Home » News » Headlines » Leila warns SC of impact of allowing FM burial

Leila warns SC of impact of allowing FM burial

Senator Leila de Lima yesterday warned the Supreme Court of the “deleterious impact” of its Nov. 8 ruling that allowed former President Ferdinand Marcos to be buried at the Libingan ng mga Bayani.

De Lima, one of the petitioners to the Marcos burial case, filed a Motion for Reconsideration before the SC last Nov. 29, and cited two grounds where she said the High Tribunal grossly erred in its decision allowing the late strongman’s hero’s burial.

The senator said his burial at the national heroes’ cemetery is not a vindication of Marcos alone but “the exoneration of each and every plunderer, thief, murderer, human rights violator, and torturer in government since the death of Marcos.”

“Burying Marcos at the Libingan is not moving on and uniting the nation. It is moving on, but only for crooks, trapos, cheats, and all other villains in public office, because the burial will justify every immoral and unlawful act that these public officials have done,” De Lima said.

In her 10-page motion, the former Justice Secretary explained that the guidelines of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), contained in AFP Regulations 161-375, used by the High Court on the Marcos burial case are “incomplete, whimsical, and capricious.”

“In its decision, the Honorable Court has chosen to turn its back on this historic mandate vested upon it by the post-dictatorship EDSA 1987 Constitution…with singular task of ensuring that such dictatorship and thievery is never honored again and does not make a comeback in this country,” she said.

She also argued that the High Court should reconsider its decision in view of its long line of rulings that held the former dictator and his family accountable for the accumulation of ill-gotten wealth. (HANNAH TORREGOZA)

comments
  • Joshua Tre

    I think we should keep media exposure of Leila down to the minimum. She has lost her moral ascendancy to even suggest to the SC at that to change its ruling.
    I wonder why some newspapers still seem to give her airtime?