By MARIA FEONA IMPERIAL
AS protests rage over the Marcos burial, a human rights lawyer and anti-Martial law advocate said any attempt to overturn the Supreme Court ruling would have slim chance of succeeding.
In burying the remains of former president Ferdinand Marcos pending the finality of the SC decision, the Marcos family banked on a “calculated risk,” said lawyer Romel Bagares.
On Monday, two separate petitions were filed before the High Court to exhume the remains of former president Ferdinand Marcos from his grave, and to hold the Marcos family in contempt for disrespecting judicial procedure.
“Of course the Marcoses (were) risking a reversal because what’s going to happen if the court actually reverses (the decision)?” he said.
“(But) if you look at the voting pattern, mukhang mahirap ma-overturn yan, and na-lift na yung Temporary Restraining Order (Looking at the voting pattern, the ruling is unlikely to be reversed, and the Temporary Restraining Order has been lifted),” Bagares said.
Voting 9-5, the SC on Nov. 8 ruled that President Rodrigo Duterte did not commit grave abuse of discretion in ordering the burial for the late dictator at the Heroes’ Cemetery.
Ten days later, the nation was caught unprepared when news broke out of the sudden burial of the late dictator at the Libingan ng Mga Bayani. Thousands of Filipinos, including victims of human rights violations during the martial law, staged a protest at the historic People Power Monument to express their rage. (See “Marcos burial: A day of celebration and outrage”)
Former Bayan Muna representative Satur Ocampo, one of the petitioners, urged the High Court to hold the Marcos family as well as key defense and military officials for indirect contempt for disrespecting the court’s decision.
He said the SC decision that dismissed all petitions against the burial of Marcos at the Libingan was not yet final and executory when the burial was carried out, and the 15-day period allotted for the petitioners has not yet lapsed.
The petitioners invoked Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, Section 3, which reads: “Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice.”
The respondents, the petitioners said, were “well aware of the judicial process and yet trifled with the same in shameless and utter bad faith when they obviously connived with the Marcos family in planning the lightning burial and with impunity consistent with the Marcos blueprint.”
Albay Representative Edcel Lagman, in a separate petition, moved to exhume “whatever was buried” at the heroes’ cemetery because the burial was “premature, precipitate and irregular.”
“(Even the) premature and surreptitious burial revealed in bold relief the despicable chicanery of the Marcoses which is an affront against the Filipino nation and the Honorable Supreme Court itself,” Lagman added.
He also expressed doubt on the authenticity of Marcos’ remains, saying the public can’t be sure if what was buried at the Libinga is not any other artifact or a mere wax replica.
“But (to exhume it) is a long shot really,” Bagares said. “It makes it difficult for people to imagine unburying the dead.”
In any case there is no honor in his burial, done in haste, to avoid being exposed to public ridicule and contempt, Bagares said. “They just confirmed why the dictator doesn’t deserve a hero’s burial — it had to be done in stealth.”
