Campaign Against the Return of the Marcoses and Martial Law
On the Collusion of the Marcoses and Dutertes
''The decision of the majority to deny the Petitions robs this generation and future generations of the ability to learn from our past mistakes. It will tell them that there are rewards for the abuse of power and that there is impunity for human rights violations. The decision of the majority implies that, learning from the past, our People should be silent and cower in fear of an oppressor. After all, as time passes, the authoritarian and the dictator will be rewarded.
Sooner rather than later, we will experience the same fear of a strongman who will dictate his view on the solutions of his favored social ills. Women will again be disrespected, molested, and then raped. People will die needlessly-perhaps summarily killed by the same law enforcers who are supposed to protect them and guarantee the rule of law. Perhaps, there will be people who will be tortured after they are shamed and stereotyped.
We forget the lessons of the past when we allow abuse to hold sway over the lives of those who seem to be unrelated to us. Silence, in the face of abuse, is complicity.
The burial of Ferdinand E. Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani is not an act of national healing. It cannot be an act of healing when petitioners, and all others who suffered, are not consulted and do not participate. Rather, it is an effort to forget our collective shame of having failed to act as a People as many suffered. It is to contribute to the impunity for human rights abuses and the plunder of our public trust.
The full guarantee of human rights is a fundamental primordial principle enshrined in the Constitution. It is not the antithesis of government.
To deny these Petitions is to participate in the effort to create myth at the expense of history.
Ferdinand E. Marcos' remains, by law, cannot be transferred to the Libingan ng mga Bayani. Ferdinand E. Marcos is not a 'bayani.'
Ferdinand E. Marcos is not a hero.''
Justice MVF Leonen, in his dissenting opinion on the Court's decision in G.R. No. 225973