It is now up to the Supreme Court to decide whether the late President Ferdinand Marcos will finally be buried at the military cemetery at Fort Bonifacio or Libingan ng mga Bayani as it is popularly known.
Twenty-seven years after the death of the former strongman, the “war” is still raging. His enemies are as determined as ever to deny him burial at Fort Bonifacio where soldiers and former soldiers are buried. Admittedly, Marcos is altogether a different case. He was democratically elected twice as president but ruled as a virtual dictator for 12 years for a total of 20 years. This makes him the longest-serving president of the country. During his long reign, many abuses that caused his eventual downfall in a military—civilian uprising in 1986 were committed.
He was driven into exile to Hawaii where he died in 1989. His remains was eventually brought to Ilocos Norte during the term of former President Fidel Ramos where it remains to this day.
During the campaign leading to the May elections, then-candidate Rodrigo Duterte made a promise to allow the burial of the late president at the Libingan ng mga Bayani if he won the elections. He is now fulfilling that promise. This has, however, rekindled the controversy between the late strongman and his enemies. One would think that his burial should simply be governed by regulations which in this case is the Armed Forces of the Philippines Regulations 161-375 issued on 9 April 1986 during the term of the late President Cory Aquino.
In that AFPR, it is clear that Marcos is entitled to be buried at the LNMB. But Cory Aquino exercised her prerogative as President and Commander-in-Chief and prohibited the burial of Marcos at the LNMB. Now, President Duterte is also exercising his prerogative as President and Commander-in-Chief by allowing the burial—but the opponents of Marcos cannot accept this.
The case of Marcos is not unique in history. There have been many controversial leaders in recent times who should be resting in peace after their deaths but are not. Two cases come to mind that although not the same, are somewhat similar. Philippe Petain was a distinguished soldier and leader of France during the first half of the 20th century. He was known as the Lion of Verdun. As the allied commander during the battle of Verdun during World War I, he stopped the advance of the German army and subsequently cemented his reputation as one of the ablest and respected French generals. He was eventually promoted to the exulted title of Marshal of France for his services during World War I. During World War II, he took on the responsibility of taking charge of the part of France that was not occupied by the Germans whose capital was located in the spa town of Vichy. It is better known today as the Vichy regime. Petain’s government was accused of collaborating with the Germans so much so that after the war, Petain was charged with treason and was found guilty after a controversial trial and sentenced to death. All his titles and decorations were also taken away from him except his title as Marshal of France. But due to his old age, the sentence was commuted to life imprisonment. He was originally jailed in mainland France but later transferred to the little French island of ile d’Yeu in the Atlantic ocean where he eventually died at the age of 95 in 1951. He is buried there to this day.
What makes this case similar to Marcos is that there are people to this day who want Petain to be reburied at the military cemetery at Douamont in Verdun where the military dead of France are buried. In fact, sometime in 1973, the coffin of Petain was stolen purportedly for burial at Douamont. It was subsequently found and was again reburied with a Presidential wreath on top of the coffin but not in Douamont as Petain supporters wanted but still ile d’ Yeu. This controversy is very much alive up to this day.
This Douamont cemetery is the equivalent of our Libingan ng mga Bayani. Unlike Petain, however, Marcos was never charged or convicted of any crime that would have disqualified his burial at the LNMB. President Duterte believes that burying Marcos at the LNMB will put closure to the Marcos controversy but Rep. Edcel Lagman does not believe so. It is hard to say who is right.
Perhaps if all the actors of the so-called Edsa uprising are all gone, a more objective assessment of those tumultuous events of the last 12 years of the Marcos rule can be made devoid of biases. But if the Petain experience can teach us anything, it is not that simple.
The other case was that of the Ugandan strongman Idi Armin who was driven like Marcos out of his country in 1979. He initially went to live in Libya after his ouster but eventually moved to Saudi Arabia where he died in 2003. Before his death, he tried to seek permission from the Ugandan government to go home to die but his request was denied with the warning that if he steps inside Uganda, he will be put on trial for the crimes committed during his reign as president. He is now buried in Saudi Arabia.
Is there another lesson to be learned here? Yes. This controversy should be a warning to aspiring leaders who want to go the Marcos way that when they die as we all do, it will not be altogether sure that they will be resting in peace.