Immortalizing impunity
It seemed like an eminently Solomonic resolution of a contentious issue. Assigned to resolve the controversy sparked by the lobby for the interment of Ferdinand Marcos in the Libingan ng mga Bayani, Vice President Jojo Binay proposed a compromise: denial of interment in the Libingan ng mga Bayani, but burial with full military honors.
Although apparently acceptable to the Marcos family itself, the proposal met with fierce opposition from Marcos’ friends and political allies, past and potential, as well as from those who had fought and suffered from the Marcos regime. Even those from generations who only remember Marcos for the legacy of violence and corruption left by authoritarian rule and for fabricating a record of heroic guerrilla exploits regarded a hero’s burial as distorting the historical record and dishonoring authentic heroes.
Binay’s search for consensus probably was doomed to fail. He had sought the opinion of various sectors, including the political parties and launched a broad text and e-mail survey on the issue. But none of the 130 Comelec-accredited political parties, according to the Vice President, submitted an official response. We do not know the outcome of the Binay survey, but an earlier SWS poll showed respondents split down the middle. But is a survey really the proper instrument for this issue?
The question of the proper resting place for the mortal remains of Marcos enfolds many layers of concern. It is a friction point between the Marcos and the Aquino families, and, therefore, has obvious political implications. It requires judgment on historical truth. It also inquires into our principles and values: what should we teach our children about leadership, heroism and patriotism? A survey provides substantive input only to the calculation of political costs and benefits. Unless we regard ethical norms as completely relative and mutable.
Given this multi-layered interment issue, the burden of leadership demands the determination of the hierarchy of pertinent values and the protection of those judged most important. Which should matter more, the length of the presidential term or the manner of securing and retaining power and what was done during the period of rule? Who should receive greater consideration, the victims or the victimizers?
Like other authoritarian regimes of the period, Marcos used the military to capture and retain state power. In Argentina, the estimates of the extra-judicially killed and “disappeared” during its “Dirty War” (1973-86) ranged from 9,000 to 30,000. Atrocities on this scale, after the collapse of the regimes they served, left the military a demoralized, damaged, disgraced institution.
Alfred McCoy noted (in “A Question of Torture: CIA Interrogation, from the Cold War to the War on Terror,” 2006) how movies like “Missing,” “State of Siege” and “Kiss of the Spider Woman” dramatized the ruthlessness of Latin American military regimes. But even matched against its contemporaries, the Marcos government owned a record that was comparably lethal.
The Brazilian junta, in its most brutal period (1964-79), caused 266 to die or disappear. Gen. Augusto Pinochet in Chile (1973-90) had a record of 2,115 extrajudicial deaths. Human rights activists counted against the Marcos government 35,000 cases of torture and 3,257 casualties, including 2,520 “salvaged” victims, those who were tortured, killed and the remains dumped for display.
The Edsa People Power Revolution provided the military a measure of redemption, which was quickly squandered by the coup attempts against the Cory government. To require the armed forces now to render full military honors at the interment ceremonies for Marcos, even if the site is in Ilocos, imposes an unjust burden on an institution still struggling with issues of systemic corruption and cases of impunity during and beyond the period of martial law.
We cannot deny family and friends their desire to give a final tribute to Marcos. Ilocano friends tell me that they do not consider Marcos a hero. But let us grant that many Ilocanos continue to acclaim him for the benefits received from his government, and let them honor Marcos as they see fit. This approach also has a cost in reinforcing the country’s ethnic and linguistic divides that time and national leadership have thus far failed to bridge. National unity will clearly need a longer, generational process.
But history has already rendered its verdict on Marcos and the responsibility he bears for the corruption, torture and murders committed during his rule. It is cause enough for regret and, for many, even rage that Marcos did not have to account for these crimes in a court of law. Especially when neither he nor his family has ever acknowledged any guilt, or expressed any sorrow, or sought forgiveness for the harm done to people and to the country.
Marcos managed to remain immune from the consequences of wrongdoing during his lifetime. For the government now to render him full military honors immortalizes impunity.
Edilberto C. de Jesus is president of the Asian Institute of Management.
