PHILIPPINE HEADLINE NEWS ONLINE: Since 1997 © Copyright (PHNO) http://newsflash.org



HEADLINES NEWS THIS PAST WEEK...
(Mini Reads followed by Full Reports below)

AUGUST 30: HEROES REMEMBERED; WAR VETS, WIDOWS GET P4.7 B
[RELATED: ‘IF WE COULD FORGIVE JAPAN, WHY CAN’T WE FORGIVE MARCOS?’]


AUGUST 30 -President Rodrigo Duterte pays his respects after laying a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier during the commemoration of National Heroes Day at the Libingan ng mga Bayani in Taguig City yesterday. KRIZJOHN ROSALES
Not every Filipino is given a chance to die for his country. In a speech at the Libingan ng mga Bayani in Taguig City where he paid tribute to the country’s heroes yesterday morning, President Duterte reiterated the words of former chief justice Jose Abad Santos, who he considers a hero for his patriotism. “I consider among the top the late justice Jose Abad Santos. He was taken prisoner of war and it was in Malabang where he was made to swear allegiance to the flag of the opposite forces, the enemy. He refused and his son began to cry,” Duterte said.
The President recalled how Abad Santos refused to renounce his citizenship despite pressure during the Japanese occupation. e narrated how Abad Santos’ son said, “Father, why don’t you just make a salute? It doesn’t make any difference. There are no people here. We are in a prisoner’s camp. You can do it without losing honor for you are under threat and under duress.” “You know, from the books that we were lectured on, his answer to his son was, ‘Son, do not do that to me because not everyone is given a chance to die for his country’,” Duterte said. The President has been vocal about his willingness to risk his life and the presidency amid the government campaign against illegal drugs. “I will be insignificant in this country. I am not a splendid politician but how I wish I could hear from my son the same pleading and how could I have responded the way the chief justice did before he died,” he said. Abad Santos was the fifth chief justice and served as acting president of the Commonwealth of the Philippines during World War II on behalf of President Manuel Quezon after the government went into exile in the United States. READ MORE...RELATED, ‘IF WE COULD FORGIVE JAPAN, WHY CAN’T WE FORGIVE MARCOS?’...

ALSO: Militants protest hero's burial for Marcos on Heroes' Day
[RELATED: No to Marcos burial, no offense to Bongbong–Grace Poe]


AUGUST 20 -A member of the Bagong Alyansang Makabayan - Metro Manila tears a paper saying Marcos is not a hero during a rally at the Bonifacio Shrine in Manila in commemoration of the National Heroes Day on Monday.
As the nation commemorates the lives of heroes in Philippine history, protesters on Monday lambasted plans to bury former President Ferdinand Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani. Members of Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (BAYAN) - Metro Manila held a protest at the Bonifacio Shrine, a monument built by the people of the Manila City to remind people of the heroism of Andres Bonfacio, who led the Cry of Pugad Lawin on 26 August 1896, which is considered the start of revolution against the 300-year old Spanish rule. "Gusto nating gunitain ang diwa ng ating mga bayani. At sa tingin natin, iniinsulto ang ating mga bayani kung gagawaran natin ng pagkilala ang ating pangulo (Marcos), dating diktador na isang bayani [We want to remember heroes. And it would be an insult to our heroes if the former dictator is accorded a hero's burial]," said Mong Palatino, Chairman of BAYAN Metro Manila. Palatino said Marcos should not be considered as a hero and they will oppose any step to bury the remains of the former president at the Libingan ng mga Bayani. READ MORE.. RELATED,
No to Marcos burial, no offense to Bongbong–Grace...

ALSO: ‘I won’t be another Ferdinand Marcos’
[RELATED By Al Vitangcol, 3rd - Doing nothing is a crime. It’s criminal negligence]


SEPTEMBER 1 -He’s tough on illegal drugs, but there is no way that he will be another Ferdinand Marcos, President Duterte said on Wednesday.
According to Mr. Duterte, he has no intention of becoming a dictator as he attempts to eradicate the illegal drug scourge in the country. Speaking before repatriated overseas Filipino workers about his administration’s war on drugs, Mr. Duterte asked for their help. “I have no plan of becoming a dictator. I am a lawyer. My mother is a Yellow Friday leader in Davao. They will say … he will do a Marcos. Far from it. I am just doing my duty,” he said. If he does not pursue his plan, the next generation will be “compromised,” he said. “You know who that is? Your children. Even your grandchildren. Then we will have a failed country,” he said. There are those who believe this will not happen, but he said he would not risk dealing with the problem, in case it worsened. “What if it happens? What will we do with the Philippines?” he added. If he fails to act now, nobody else can stop the problem, Mr. Duterte said. He said he was not afraid to be jailed as a result of his fight against illegal drugs. Mr. Duterte also called on the returning Filipino workers to steer clear of illegal drugs. “Avoid drugs at all cost because it could cost your life, too,” he said. He said more than 3 million Filipinos were affected by illegal drugs, and it was a “crisis for the country.” THE FULL REPORT RELATED COMMENTARY, Doing nothing is a crime. It’s criminal negligence...

ALSO: SC hears arguments on Marcos hero's burial
[RELATED: SC hears oral arguments today on Marcos burial at Libingan]


SEPTEMBER 1
-Supreme Court justices will hear next week arguments for or against the government's plan to bury the remains of the late President Ferdinand Marcos at the Libingan Government lawyers and groups opposing the burial of former President Ferdinand Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani faced off Wednesday to present their respective arguments before Supreme Court justices, who will later on decide whether or not the late strongman deserves a hero's burial. The oral arguments, which lasted for several hours, stemmed from seven petitions — filed by Martial Law victims, former and current government officials, and some youth activists — questioning the legality of President Rodrigo Duterte's order to bury Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani. Here are some of the highlights of the oral arguments. READ MORE...RELATED,  SC hears oral arguments today on Marcos burial at Libingan...RELATED(2), Marcos in Libingan: SC justices raise 'a question of heroes'...

