This debate has to be assessed in totality, and in a nuanced perspective.

Negative side acknowledges that

Ferdinand Marcos, indeed, was an exceptional Ilocano, a bar topnotcher despite his detention, and a man who
spoke to the public without any manuscripts. These, however, unfortunately, are not the valid standards that will
automatically give him the privilege to be buried in the commemorative grounds of heroes who fought for the
nation and its people: the Libingan ng Mga Bayani.
The issue on Marcos burial should go beyond the issue of legality, its also an issue of propriety. Is it proper
then, to put a dictator who caused the killing, torture, disappearance and detention of almost a hundred
thousand of activists struggling for social change; who put the Philippines into a huge debt, just because he
built infrastructure projects? More than just the rhetoric that he deserves it because he was a solider or a
president, it should be noted the LMB is a commemorative and symbolic ground of heroism, and heroism
doesnt mean being a plunderer, and a dictator who will instantly kill political opponents.
While its an issue of propriety I will still rebut the legal argument that my opponent launched. Marcos
involvement in the Guerrilla warfare during the World War II is still a myth that it yet to be proven. While I
concede that Marcos built different infrastructure projects during his regime, it should not be taken into a
vacuum. It should be weighed with Marcos human rights violations, plunder cases and political abuses during
the Martial Law regime. Lastly, I would argue that Marcos burial would further become a divisive tactic, and will
not end historical judgment to the late dictator.
On Marcos being a guerilla fighter
In an article written in 1986, archived in the New York Times website entitled, Marcoss Wartime Role
Discredited in US Files, reports say that the US Army concluded that Marcoss leadership in a guerilla
resistance unit was fraudulent and absurd. In the archives of the Army, there was evidence proving that he led
the guerilla group named Maharlika in 1942-1944 during the Japanese Occupation. The US Government, in
1986 had the attempt to let Marcos speak about these findings (or the lack thereof) about his claims on his
involvement during the Guerilla Warfare, but he declined to respond. According to the Article, after the war,
Marcos tried to appeal for recognition of the Maharlika unit, but was denied because his claims were
distorted, exaggerated, fraudulent, contradictory and absurd.
While the contention of Marcoss wartime role is still unanswered, it cannot be used as a justification of his
burial at the Libingan ng Mga Bayani. Documents are needed, and the burden of proof still relies on the
Marcoses in order to credit this justification.
The Marcos Regime
Becoming a president does not automatically entail heroism. My opponent argues that in his presidency, he
built many infrastructure projects. Firstly, these infrastructure projects did not transcend economic benefits to
the people during that time. According to SWS, the highest recorded poverty rate in the Philippines is 74%,
which was reported in April 1983. According NSCB, poverty rate spiked highest at 44% in June 1985.
Secondly, these infrastructure projects were used as instruments to legitimize the rule. Gerard Lico, as cited by
one of my favorite History professors in UP Baguio, Mr. Mathew Luga writes, (the infrastructure projects are)
Massive loaned investments in buildings were to project to the international community an impressive myth of
overnight industrialization, rendering an illusion of fast-paced progress in the country., but resulting to:
Yes, he was never convicted of any crime, because he died before any criminal case against him could be
decided upon. Still, courts from Singapore, Switzerland and the United States already proved that the Marcos
family accumulated ill-gotten wealth. Even our own Supreme Court in a 2003 case already ruled that the family
has amassed illicit assets, saying that [t]he Marcoses had dollar deposits amounting to US $356 million
representing the balance of the Swiss accounts of the five foundations, an amount way, way beyond their
aggregate legitimate income of only US$304,372.43 during their incumbency as government officials.. Enough
evidence already proves Marcos to be a plundererin no less than four courts from different countries how
enough is enough to conclude that he is a plunderer and still allow him to be buried into the commemorative
grounds of our national heroes?
AFPR G 161 374 also provided that [t]he remains of the following shall not be interred in the Libingan ng mga
Bayani: a. Personnel who were dishonorably separated/reverted/discharged from the service. This was what

