In law, as much as in life, there is need to find closure.

Issues that have lingered

and festered for so long and which unnecessarily divided the people and slow the path
to the future1

Marcos burial was one of the mainstreamed issues since the President assumed his
office.

Then, I am more of a passive expectator for which I do not agree nor disagree
with the issue of the burial. I refrain from giving my side for which I know I will be
scrutinized. However, that was before. That was when I have not yet read the decision
of the Supreme Court regarding the issues presented before them. I found that the
ponencia was well written and presented in a manner that an average person like me
could conceive untroubled. I could not agree more on how the opinion were laid down
and supported with legal bases, especially on the political question issue. They cited
Marcos v. Manglapus, Taada v. Angara and Biraogo v. The Philippine Truth
Commission among others that I think would suffice their argument that the Memo
issued to the AFP was of a question purely of the wisdom of the President thus beyond
the province of the judiciary.

However, notwithstanding these legal bases that Justice Peralta had raised, I
believe that the majority had failed to touch the locus standi of the petitioners. Moreover,
I do not agree that the interment of Marcos do not interpose threat to the economic,
political and national life2. Furthermore, the Supreme Court negated the argument of the
petitioners that such is not tantamount to a heroes burial.

1 Satur Ocampo v. Ernesto Enriquez, GR No. 225973, November 8, 2016

2 Ibid.