ALSO: SC justices divided on Marcos burial at Libingan ng mga Bayani
[RELTED: De Lima files 7th case vs Marcos’ ‘hero’ burial at SC;]


SEPTEMBER 1 -FOR, AGAINST – Rallyists loyal to former President Ferdinand Marcos call for the late leader’s immediate burial at the Libingan ng mga Bayani in Taguig City (left photo), a stand that is vehemently opposed by activists, many of whom were victims of Martial Law. The two groups squared off on Padre Faura Street in Manila, in front of the Supreme Court which heard oral arguments Wednesday on the former strongman’s burial. (Ali Vicoy / Manila Bulletin)
Even Supreme Court (SC) justices have conflicting views on the decision of President Duterte to bury the remains of the late former President Ferdinand E. Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani (LNMB) in Taguig City. Justice Teresita J. Leonardo de Castro said there is no system of evaluation to determine who are qualified to be buried at the LNMB. In her interpellation of the petitioners in the six cases against the Marcos burial at LNMB, De Castro pointed out that most of the people interred at the LNMB were those with military connections. She said that “even spouses of the secretaries of national defense are buried there.” Then she asked: “Are they heroes?” Justice Jose Portugal Perez said “there is no established body or agency which can determine who is a hero or not… not the Supreme Court, the legislative, or the President.” But Senior Justice Antonio T. Carpio articulated directly against Marcos burial at the LNMB. Carpio said Marcos does not deserve a hero’s burial because he was “dishonorably discharged” by the people in 1986. “Marcos cannot be buried at the Libingan ng mga Bayani,” he said. At the start of the oral arguments, the petitioners against the LNMB burial of Marcos reiterated their opposition as they cited the “cardinal sins” of the late former President that deny him of a hero’s burial. One of the petitioners, Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman, even described Marcos as a “despot” and an “oppressor” during the martial law regime. “A Marcos hero’s burial would glorify a dictator, distort history, aggravate the injustice to human rights violation victims and their families, and mock the heroism of desaparecidos and other victims of Marcos’ atrocities,” he said. Through lawyer Barry Gutierrez, former human rights chairperson Etta Rosales told the SC that President Duterte is bound to recognize Marcos’ atrocities such as human rights violations. Lawyer Ephraim Cortez, on the other hand, cited the adverse effects of the LNMB burial of Marcos to the victims of the late president’s dictatorship. For Director Algamar Latiph of the Commission on Human Rights in the Autonomous Regions for Muslim Mindanao, the LNMB must be preserved as a “sacred burial ground.” Former Bayan Muna Rep. Neri Colmenares said that President Duterte’s directive to bury Marcos at the LNMB is against the objective of Republic Act No. 289 which provides that only people worthy of emulation should be buried at the LNMB. READ MORE...RELATED, De Lima files 7th case vs Marcos’ ‘hero’ burial at SC...


READ FULL MEDIA REPORTS HERE:

Heroes remembered; war vets, widows get P4.7 B


President Rodrigo Duterte pays his respects after laying a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier during the commemoration of National Heroes Day at the Libingan ng mga Bayani in Taguig City yesterday. KRIZJOHN ROSALES

MANILA, SEPTEMBER 5, 2016 (PHILSTAR) B By Christina Mendez August 30, 2016 - Not every Filipino is given a chance to die for his country.

In a speech at the Libingan ng mga Bayani in Taguig City where he paid tribute to the country’s heroes yesterday morning, President Duterte reiterated the words of former chief justice Jose Abad Santos, who he considers a hero for his patriotism.

“I consider among the top the late justice Jose Abad Santos. He was taken prisoner of war and it was in Malabang where he was made to swear allegiance to the flag of the opposite forces, the enemy. He refused and his son began to cry,” Duterte said.

The President recalled how Abad Santos refused to renounce his citizenship despite pressure during the Japanese occupation.

He narrated how Abad Santos’ son said, “Father, why don’t you just make a salute? It doesn’t make any difference. There are no people here. We are in a prisoner’s camp. You can do it without losing honor for you are under threat and under duress.”

“You know, from the books that we were lectured on, his answer to his son was, ‘Son, do not do that to me because not everyone is given a chance to die for his country’,” Duterte said.

The President has been vocal about his willingness to risk his life and the presidency amid the government campaign against illegal drugs.

“I will be insignificant in this country. I am not a splendid politician but how I wish I could hear from my son the same pleading and how could I have responded the way the chief justice did before he died,” he said.

Abad Santos was the fifth chief justice and served as acting president of the Commonwealth of the Philippines during World War II on behalf of President Manuel Quezon after the government went into exile in the United States.

READ MORE...

After two months, he was killed by the Japanese forces for refusing to cooperate during their occupation of the country.

Benefits for war vets Also yesterday, Duterte announced that a total of P4.7 billion will be released by the budget department to compensate widows of war veterans and retirees above 80 years old.

Duterte added that the joint implementing rules and regulations of the unpaid total administrative disability arrears had been signed by Budget Secretary Benjamin Diokno and Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana.

The President noted that the P4.7-billion payment of the arrears has been appropriated in the 2016 national budget but was not released by the administration of president Benigno Aquino III.

An estimated P3.5 billion is allotted for spouses of deceased war veterans while P1.2 billion is allocated for AFP retirees who are 80 years old and above.

The budget will be distributed to more than 83,000 WWII and post-war veterans, as well as their spouses.

What genocide? Meanwhile, President Duterte stressed that his anti-drug campaign that has left nearly 1,800 people dead does not amount to genocide, but that he’s ready to go to jail to defend his men from lawsuits.

Duterte drew a line between the widespread killings sparked by his anti-drug war and the brutality under Syrian President Bashar Assad and the atrocities committed by Islamic State group extremists.

“Genocide? Who did I kill? I did not kill any child. I did not drop barrel (bombs) just like Assad,” the President said in his speech. “I’m fighting ... criminals.”

Referring to Islamic State group militants, whom he called “idiots,” Duterte said, “I do not burn women because they refuse to have sex.’”

At least 1,779 drug suspects have so far been killed in Duterte’s campaign, including 712 who were gunned down in clashes with police, with the rest being slain in still-unclear circumstances, the national police chief told a Senate inquiry last week.

Human rights groups have expressed alarm over the spate of killings, and UN-appointed human rights experts warned steps should be taken to halt the violence, adding that the government and law enforcers could be held responsible.

The 71-year-old Duterte built a name with his deadly crime-busting style as a longtime mayor of Davao City.

He described his campaign against drugs as a harsh war that would involve the military because the problem has worsened into a crisis and claimed the lives of law enforcers.

“We might still end up like the South American countries and their fractured governments. I am declaring war,” he said.

No special room But if he goes to jail because of his anti-drug campaign, Duterte said he does not intend to ask for a special room.

He, however, would appreciate some books to read.

