Friendship with Marcos family to test Duterte’s statesmanship
Some partisans question the motives behind our petitions opposing the burial of Ferdinand E. Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani. We feel we owe it to them and our citizenry to clarify our stand.
First, our opposition is animated by the principle that leaders must be held accountable, in the final analysis, by the cold assessment of history. This will help us as a people to understand the causes and circumstances that led to our most significant national triumphs and tragedies.
Our stance, therefore, is not rooted in any personal disdain against the late dictator, and neither are we interested in fanning animosity against his family.
Second, as a matter of justice and historical necessity it is our obligation to establish a truthful and honest account of the years when Marcos ruled the country.
Third, history is an extremely powerful tool for nation-building and for cultivating our sense of nationalism. History explains why things happened as they did during the Marcos years. It provides a historical lineage of events. And it highlights the powerful personalities who defined that particular era by their deeds or by their omissions.
Fourth, Filipinos apparently cannot rely on political leaders to be consistent in their appreciation of Marcos’ impact on our national development. Because politicians must curry favor with the influential and wealthy Marcoses and their followers, they can never be objective arbiters of our social and political history.
This is why the pending cases in the high court against the plan to inter the remains of the late dictator in the national cemetery for heroes are so important. We need to have a definitive and unquestionable version of Marcos’ role in our national history, and the Supreme Court is in a unique position to provide this.
The US Supreme Court has fulfilled such a crucial role: It has made landmark decisions that changed the social, political and cultural landscape of America. Some of the milestone cases include the Dred Scott vs. Sandford (1857) which intensified the national debate over slavery; Griswold vs. Connecticut (1965) which declared that the ban on the use of contraceptives violated a couple’s “right to marital privacy,” and that the right to privacy for couples is a fundamental right; and Miranda vs. Arizona (1966) which held that police must inform suspects of their rights before questioning them.
Freedom thrives where people have the courage of their convictions. All of us who profess to love our freedom must learn from history, in the persistent hope that we will not repeat the failures and the errors of the past.
We understand that President Duterte acknowledges his friendship with the Marcos family, which is a common Filipino value. However, he is not shackled by this friendship. This is fine statesmanship that invites a free debate which enables the Supreme Court to echo the truth in our history.
—HEHERSON T. ALVAREZ, petitioner
