of the opportunity
lost during his administration, he said.

Marcoses relieved

Former senator Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and Ilocos Norte Gov. Imee Marcos on Tuesday welcomed the
Supreme Court ruling.

I have accomplished my promise to my father that he be laid to rest at LNBM. We are very happy,
Governor Marcos told reporters on Padre Faura Street where supporters held a vigil.

A smaller anti-Marcos group occupied a space on the street in front of the Supreme Court.

Marcos Jr. said he was deeply grateful to the high court.

We also would like to extend our sincerest gratitude to President Rodrigo Duterte as his unwavering
commitment to this issue sustained us these past several months. Our family will forever be thankful
for his kind gesture, the former senator said.

One of the petitioners against the burial, Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman, said: I am shaken, puzzled to no
end, that a despot, plunderer was allowed to be buried in the Libingan ng mga Bayani.

Senate President Aquilino Pimentel 3rd said he would try to persuade the President to change his
heart and stop the burial.

Maybe the SC decision has established the right of somebody to be buried in a place called LNMB.
But no court case will make somebody a hero in the hearts and mind of the people. That cannot be
decided through a legal argument, Pimentel said.

The Makabayan party-list bloc, which also petitioned against the burial, said it was disappointed with
the ruling but would keep its support for President Duterte.

Makabayan is supporting the administrations pro-people, pro-poor and independent foreign policies.
But at the same time, we are staunchly opposed to burying Marcos in the Libingan ng mga Bayani,
said Alliance of Concerned Teachers party-list Rep. Antonio Tinio.

Presidential spokesman Ernesto Abella said he hoped the court decision would help the nation to
move on.
We hope the matter will finally be laid to rest, and that the nation find the wherewithal to move forward
and to continue forging a nation that is peaceable, just and fair to all, he said.