“Prison? No problem. I would not even ask for a special room. Just give me a bed, a foam and books to read,” he said, adding it would be a good time to catch up on his reading. – With Giovanni Nilles, Alexis Romero, AP

------------------------------

RELATED FROM THE MALAYA BUSINESS INSIGHT

‘IF WE COULD FORGIVE JAPAN, WHY CAN’T WE FORGIVE MARCOS?’ By ASHZEL HACHERO September 02, 2016


Victims of the Japanese in the Philippine General Hospital, Manila, Philippines 1945 GOOGLED PHOTO OF BATTLE OF MANILA

FORMER Solicitor General Estelito Mendoza yesterday wondered why Filipinos can’t reconcile much less forgive former President Ferdinand Marcos when we have already moved on and forgiven Japan for the atrocities committed by its soldiers during World War II.

Mendoza, who served as solicitor general from 1972 to 1986, said if the Filipinos remember what happened during the Martial Law years, then they should also remember what happened during the Japanese occupation.

“Walang makakatanggi na si Marcos kasama ng mga sundalo napunta sa Bataan, nakulong ‘yun, siguro hindi maaring itanggi ‘yon,” he said.

He said that Japan is now one of the Philippines’ strategic allies and economic partners and Filipinos have already reconciled with their former wartime occupier.


Estelito Mendoza, a justice secretary and solicitor general during the Marcos regime. BUSINESS WORLD PHOTO

“Masaya tayong bumibisita sa Japan, nag-reconcile tayo. Isipin at tandaan niyo kung ano ang nangyari dito lalo na dito sa Ermita noong panahon ng mga Hapon?”

Mendoza said the Libingan ng mga Bayani, where President Duterte said Marcos’ remains will be allowed to be buried, is principally built for the soldiers and the former strongman was a soldier before he became a president.

Reps. Harry Roque (PL-Kabayan) and Sherwin Tugna (PL-Citizen’s Battle Against Corruption) said the SC ruling on the petition of victims of human rights violations against allowing the Marcos burial at the Libingan will not delve into the question of whether Marcos was a war hero or not.

“The issue is whether he is entitled to be buried (at the LNB) or not,” Roque said.

Roque earlier filed a bill proposing to change the name of the Libingan ng mga Bayani to “Libingan ng mga Bayani at mga Dating Pangulo” to prevent public unrest in light of the opposition by some sectors to the planned Marcos burial at the LMB.

Tugna said he expects the SC ruling not to touch on any issue outside of the question raised in the petition against the burial at the LMB.


ABS-CBN

Militants protest hero's burial for Marcos on Heroes' Day Jorge Cariño, ABS-CBN News Posted at Aug 29 2016 02:10 PM


A member of the Bagong Alyansang Makabayan - Metro Manila tears a paper saying Marcos is not a hero during a rally at the Bonifacio Shrine in Manila in commemoration of the National Heroes Day on Monday.

As the nation commemorates the lives of heroes in Philippine history, protesters on Monday lambasted plans to bury former President Ferdinand Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani.

Members of Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (BAYAN) - Metro Manila held a protest at the Bonifacio Shrine, a monument built by the people of the Manila City to remind people of the heroism of Andres Bonfacio, who led the Cry of Pugad Lawin on 26 August 1896, which is considered the start of revolution against the 300-year old Spanish rule.

"Gusto nating gunitain ang diwa ng ating mga bayani. At sa tingin natin, iniinsulto ang ating mga bayani kung gagawaran natin ng pagkilala ang ating pangulo (Marcos), dating diktador na isang bayani [We want to remember heroes. And it would be an insult to our heroes if the former dictator is accorded a hero's burial]," said Mong Palatino, Chairman of BAYAN Metro Manila.

Palatino said Marcos should not be considered as a hero and they will oppose any step to bury the remains of the former president at the Libingan ng mga Bayani.

READ MORE...

BAYAN is one of the petitioners who filed a case at the Supreme Court, seeking to stop the decision of President Rodrido Duterte to move the remains of Marcos at Libingan ng mga Bayani, from the Marcos mausoleum in Batac, Ilocos Norte.

An oral argument on the case had been set Wednesday.

READ: No Marcos burial in Libingan in next 20 days: SC

Palatino said their group will tirelessly launch all forms of protest against Duterte's decision.

Palatino explained that they acknowledge and support Duterte's effort for reconciliation and unity, but he insists that accountability and justice must be handed first to the victims of Marcos' martial law.

"Gusto po nating ipaabot sa ating pangulo na ang bayani, dapat kinikilala ng lahat, ang bayani inspirasyon sa lahat, dapat ang bayani modelo para sa mga kabataan. Ito po, si Marcos po ay hindi bayani, isang siyang diktador, human rights violator at nagkitil ng kalayaan ng ating mga kababayan noong martial law [We want the president to know that a hero is an inspiration to all, a model for the youth. Marcos wasn't a hero, he was a dictator]," said Palatino.

---------------------------

RELATED FROM THE INQUIRER

No to Marcos burial, no offense to Bongbong–Grace PoeBy: Yolanda Sotelo @inquirerdotnet Inquirer Northern Luzon 09:15 AM September 3rd, 2016


Bongbong Marcos. Inquirer file photo

SAN CARLOS CITY, Philippines—Sen. Grace Poe on Friday said a commission should be formed to determine whether important figures, like the late strongman Ferdinand Marcos, should be buried at the Libingan ng mga Bayani.

No president should be able to decide who would be buried at the Libingan ng mga Bayani, said Poe, who was visiting the hometown of her late father, actor Fernando Poe Jr., on the eve of her 48th birthday.

The commission should decide who deserves to be buried at the Libingan, “so no politics should come into play,” she said.

“They said [Marcos] was a soldier so he can be buried at the Libingan, so there is something vague there. So a commission should really be formed for that purpose,” she said.

Poe said she would oppose a Libingan burial for the late strongman even if it may hurt the feelings of former Sen. Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr.

“I am thankful that the issue is already at the Supreme Court.

Even during the last [election] campaign period, I already said there would be chaos [if the Marcos family would insist on a hero’s burial] because we have a law recognizing the atrocities of martial law,” she said.

She did not elaborate but she may have been referring to Republic Act No. 10368, which grants reparations for victims of martial law. The same law acknowledges human rights violations committed during the more than 20 years of Marcos rule.

Poe also referred to Bongbong as “kabsat” (brother). She and the former senator had made light of speculation that she was the late dictator’s daughter by referring to each other as “kabsat.”

When reporters first asked about the burial, Poe said: “Come on, you guys. That issue has already offended my brother. He calls me sister.”

