Marcos burial: SC didn’t look beyond text of the law

"Just because you can does not mean you should."

-- Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales, at U.P. College of Law alumni homecoming, Nov. 25, 2016

IN SAYING that, Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales must refer to the Supreme Court which ruled that President Duterte didn't abuse his discretion in allowing the burial of former president Ferdinand Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani.

Or did she refer to the president who granted the Marcoses the right to bury their patriarch there?

Here's how it is: Duterte has authority over the use of the Libingan. The SC has the power to interpret the law when the president's decision is questioned.

Both exercised authority and power: the president, to fulfill an election promise to the Marcoses; the SC, to decide on six petitions filed to stop the burial.

Whom did the ombudsman allude to? Mostly, the high tribunal.

Apparently, the SC considered largely the text of the law as there was little precedent, history or tradition to look back on. This was the first time the burial of an alleged scoundrel of a president was opposed.

The SC majority opinion dwelt on Duterte's control over public assets and Marcos's having served as president and soldier to qualify. It saw no need to determine whether Marcos was a hero.

And it didn't look into purpose or values and consequences, which U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer advocates in interpreting the Constitution or the law.

History

On the contrary, the majority left the matter of Marcos's heroism to history, as if there were no evidence of Marcos's record.

The SC majority didn't see the consequences of its ruling. Instead of putting the issue to rest, it reopened old wounds and made fresh cuts on the nation's psyche.

They could and they did when, Ombudsman Morales says, they shouldn't have.