Home » Headlines » SC rules with finality in favor of FM burial

SC rules with finality in favor of FM burial

BY: Rey G. Panaligan

The Supreme Court declared final yesterday its November 8, 2016 decision that allowed the burial of President Ferdinand E. Marcos at the Li-bingan ng mga Bayani in Taguig City.

During its full court session, the SC denied all the motions to reconsider the decision, including the plea for the exhumation of Marcos’ remains at the LNMB.

A copy of the SC’s resolution that denied the motions was not immediately available.

In its November 8 decision, the SC ruled that President Duterte “committed no grave abuse of discretion in ordering that the remains of former President Ferdinand E. Marcos be buried in the LNMB because this was done in the exercise of his mandate under Article 7, Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution to ensure the faithful execution of all laws and there is no law that prohibits the burial of the Marcos remains at the LNMB.”

With the ruling, the SC dismissed the seven consolidated petitions and lifted the status quo ante order it issued on August 23, 2016. The decision was written by Justice Diosdado M. Peralta.

Ten days after the issuance of the decision, the Marcos family transferred the remains of President Marcos to the LNMB considering that the SQAO had been lifted and there was no restraining order issued as a result of the filing of the motions for reconsideration.

SC spokesman Theodore O. Te at that time said “even if there is a 15-day period (to file motions for reconsideration from receipt of the copy of the decision), there was no order restraining the act,” the transfer of the remains from Marcos’ hometown in Batac City, Ilocos Norte to the LNMB.

The seven petitions against the Marcos burial at the LNMB were filed by the groups of Saturnino Ocampo, Rep. Edcel Lagman, Loreta Ann Rosales, Heherson Alvarez, Zaira Patrician Baniaga, Algamar Latiph, and Sen. Leila M. de Lima.

Almost all the petitions claimed that LNMB burial of Marcos is “illegal and contrary to law, public policy, morals, and justice” as it would violate Republic Act No. 289 and RA 10368, the Human Rights Victims Reparation and Recognition Act.

comments