Addressing former Senator Marcos, she said, “Whatever you believe in, if it is lawful, then stand by that decision. I praised [Gov. Imee Marcos] for her initiatives in Ilocos Norte. But there are things that as a senator, you should decide based on the law.”

Poe also said she saw no obstacles to the passage of the Senate version of a proposed Freedom of Information law, which requires, among other things, heads of agencies to automatically upload their statements of assets, liabilities and networth (SALN) on the government website.

“For instance, a senator earns P60,000 monthly yet has many listed properties…perhaps you can say [that senator] is a drug lord,” she said.

During the visit, Poe launched a feeding program for school children, a project which she said she would pursue nationwide. The visit was her first since the May 9 elections, “after resting and spending time with the family,” she said.

“After the elections, I was a little emotional. . Now I am stronger and I can face the people.


INQUIRER

‘I won’t be another Ferdinand Marcos’ SHARES: 149 VIEW COMMENTS By: Leila B. Salaverria @inquirerdotnet Philippine Daily Inquirer 01:06 AM September 1st, 2016

He’s tough on illegal drugs, but there is no way that he will be another Ferdinand Marcos, President Duterte said on Wednesday.

According to Mr. Duterte, he has no intention of becoming a dictator as he attempts to eradicate the illegal drug scourge in the country.

Speaking before repatriated overseas Filipino workers about his administration’s war on drugs, Mr. Duterte asked for their help.

“I have no plan of becoming a dictator. I am a lawyer. My mother is a Yellow Friday leader in Davao. They will say … he will do a Marcos. Far from it. I am just doing my duty,” he said.

If he does not pursue his plan, the next generation will be “compromised,” he said.

“You know who that is? Your children. Even your grandchildren. Then we will have a failed country,” he said.

There are those who believe this will not happen, but he said he would not risk dealing with the problem, in case it worsened.

“What if it happens? What will we do with the Philippines?” he added.

If he fails to act now, nobody else can stop the problem, Mr. Duterte said.

He said he was not afraid to be jailed as a result of his fight against illegal drugs.

Mr. Duterte also called on the returning Filipino workers to steer clear of illegal drugs.

“Avoid drugs at all cost because it could cost your life, too,” he said.

He said more than 3 million Filipinos were affected by illegal drugs, and it was a “crisis for the country.”

----------------------------

RELATED FROM THE MANILA TIMES BY AL S. VITANGCOL 3rd

Doing nothing is a crime. It’s criminal negligence BY AL S. VITANGCOL 3RD ON SEPTEMBER 2, 2016 ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY


AL S. VITANGCOL 3RD

“The PNP statistics in 2015 that appeared in a leading broadsheet painted a sickening landscape of a ‘crime explosion’ in the country.

It is almost a travesty of justice that addressing such a dismal situation of crime has not been given priority in the past Administration.”


GOOGLED PHOTO

— Mr. Dante LA Jimenez in his Ulat sa Bayan during the VACC’s 18th Founding Anniversary on Aug. 29, 2016.
The past Administration’s lack of concern and inaction was not limited to the law and order situation but to almost all aspects of society. Nothing substantial has been done to improve the lives of the people and the society. Their officials refused to act on important matters to avoid the risk of being sued in case they failed. They just wanted for their term to end, doing nothing. But do they know that doing nothing is a crime? It is criminal negligence.

Criminal negligence defined

Black’s Law Dictionary defines negligence as “the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. Negligence, in its civil relation, is such an inadvertent imperfection, by a responsible human agent, in the discharge of a legal duty, as immediately produces, in an ordinary and natural sequence, a damage to another.”

From the same dictionary, criminal negligence is “a case of neglect or negligence of such nature that it will be punishable as a crime.”

Hence, in its simplest form, criminal negligence is the failure to do something (omission), in the discharge of one’s duty, which causes damage to another. If a public official fails to perceive the substantial risk, which his inaction (doing nothing) poses to the public, then it is considered criminal negligence on the part of that official. His inaction is deemed a crime and he should be penalized.

For example, nothing was done by the officials concerned with traffic management. Their inaction resulted in great damage to the public – lost wages, unfulfilled appointments, economic losses, pain and suffering, etc. These officials can now be sued for criminal negligence.

Gross negligence

Gross negligence, on the other hand, pertains to the “intentional failure to perform a manifest duty in reckless disregard of the consequences as affecting the life or property of another.” This is different from a mere failure to act or simple inadvertence.

Gross negligence consists of a conscious and voluntary act or omission, which is likely to result in grave injury in the face of a clear and present danger. It is criminal in nature when accompanied by acts of commission showing a conscious indifference to the rights and welfare of persons affected by it.

Provisions of the Revised Penal Code

Our Revised Penal Code (RPC) states, that “Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies. Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit but also by means of fault. There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent, and there is fault when the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.” By omission, the Code meant inaction, the failure to perform a positive duty, which one is bound to do.

The sole chapter under title Fourteen of the RPC deals with criminal negligence, which is considered a quasi-offense. Quasi means it “resembles” or “having some but not all of the features of” an ordinary crime.

Example: New Jersey lane closure

A good example of a case wherein public officials in charge of traffic management were subsequently found guilty of criminal negligence is the “unannounced” lane closures on a major bridge in New Jersey sometime in 2013.

In the early morning of Sept. 9, 2013, two of the dedicated three toll lanes going to Fort Lee were closed to local use and motorists were redirected to the main highway. The closure order came from David Wildstein, the second highest executive at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. The Fort Lee local government and its police officials were not notified of the closure. The lane closures resulted in the swelling of traffic congestion in the area, considering that the highway in itself normally experiences heavy traffic during rush hours.

The situation led to delays in school transportation and police and emergency responses within Fort Lee.
Newspaper accounts of the incident described traffic jams preventing timely paramedic response to a 911 call from a 91-year old woman, who subsequently died of cardiac arrest. In another emergency call, medical workers were compelled to abandon their ambulance and respond on foot given the heavy traffic congestion. The emergency responders were delayed nearly one hour in rendering assistance to a man experiencing chest pains.

Fort Lee Administrator Peggy Thomas then informed the Port Authority that their police and emergency departments did not receive any advance notice of the closures, and because of that, police and ambulances had difficulty responding to emergencies.

On Sept. 13, 2013 the executive director of the Port Authority, Patrick Foye, ordered the reopening of the lanes. He said the decision to close the lanes was “hasty and ill-advised” and that it “violates Federal Law and the laws of both States.”

