Marcos Burial: Sidestepping Legal Issues, Ignoring Implications

Several groups and individuals gathered at Luneta, Aug. 14, for the Citizen’s Assembly Against Marcos Burial in Libingan ng mga Bayani. | Photo by Lito Ocampo

WITH A vote of 9-5, the Supreme Court has allowed the burial of the late strongman Ferdinand Marcos in the Libingan ng mga Bayani. The ruling came as the status quo ante order of the Supreme Court, which prevented the proposed burial in consideration of the petitions against it, expired on Tuesday, Nov. 8.

While the media had covered this matter even before legal proceedings took place, much of the coverage focused on the people outside the court–the protesters, the supporters, martial law personalities, and the Marcos family.  In general, media did little to examine the arguments by either side when these were presented before the Supreme Court on Aug. 21 and Sept. 8.

CMFR previously cheered the efforts of Rappler to consistently cover the oral arguments by providing the legal points raised in the proceedings and how the justices pursued these issues (“Marcos Burial: Keeping Track of a Controversy”). In the same monitor, CMFR also noted that while other media organizations also covered the issue, they were limited to reporting basic information such as when the oral arguments will take place and who filed the petitions. Others did report some of the legal points raised but only in passing.

The same held true up to the days leading to the decision. In his column in the Philippine Daily Inquirer (“Fake news spreading on Marcos burial case”), Atty. Oscar Franklin Tan noted how the media sidestepped the legal issues in its reportage. Instead of explaining the issues raised in the oral arguments, the media highlighted protests and caravans.

Some even aired rumors of the possible outcome of the decision. CMFR noted many occasions when “insiders” and “unimpeachable sources” were cited by the media in reporting yet unannounced court decisions. Regarding this practice, a CMFR November 2015 monitor pointed out that “Releasing a draft decision to the press can be interpreted as an attempt to influence the public about an impending decision or even the court itself, especially if the source who leaked it puts a spin to it, as is often the case.” Preempting the official announcement of court decisions is especially insidious since they may be used by political operators as leverage to further their interests.

It would have helped the public to know the arguments being made in order to understand and evaluate for themselves the validity of the High Court’s decision.The Supreme Court holds equal power among the three branches of government. Unfortunately, the exercise of judicial power is least understood by the public.  Most media organizations shirk the obligation to provide information about the judicial process.  There is too much at stake to leave this as unknowable territory because court decisions, especially the High Court’s,  define what the laws say.  To a certain extent, people are perfectly satisfied to let Supreme Court make determinations without comment as they see these as too difficult to understand  and feel that most of these matters that don’t affect them anyway.

It is different with this decision.  This decision is not of limited interest and scope. The question of the burial has engaged Filipinos in a manner that has rarely been displayed in the past. The question of the burial carries with it the issues of impunity and historical injustice for the victims of the Marcos regime, which includes the entire nation restrained by political forces from the pursuit of reform and genuine democratic change.

This decision reminds everyone that the Supreme Court cannot carry on without greater public scrutiny and analysis.  As soon as the Court releases the decisions written by each justice, these should be presented as fully as possible and submitted to public discussion. The people have a right to know and they have the right to be heard.