Dar Amber R.

Coronel
11581964

What are we fighting for?

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

- Justice. Diosdado Peralta, (Ocampo vs Enriquez)

These words of Justice Peralta, would forever be etched in history. It is a sign of defeat,
that indeed, we Filipinos have forgotten the lessons of the past. 30 years ago, during the regime
of Ferdinand Marcos, countless lives were lost, various rights were violated, and yet, people
stood up, with unwavering faith, in the hopes of restoring democracy, to take its rightful place
in our society. The revolution in 1986, showed that the Filipino people, is worth dying for, that
no matter how much despair we encounter, we can endure, as long as we unite and fight to
stand for something right. And yet here we are, a nation divided, broken and bent. How ironic
this situation is for us, that even in his death, he has caused so much agony to this nation. One
can only wonder, how?

Alexander Pope once said, that to err is human, to forgive is divine. We acknowledge the
fact that as human beings, we commit mistakes, but to forgive, meant that a person,
acknowledges these mistakes and realizing that holding on to such negativity would only hurt
them more in the long run, and so they decide to free themselves from this misery and let go.
Ferdinand Marcos, like all of us is human, he committed mistakes during his lifetime, but is to
forgive him, for the atrocities committed by his administration, justifies his interment at the
Libingan ng mga Bayani? Oddly, the Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative.

In the case of City of Dumaguete vs Philippine Ports authority1, the procedural rules were
conceived to aid the attainment of justice. If a stringent application of the rules would hinder
rather than serve the demands of substantial justice, the former shall yield to the latter. Also in
the case of Vette Industrial Sales Co. Inc. vs Sui Soan S. Cheng2, the court held that while it is
desirable that the Rules of Court be faithfully observed, courts should not be so strict about
procedural lapses that do not really impair the proper administration of justice. However, in

1
City of Dumaguete vs Philippine Ports authority, 656 SCRA 102, August 24, 2011
2
Vette Industrial Sales Co. Inc. vs Sui Soan S. Cheng, 509 SCRA 532, December 5, 2006
this case, the Supreme Court decided to strictly uphold the procedural laws even if it meant
that substantial justice be impaired. Various human rights violations were committed during
the Marcos administration, and yet the court did not see the effect of deciding to rule in favor
of the internment, to those people who have been violated during the late dictator’s regime.
They blindly looked the other way and focused on the procedural defects of the case. What is
ironic is that even though, they deemed, that such case constitutes a political controversy and
not a justiciable one, they still took cognizance and ruled in favor of the respondents instead of
outright refraining from making such decision. It is as if they told us that the “answer we seek,
we shall not find in the judiciary, but we would agree anyway because we are of belief that
Ferdinand Marcos deserved to be laid in the Libingan ng mga Bayani.”

Substantially, they decided on mere technicalities, not considering the crimes committed
during the Martial Law years. The Judiciary, was meant to enforce the rule of law, but above
that, it acts to ensure that justice is served. Yet, up to this day not enough was given.
Furthermore, as amply stated by “Chief Justice Sereno in her dissenting opinion, the Supreme
Court, took a myopic view of the controversy disregarding historical truths and legal principles
that persist after his death.” The decision meant that we should not only forgive, but forget as
well the lessons of the past. It is as if these two words are synonymous, that in the eyes of the
courts, they should go hand in hand. No matter how many years have past, we ought to
remember at the very least, so as not to allow such predicament from happening again. This
decision neglected the lessons of the past, and at the same time, justified the acts of Ferdinand
Marcos by putting his remains in a place of honor.

Verba intentioni, non e contra, debent inservire, words ought to be made subservient to the
intent, not contrary to it. The purpose and intention, and not the words of the law should have
been followed. The intention in enacting a law or an executive order, for that matter, is the law
itself, and must be enforced when ascertained, although it may not be consistent with the strict
letter of the law3. The Libingan ng Mga Bayani was created to honor Filipinos who have, in
one way or another, contributed to our nation’s cause. It served as a pantheon and a reminder
that our love for our country shall never fade, even after death. To honor someone like
Ferdinand Marcos would be an insult to our collective shame as Filipinos. All those years, our
predecessors who have fought for this country and died for this country, all that has been
negated by this Supreme Court decision. Which begs us the question, what are we fighting for?

3
Alejandra Torres vs Francisco Limjap, 51 Phil 141, September 21, 1931.