The Port Authority’s chairman, David Samson, then found himself in the center of media attention amid allegations of ethical violations and conflict of interest. Samson resigned on March 28, 2014. Thereafter, a grand jury was convened to interview witnesses, and indict, if necessary, the officials involved in the lane closures for criminal liability. Wildstein was indicted by the grand jury and he offered a plea bargain on May 2015.

The trial of the other officials was rescheduled several times, the most recent of which was for Sept. 12, 2016.

The Metro Manila experience

For the last six years, we, Metro Manilans, and in some parts outside the metro, have been experiencing heavy traffic congestion on a daily basis.

MANILA TRAFFIC

The Manila Times reported way back in December 2013 that, “traffic jams do not only drain the patience of motorists and commuters. They drain the economy as well.” It reported that “road congestion in Metro Manila can cost P140 billion a year in lost investment, reduced capital inflow and wastages.” A study conducted by the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) in 2012 found that time lost by people stuck in traffic and the extra cost of operating vehicles in gridlock in metropolitan Manila and nearby areas amounted to P2.4 billion ($51 million) a day.

Based on this newspaper’s report last year, one sitting senator, whose political party (and uncle’s inaction) was responsible for the traffic mess that we are all in, predicted that “if not immediately and fully addressed, economic losses due to heavy traffic in Metro Manila could balloon to P6 billion a day from the current P2.4 billion by 2030.” The irony of it all.

Protect the people’s rights

In the example discussed above, the resulting persistent traffic jams (only for a week) prompted a grand jury investigation in New Jersey. Here, in the Philippines, commuters and motorists have been suffering the same ordeal for six years, yet the situation has remained unchanged and no public official has been punished for being responsible for the traffic woes inflicted on us all. These public officials are criminally negligent – they caused undue damage to the economy and brought untold sufferings to the motorists and the commuting public.

How come nobody is hauling these former (and some who are still tenaciously clutching to their positions) officials into court? Where are the likes of Sammy Malunes and Elvira Medina? Where are the Makabayans? Where are our “concerned” citizens?

The New Jersey example and the Metro Manila counterpart only dwell on the traffic mess problem that we experience daily. The concept of criminal negligence applies to a wide variety of indiscretions and inactions, not solely to traffic management.

THE DRUG TRADE, FLAWED JUDICIARY, POVERTY

Why is there a proliferation of drug trade?

Who are responsible for this?

Why was nothing done during the last six years?

Why do we have a flawed judicial system?

Who are responsible for this? Why was it not reformed? Why was nothing done during the last six years?

Why do our people remain poor? Why can’t they get out poverty? Who are responsible for this? Why was nothing done during the last six years?

Just asking.

* * *

Congratulations to our newspaper, The Manila Times, for being awarded the Outstanding Newspaper by the VACC on its 18th Founding Anniversary.

Email your comments to allinsight.manilatimes@gmail.com .


GMA NEWS NETWORK

HIGHLIGHTS SC hears arguments on Marcos hero's burial Published August 31, 2016 7:57pm


Supreme Court justices will hear next week arguments for or against the government's plan to bury the remains of the late President Ferdinand Marcos at the Libingan

Government lawyers and groups opposing the burial of former President Ferdinand Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani faced off Wednesday to present their respective arguments before Supreme Court justices, who will later on decide whether or not the late strongman deserves a hero's burial.

The oral arguments, which lasted for several hours, stemmed from seven petitions — filed by Martial Law victims, former and current government officials, and some youth activists — questioning the legality of President Rodrigo Duterte's order to bury Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani.

Here are some of the highlights of the oral arguments.

READ MORE...

Design By Jannielyn Ann Bigtas

—graphics by Jannielyn Ann Bigtas/KBK, GMA News

------------------------------

RELATED FROM THE MANILA BULLETIN

SC hears oral arguments today on Marcos burial at Libingan by Rey G. Panaligan August 31, 2016 Share70 Tweet0 Share1 Email1 Share186

The Supreme Court (SC) hears starting this morning oral arguments on the burial of the late former President Ferdinand E. Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani (LNMB) in Taguig City.

Six petitions have been filed against the burial ordered by President Duterte. The SC has issued a status quo ante order that stopped temporarily its implementation until Sept. 12.

The SC has invited as resource persons Chairperson Maria Serena Diokno of the National Historical Commission of the Philippines, former Local Government Secretary Rafael M. Alunan, and representatives from the Presidential Commission on Good Government, the Office of the Ombudsman, the Human Rights Claims Board, and the Commission on Human Rights.

Among the procedural concerns to be tackled by the parties are whether the issues presented in the petitions constitute a judicial controversy, whether the petitioners have legal standing to file the cases, whether administrative remedies were exhausted, and whether the petitions do not violate the hierarchy of courts.

On substantial issues, to be tackled are:

1. “Whether or not the Challenged Issuances allowing the burial of Marcos amounts to a denial of the history of authoritarian rule and a condonation of the abuses committed by the Marcos regime, thereby violating the ultimate raison d’etre of the 1987 Constitution as a post-dictatorship charter.

2. “Whether or not the Challenged Issuances violate Art. II, Sections 11, 13, 23, 26, 27, and 28, and Art. XIV, Section 3(2) of the 1987 Constitution.

3. “Whether or not the issuance and implementation of the Challenged Issuances amount to a violation of the equal protection clause.

4. “Whether or not the issuance and implementation of the Challenged Issuances amount to a violation of the Executive’s faithful execution clause in the Constitution.

5. “Whether or not attendant and supervening events, such as but not limited to historical facts and laws enacted to recover ill-gotten wealth from the Marcoses and their cronies (e.g., Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, and 14; Republic Act No. 10368) and the pronouncements of this Court on the Marcos regime have nullified Marcos’s entitlement as a soldier and former President to a hero’s burial at the LNMB.

6. “Whether or not the respondents are in violation of any domestic law in allowing the burial of Marcos.

7. “What is the statute, rule, or regulation applicable to the dispute, which shall include but shall not be limited to: the law granting the President the discretion to determine the persons with the right to be buried at the LNMB; and the law allowing the AFP to grant burial honors to the late former President Ferdinand E. Marcos.

8. “Whether or not Republic Act 10368, the ‘Human Rights Victims Reparation and Recognition Act of 2013’ constitutes a legislative and executive validation of the human rights’ atrocities committed by Marcos during the Martial Law regime for which the former strongman and dictator is accountable personally and by command responsibility.

9. “Whether or not RA No. 10368 amended and modified the AFP Burial Guidelines at the LNMB by implicitly disqualifying Marcos from being interred at the Heroes’ Cemetery.

