AM+DG

Melchor Gaspar L. Baltazar

To fully understand the historical revisionism of the Marcos Burial

Case, I decided to first deconstruct history and revisionism. My second
agenda is to give meaning and understand fully historical revisionism as it is.
Third step for me is to digest the Ocampo versus Enriquez case to fully
comprehend the case at bar. Lastly, is to correlate historical revisionism to
the Marcos Burial Case.

History from the Greek word, historia, which means inquiry or

knowledge acquired by investigation is the study of the past as it is defined
in written documents. Events happening before written record are
studied prehistory. It is a sunshade term that conveys to past events as well
as the memory, discovery, collection, organization, presentation, and
interpretation of info about these events.

History can also denote to the academic discipline, which uses

a narrative to study and evaluate an arrangement of past events, and
accurately control the forms of cause and effect that define them. Historians
sometimes dispute the type of history and its worth by deliberating the study
of the discipline as expiration in itself and as a way of providing perspective
on the difficulties of the present.

Ancient influences have helped brood different understandings of the

nature of history, which have changed over time and continue to be modified
today. The current study of history is comprehensive, and incorporates the
study of definite regions and the study of certain current rudiments of
historical investigation.

The past is all that ever occurred to anybody and anyplace. There is
too much history to recollect all of it. We do make selections about what is
worth recollecting through significant events incorporating those that
stemmed from great transformation over long stages of time for huge
numbers of people. Significance dangles upon one’s viewpoint and
resolution. A historical person or event can obtain significance if the
historians can connect it to a larger inclination and stories that divulge
something significant for us today.

The word revisionism is used to discuss to different philosophies,

principles and concepts that are founded on a substantial revision of vital
Marxist ideas. Revisionism often carries uncomplimentary implications and
many different groups have used the term.

The term historical revisionism distinguishes the re-interpretation of

the historical record. It typically relates to stimulating the
conformist interpretations believed by scholars about a historical event, or
presenting new verification, or of reaffirming the inspirations and choices of
the member people. The revision of the historical record replicates the new
findings of fact, evidence, and interpretation, which construct an amended
history. Historical revisionism is an exercise in historiography in which
a historian construes old-fashioned views of causes and effects, decisions,
and evidence. It is an acknowledged and significant part of historical venture
for it attends to two purposes of continually re-examining the past while also
refining our understanding of it. Historical revisionism is beneficial when
through research, new historical data and evidence appears, the existing
theories and conclusions must to be reconsidered to confirm their legitimacy.
Also, when cultural changes make it probable to scrutinize historical events
with a new assessment. Historical revisionism permits past happenings to be
examined in an impartial and non-biased method. With the assistance of
reliable documents, established facts, and other supportive pieces of
verification, they are able to analytically inspect historical theories.
In the case of Ocampo versus Enriquez, G.R. No. 225973, November
8, 2016, while campaigning for the 2016 Presidential Elections, candidate
Rodrigo R. Duterte said that he would alas allow the burial of Former
President Ferdinand E. Marcos to the Libingan ng mga Bayani. After
Duterte won as President, Marcos was buried in the Libingan ng mga Bayani
with the help of then Defense Secretary Delfin N. Lorenzana and the Armed
Forces of the Philippines in a very low-key and secretive procession. Due to
large uproar and disagreement with what happened, petitioners of this case
filed the appropriate case. Now, there are several issues and questions that
arose from this event but for me, there are several that stands out. First is if
the process on how Ferdinand Marcos was buried in the Libingan ng mga
Bayani violated the Constitution, to be specific, violated any procedural law.
Lastly, if the Human Rights abuses done by Ferdinand Marcos and his
family puts any weight to him being buried there. Regarding the procedure
on how Marcos was buried there, the Supreme Court said that it is within the
powers of President Duterte to have Marcos buried there as defined in the
Constitution and the Administrative Code of 1987. For me though, I find
fault with the petitioners in this case because after the Supreme Court
allowed the burial and the decision achieved finality, the petitioners did not
file any Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) which after ten days, Marcos
was consequently buried in the Libingan ng mga Bayani. Lastly,
qualifications wise, Marcos is qualified to be buried in the Libingan ng mga
Bayani but offhand I would say that he should be disqualified on the basis of
the fact that he became a dictator and committed human rights abuses
against his political enemies. But I am not a historian, and there are certainly
a lot of Filipinos who seem to think that he did more good than harm during
his reign. So it's tough to take a firm stance on it without making it a black
and white issue.
Now, to correlate historical revisionism to the Marcos Burial Case.
Historical revision is definitely happening now regarding Marcos. And it's
really only because Duterte supporters have associated everything anti-
Liberal/Aquino as pro-Duterte. They want to discredit everything that the
Aquino’s did and that includes the painting of Marcos as the villain. Before
Duterte came to power, it was firm for most Filipinos that Marcos should not
be buried in the Libingan ng mga Bayani but due to the change in regime,
tides also changed. The light in Marcos as a national hero was being shown
and his Human Rights abuses were being put to shade.
To conclude everything, it is black and white. Either you are for it or
against it. Either way, history will remain as it is but the present and future
will continue to change until it is all set and done. This is just how things
are, either we accept it and move along with it or we remain stagnant.
Important is that despite all of these things; we should never sacrifice our
beliefs and what we know as right and wrong.

https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-history-collection-of-definitions-
171282
http://www.historydiscussion.net/history/what-are-the-important-definitions-
of-history-answered/636
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v15/v15n3p35_Rothbard.html
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/american/national-socialist-white-peoples-
party/nswpp-on-revisionism-01.html
http://www.reformed.org/misc/HistoricalRevisionism.pdf
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2016novemberdecisions.php?id=930