10. “Whether or not the petitions should be dismissed on the ground that it is a valid exercise of the President’s power under the Administrative Code.

11. “Whether or not the burial of Marcos violates RA 289.

12. “Whether or not the burial of Marcos is contrary to public policy.

13. “Whether or not the burial of Marcos is contrary to morals.

14. “Whether or not the respondents are in violation of any international law in allowing the burial of Marcos at the LNMB.

15. “Whether or not a heroes’ burial for Marcos would violate the right to a remedy and reparation for victims of gross violations of International Human Rights Law.

16 “Whether or not the Challenged Issuances violate valid and binding international obligations pertaining to impunity, ‘full and effective reparation,’ and ‘guarantee of non-repetition’.

17. “Whether or not the “Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law which was proclaimed by the UN General Assembly on December 16, 2005, gives rise to rights in favor of the petitioners.

18. “Whether or not the ‘Updated Set of Principles for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights through Action to Combat Impunity’ from the UN Commission on Human Rights Economic and Social Council are executory and demandable from the State and gives rise to rights.

19. “Whether or not the burial of Marcos would violate the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights because it would deny the victims of the Marcos regime the remedies awarded to them by competent authorities.

20. “Whether or not the issuance of the AFP Regulations G 161-373 was made in the exercise of rule-making/delegated legislative powers of the executive, and therefore subject to amendment by Congress.

21. “Whether or not the Marcos family is in estoppel as it has waived the burial of Marcos at the LNMB after they had agreed to the four conditions imposed by the government for allowing Marcos’ s remains to be brought back to the Philippines.

22. “Whether or not the interment of the remains of Marcos at the LNMB violates an existing and enforceable agreement between the Philippine government and the Marcos family.

The SC said: “In view of the complexity of the issues material to the present consolidated cases which may require some technical clarification during the oral arguments, the Adjutant General 1 of the AFP is directed to attend the Oral Arguments. When called upon, they are expected to be able to competently and completely answer the questions related to, among others, their processes and procedures on the applications for burial at the LNMB.”

The six petitions against the LNMB burial of Marcos were filed by the groups of Saturnino C. Ocampo and members of the Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan) and the Samahan ng Ex-Detainees Laban sa Detention at Aresto (SELDA); Rep. Edcel Lagman and the Families of Victims of Involuntary Disappearance (FIND); former human rights commissioner Loretta Ann P. Rosales and members of the Coalition against Marcos Burial; former Senator Heherson T. Alvarez and former government officials and members of the academe and the entertainment industry; and separate petitions of the groups of Zaira Patricia Baniaga and Algamar A. Latiph.

The SQAO issued by the SC was addressed to Executive Secretary Salvador C. Medialdea, Rear Admiral Ernesto C. Enriquez (in his capacity as the Deputy Chief of Staff for Reservist and Retiree Affairs, Armed Forces of the Philippines], the Grave Services Unit (Philippine Army), General Ricardo R. Visaya (in his capacity as the Chief of Staff, AFP), Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana, and Philippine Veterans Affairs Office Administrator Lt. Gen. (ret.) Ernesto G. Carolina, who are the respondents in the six petitions.

DISMISS PETITIONS – SOLGEN

Earlier, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) representing the respondents had asked the SC to dismiss the petitions.

On top of other procedural and substantive arguments contained in its comment, the OSG said the challenge against the decision of President Duterte to bury the remains of Marcos at the LNMB is a political question that cannot be resolved by the SC.

It said the petitioners’ arguments “readily reveals the political, and, hence, non-justiciable nature of the petitions.”

“In essence, petitioners assail the wisdom behind President Duterte’s decision to inter the remains of a former President at the LNMB, made pursuant to the Constitution, laws, rules, and regulations,” the OSG said.

It pointed out that the “term political question connotes a question of policy. It refers to those questions which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the Legislature or Executive branch of the government. It is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality, of a particular measure.”

“In the exercise of his powers under the Constitution and the Administrative Code, President Duterte, in his wisdom, deems it appropriate to inter the remains of former President Marcos in a parcel of land of the public domain devoted for the purpose of being a military shrine…,” it stressed.

“It should likewise be emphasized that President Duterte’s order to allow former President Marcos’ interment at the LNMB is based on his determination that it shall promote national healing and forgiveness, and redound to the benefit of the Filipino people. Surely, this is an exercise of his executive prerogative beyond the ambit of judicial review,” the OSG pointed out.

MARCOS HEIRS’ COMMENT

In their comment, the Marcos heirs supported the government’s justifications in the interment of the late former President at the LNMB.

They told the SC the petitioners in the cases failed to point out clear and unmistakable rights or grave injury that they would suffer as a result of the interment.

“Allegations of violations of human rights personally experienced by petitioners and of others, in general, after declaration of martial law on Sept. 21, 1972, are denied. Apart from being irrelevant to the issue at hand, the allegations may not be assumed as facts but needs to be established with competent evidence,” they stressed.

They also said that the “allegations of the arrest and torture of many people, among whom are allegedly the petitioners, and their arrest and torture imputed to the President may not be assumed.”

They joined the OSG in asking the SC to dismiss the petitions for lack of merit.

PETITIONERS’ STAND

Some of the petitioners told the SC that “the interment of the remains of Marcos at the LNMB with the honors that supposedly befit only Filipino heroes with overall unblemished integrity and dignity is contrary to the Constitution.”

The petitioners told the SC that the respondents abused their discretion in allowing the burial of the late president at the LNMB through a memorandum issued on Aug. 7, 2016, by Defense Secretary Lorenzana. They said the memorandum that was an offshoot of a verbal order by President Duterte, is illegal and contrary to public policy.

They said that AFP Regulations G 161-373 provides that “those who have been dishonorably discharged from service, or personnel convicted of an offense involving moral turpitude, do not qualify for interment.”

The petitioners pointed out that Republic Act No. 289 provides the LNMB was constructed “to perpetuate the memory of all Presidents of the Philippines, national heroes, and patriots for the inspiration and emulation of this generation and of generations still unborn.”

They said Marcos’ burial at the LNMB violates Republic Act 10368, the Human Rights Victims Reparation and Recognition Act of 2013, which enshrines into law the recognition of the human rights violations committed during the Marcos regime and the moral and legal obligation of the State to recognize and provide reparation to the victims.


ABS-CBN

Marcos in Libingan: SC justices raise 'a question of heroes' Ina Reformina, ABS-CBN News
Posted at Aug 31 2016 04:31 PM 


The embalmed body of former Philippine strongman Ferdinand Marcos is seen through a sealed glass coffin inside a dimly lighted mausoleum 11 September 1993 in his northern Philippine hometown. Romeo Gacad, AFP

'Who is a hero? Who determines heroes? Isn't Duterte's victory the voice of the people?'

MANILA – Those opposing the burial of former President Ferdinand Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani (Heroes' Cemetery) were confronted with tough questions to their petitions by some justices of Supreme Court (SC) on Wednesday.

The absence of any clear and legal definition and guidelines on who should be considered a "hero," the absence of an identified body or agency which determines who "heroes" are, as well as questions on which law served as basis for the creation of the Libingan ng mga Bayani are only some of these.

During Wednesday's oral arguments on six consolidated petitions that urge the high court to thumb down President Rodrigo Duterte's order to bury the late strongman at the Libingan, at least two SC magistrates posed a challenge to petitioners' position that Marcos, a former soldier, must not be buried at the Libingan because he is "no hero" and "not worthy of emulation and inspiration."

DEFINITION OF 'HERO'

Associate Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro questioned petitioner Atty. Neri Colmenares on the reason the cemetery is called the Libingan ng mga Bayani.

What is a "bayani" based on existing rules, laws and regulations, she asked, as there seems to be no established guidelines on who heroes are, and who are disqualified from being buried in the Libingan.

"Even spouses of secretaries of National Defense are allowed to be buried there. Are they heroes?" she asked Colmenares.

She also asked if the petitioners expect the high court to determine who deserve to be called heroes.

"Can we say there are guidelines? There's not even a body which will determine who are heroes, [and] who should avail of this privilege to be buried in the Libingan ng mga Bayani."

MEMORIAL FOR HEROES

De Castro further pointed out that petitioners must clearly establish that Republic Act No. 289, "An Act Providing for the Construction of a National Pantheon for Presidents of the Philippines, National Heroes and Patriots of the Country," is the law that served as basis for the creation of the Libingan.

READ MORE...

"Go back to the fundamental question: is that (Libingan ng mga Bayani) the national pantheon or not? I'd like to find out if really the pantheon is really the Libingan ng mga Bayani and is it for heroes only or is it just a war memorial for which it was originally created?" De Castro told petitioners.

Associate Justice Jose Perez, for his part, pointed out the lack of specific standards for persons described in Republic Act (RA) No. 289 as those "worthy of public emulation and inspiration," and further pressed petitioners whether it is their position that it is the SC's role to rule "that Marcos is not deserving of national esteem or that he is not publicly esteemed" and therefore not worthy of burial at the Libingan.

PEOPLE'S CHOICE

Perez asked petitioners, is it not the people themselves who determine who heroes are, in the absence of clear guidelines on the matter?|

"We cannot disregard the fact that the sovereign people ratified the Constitution. Not an edict or fiat by the SC can say whether this person is a hero or not, it is the general public, with a general acceptance that one is hero, determines that one is a hero," he said.

Perez also quizzed petitioners on an argument they raised in their petitions that Marcos' burial at the Libingan is a campaign promise which Duterte now intends to fulfill. Perez asked petitioners if they did not consider Duterte's 16-million vote win a ratification of his position on the issue.

"Is that not a decision of the sovereign people themselves? And what the electorate voted in favor of we will now nullify? Can you not say that it was the electorate, the sovereign people, who favor the burial [at the Libingan]?" Perez said.

TORMENTOR, NOT HERO

Former lawmaker Satur Ocampo and his co-petitioners, meantime, reiterated the arguments they earlier raised in separate petitions.

Marcos was "far from being a hero," they said, as he oppressed Filipinos during Martial Law. This, they said, makes him "grossly unfit" to be buried at a cemetery for heroes.

"Marcos was not the protector of the Filipino people, he was their tormentor until the EDSA People Power revolution ousted him," Albay Representative Edcel Lagman said.

Atty. Ibarra Gutierrez III said that Duterte's discretion on Marcos' burial is "neither free nor absolute."

"The Solicitor General himself accepts the fact of limited discretion," said Gutierrez.

Colmenares said, "a dictator responsible for countless human rights violations does not deserve a place in the pantheon. The dishonored cannot join the honored; Marcos is not worthy of emulation and inspiration."

Atty. Reody Anthony Balisi stressed that Marcos and his cronies used public funds for personal uses. "The vast resources of the government had been amassed by Marcos and his cronies. All these facts—both historical and legislative—lead to the conclusion that President Marcos is not worthy of the emulation of the Filipino people," he said.

The state cannot provide military honors for Marcos, said Atty. Algamar Latiph, because "it is contrary to the policy of the state to restore honor to the victims of human rights violations during Martial Law."

Human rights victims during Martial Law and other concerned parties have filed petitions with the high court urging the setting aside of an order by Malacanang for Marcos to be buried at the Libingan ng mga Bayani, which is dedicated for war heroes, soldiers, former Philippine presidents, and National Artists.

Marcos is set to be buried at the Libingan ng mga Bayani on September 18. However, the SC issued a 20-day halt order on August 23 to allow for preparations for oral arguments on petitions against the burial.


MANILA BULLETIN

SC justices divided on Marcos burial at Libingan ng mga Bayani by Rey G. Panaligan September 1, 2016 Share1 Tweet3 Share0 Email1 Share77


FOR, AGAINST – Rallyists loyal to former President Ferdinand Marcos call for the late leader’s immediate burial at the Libingan ng mga Bayani in Taguig City (left photo), a stand that is vehemently opposed by activists, many of whom were victims of Martial Law. The two groups squared off on Padre Faura Street in Manila, in front of the Supreme Court which heard oral arguments Wednesday on the former strongman’s burial. (Ali Vicoy / Manila Bulletin)

Even Supreme Court (SC) justices have conflicting views on the decision of President Duterte to bury the remains of the late former President Ferdinand E. Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani (LNMB) in Taguig City.

Justice Teresita J. Leonardo de Castro said there is no system of evaluation to determine who are qualified to be buried at the LNMB.

In her interpellation of the petitioners in the six cases against the Marcos burial at LNMB, De Castro pointed out that most of the people interred at the LNMB were those with military connections.

She said that “even spouses of the secretaries of national defense are buried there.” Then she asked: “Are they heroes?”

Justice Jose Portugal Perez said “there is no established body or agency which can determine who is a hero or not… not the Supreme Court, the legislative, or the President.”

SENIOR JUSTICE CARPIO

But Senior Justice Antonio T. Carpio articulated directly against Marcos burial at the LNMB.

Carpio said Marcos does not deserve a hero’s burial because he was “dishonorably discharged” by the people in 1986.

“Marcos cannot be buried at the Libingan ng mga Bayani,” he said.

At the start of the oral arguments, the petitioners against the LNMB burial of Marcos reiterated their opposition as they cited the “cardinal sins” of the late former President that deny him of a hero’s burial.

One of the petitioners, Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman, even described Marcos as a “despot” and an “oppressor” during the martial law regime.

“A Marcos hero’s burial would glorify a dictator, distort history, aggravate the injustice to human rights violation victims and their families, and mock the heroism of desaparecidos and other victims of Marcos’ atrocities,” he said.

Through lawyer Barry Gutierrez, former human rights chairperson Etta Rosales told the SC that President Duterte is bound to recognize Marcos’ atrocities such as human rights violations.

Lawyer Ephraim Cortez, on the other hand, cited the adverse effects of the LNMB burial of Marcos to the victims of the late president’s dictatorship.

For Director Algamar Latiph of the Commission on Human Rights in the Autonomous Regions for Muslim Mindanao, the LNMB must be preserved as a “sacred burial ground.”

Former Bayan Muna Rep. Neri Colmenares said that President Duterte’s directive to bury Marcos at the LNMB is against the objective of Republic Act No. 289 which provides that only people worthy of emulation should be buried at the LNMB.

READ MORE...

Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales, who was invited by the SC as a resource person during the oral arguments, said Marcos’ burial at the LNMB would have no legal effect on the pending cases against the Marcos heirs.

“In light of the fact that only Imelda Romualdez Marcos is facing cases by the Office of the Ombudsman before the Sandiganbayan, I don’t think it has any bearing in the proposed burial of Former President [Marcos Sr.] in the Libingan ng mga Bayani,” Morales said.

“As I said, given the fact that the cases pending now filed by the Office of the Ombudsman relates only to Imelda Marcos, I don’t think that would have any bearing on the issue of whether or not the former President should be buried in the Libingan ng mga Bayani,” she stressed.

Meanwhile, a group of former political detainees and torture survivors said Marcos family members are acting like monarchs by demanding that the victims of Marcos move on, absolving them of the murders, torture, sexual abuses, and disappearances during 14 years of martial law.

“To ‘move on’ without justice is simply not possible for the thousands, even millions, of victims of the Marcos dictatorship. Instead, it is the Marcoses who should move on,” said Danilo dela Fuente, spokesperson of the Samahan ng mga Ex-detainees Laban sa Detensyon at Aresto (Selda), during the oral arguments at the SC.

Former political prisoners and torture survivors during martial law, including Dela Fuente and other personalities, were among the first batch of those who filed the petition.

“The Marcos family and their cronies could not move on from the fact that the Filipino people toppled the Marcos dictatorship due to its puppetry to the US, massive plunder of public funds, oppression of already impoverished Filipinos, and human rights abuses. The Marcos family could not move on from the fact that even the US Hawaii court found Marcos guilty of human rights abuses on 9,539 counts,” Dela Fuente said.

-------------------------

RELATED FROM THE INQUIRER

De Lima files 7th case vs Marcos’ ‘hero’ burial at SC SHARES: 1997 VIEW COMMENTS By: Vince F. Nonato @inquirerdotnet Philippine Daily Inquirer 09:06 PM August 30th, 2016

[SENATOR SAYS EVEN 'PRESIDENT HAS NO POWER TO REWRITE HISTORY']
[De Lima asked the high court not to subject her petition for oral arguments anymore.[


Senator Leila de Lima. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO/LYN RILLON

MANILA — Senator Leila M. de Lima has filed the seventh legal challenge against the plan to bury dictator Ferdinand E. Marcos at the Libingan ng Bayani, on the eve of the Supreme Court’s oral arguments on the divisive issue.

In her 38-page petition, De Lima said that “no President has the power to rewrite history.”

De Lima argued that interring Marcos’ remains at the heroes’ cemetery would go against the very spirit of the 1987 Constitution, as the charter was crafted precisely to prevent the abuses committed under his regime.

While his departure to Hawaii foreclosed any possibility of conviction over criminal acts, De Lima said that “the Filipino’s rejection of his leadership and the abuses committed by him and under his regime cannot be made clearer under the circumstances.”

“It is thus incumbent upon all of us–Senators, other government officials, and citizens of the Republic–to defend the Constitution against the greatest attack levied, not just against any particular provision thereof, but against its very existence and integrity,” the petition read.

De Lima said Armed Forces of the Philippines Regulations G 161-373 should be stricken down for being issued with grave abuse of discretion.


Former first lady Imelda Marcos kisses the glass case that contains the frozen remains of former dictator and president Ferdinand Marcos on July 2, 2014. AFP FILE PHOTO

She noted that the AFP rules provided “incomplete, whimsical and capricious standards” for qualifications and disqualifications for interment at LNMB.

The rules failed to abide by Republic Act No. 289’s provision that heroes worthy of “inspiration and emulation” by succeeding generations should be buried at the National Pantheon, she said.

De Lima added that the Department of National Defense’s memorandum for a state burial “smacks of contempt” for jurisprudence that recognized that Marcos amassed ill-gotten wealth.


A PROTESTER wearing a Marcos mask makes public his sentiments against the ex-President. Eloisa Lopez

“That Ferdinand E. Marcos was a crook and a thief is already the law of the case in Philippine jurisprudence,” the petition read.

“The DND Memorandum directing his burial in a state funeral with full military honors, including a 21-gun salute, not only spits at the judgment of this Honorable Court but on the judgment of history.”

De Lima asked the high court not to subject her petition for oral arguments anymore. SFM

VIDEO : Duterte: Millions of votes for Bongbong show Marcos trauma is gone.

 
https://youtu.be/ud_eQyxzbUM
Millions of votes for Bongbong show Marcos trauma is gone—Duterte INQUIRER.net INQUIRER.net Subscribe62,990 Add to Share More 9,206 views 89 6 Published on Aug 25, 2016 The millions of votes for defeated vice presidential candididate and former Senator Fedinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. could be an indication that there’s no longer trauma among Fillipinos during the martial law years, President Rodrigo Duterte said on Thursday. Read more: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/809766/m...


Chief News Editor: Sol Jose Vanzi

© Copyright, 2016 by PHILIPPINE HEADLINE NEWS ONLINE 
All rights reserved


PHILIPPINE HEADLINE NEWS ONLINE [PHNO] WEBSITE