happened in 1986: Marcos was dishonorably separated/reverted/discharged from service by the people who
joined EDSA I. While it may be conceded that the post EDSA I situation is not the democratic haven we
envisioned after a dictatorial rule, it was a legitimate show of dissent, of unity of opposition against a tyrannical
rule in our history. It was a start of democratic transition, and a show of power of collective action to
separate/revert/discharge a dictator from his power.
In addition, Section I of Republic Act No. 289, provides for the construction of the LNMB to perpetuate the
memory of all the Presidents of the Philippines, national heroes and patriots for the inspiration and emulation of
this generation and of generation still unborn. I dont see someone who allowed his citizens to die because of
their opposition to him, someone who was proven to steal public funds for his own interest, and whose lineage
actively revisions and lacks remorse on the human rights violations that their rule committed.
On Justifying the Implementation of Martial Law
This is an unfounded excuse to defend him. Yes, the declaration of Martial Law was constitutional under the
constitution he furnished for himself, but nowhere in the 1935 Constitution, and even in Proclamation 1081
itself, is there a provision that grants authority to the AFP to torture suspected criminals. Even Article IV,
Section 20, of the 1973 Constitution expressly states that, [n]o force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other
means which vitiates the free will shall be used against [any person].
Secondly, Manuel Yan, the AFP Chief of Staff 1968-1972 said in an oral interview that Martial law was not
needed that time. He remarks,
Kakaunti lang ang conflict sa Mindanao noon. Hindi naman malala ang sitwasyon diyan sa New Peoples Army
na kayang sugpuin naman ng ating armed forces through small unit actions onlyTayo ay nagtatag ng units of
the Armed Forces against demonstrations. Tayo ay bumili ng anti-riot equipment to be able to quell this student
unrest peacefullyHindi Kailangan ng Martial Law.
Secondly, affirmative may argue that there was a growing communist threat in the country. This was true, but
Martial Law exacerbated it. According to sources, Marcos and martial law were NPAs biggest recruiter, where
numbers rose from 1,028 armed guerillas, to 22,000 after he fled away from Malacanang. NPAs believe that
change cannot come through election and electoral reform, especially the massive cheating incidence during
the 1969 and succeeding elections under his regime. How can you expect someone to believe in state
rhetoric? People radicalized because of his rule, and turned to armed struggle as a solution to overthrow the
system.
And If he really did what he was supposed to do, he should have ensured that the rights of all citizens,
including those accused of rebellion or insurrection, are protected according to the very constitution that he
crafted himself. Instead, he let the number of human rights violations to reach the thousands. Truth be told, he
did not do what needed to be done. At best this was an arbitrary move, but at worst, a move for his own
political gain- to suspend the elections and prolong his stay in power.
On the 2011 Joint Resolution
Yes, he was never convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. But the decided cases of ill-gotten wealth are
enough evidence to conclude that he is not worth a heros burial. Such court decisions here and abroad are
based on clear evidence and are merely not a form of political move.
To bury Marcos in the LMB is to distort the very sense of heroism founded upon our collective national past of
heroes who fought for liberation, not for the demise of our people. To give him a heros burial is to acknowledge
that someone can be a plunderer and a human rights violator and still be called a hero in the end. And allowing
this contradiction of propriety is too much of a cost just to reiterate our sense of humanity and respect for the
dead.
The national discourse regarding Martial law is already happening, and we do not need To bury Marcos at the
Libingan [just] to invite discussions on what the man really was, human as he is. The LNMB is a place to
commemorate heroes, not a space to debate about controversial people.
Yes, Marcos cannot defend himself, but more especially to those who died without fairness and justice during
Martial Law; who died and still questioning why they were tortured and killed by the regime. They, too cannot

rest peacefully, or at least their relatives who are still searching for justice, if we praise the man who turned a
blind eye to their deaths, and whose son lacks remorse on it.
Marcos deserves burial, yes. They can do it anytime, but a heros burial is improper. We are not monsters for
forbidding such act. Its an attempt, not as big as an act of justice to those who were killed, tortured and
disappeared during his regime. Its an act telling to our future that being a plunderer and a human rights
violator is not heroic even if you build hundreds of infrastructure projects that did not even benefit entirely the
whole population.
We judge a dead man by the legacy that he left. Marcos left a nation that has barely recovered from the
political, social and economic injustices of his regime. We do not need more blood nor hate. We just have to
refuse a dead man his heros burial because he does not deserve it.
Yes, history and historical judgment will always be divisive, and people will always choose a side of the fence.
But to move on, forget the other side and bury him at the LMNB just to break this divisiveness is injustice. No,
history is not written by the victors. The dialectic of the victor-defeated, oppressor-oppressed is too thin. History
is written by common people- of the contemporaneous, of the eyewitness. History is never propaganda; it is
grounded on historical reality. History is ours- of the nation who suffered under the Mans regime. Let us not
forget. We will never bury the man in the LNMB because clearly, he does not deserve it.

With the electoral win of President-Elect Rodrigo Duterte, the possibility of a Ferdinand Marcos Burial at the
Libingan ng mga Bayani (LMB) can be a reality. My stand on this issue is- No, Duterte should not allow the
Burial of the late president and dictator based on legal and moral grounds. I will argue that even if Duterte will
allow him to be buried as a soldier, not a hero, Marcos should still not be buried in LMB.
Republic Act 289, entitled, 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 governing the privilege of burial in the LMB.
It states that,
To perpetuate the memory of all the presidents of the Philippines, national heroes and patriots for the
inspiration and emulation of this generation and of generations still unborn, there shall be constructed a
National Pantheon which shall be the burial place of their mortal remains.
More than just a burial ground for the presidents, national heroes and patriots, the LMB was built as symbolic
ground to commemorate people who took part in the history of the nation, and contributed to nationhood. The
commemoration of these heroes is aimed to inspire future generations and to serve as role models of youth
and the unborn.
Given this premise, is the burial of Ferdinand Marcos justifiable as a means to inspire and emulate future
generations, and is the life of Ferdinand Marcos, regardless of him being a president or a soldier, something
that should be given the title of being a hero? The answer is no.
Firstly, Martial Law remains to be one of the darkest periods of recent history, with 70,000 people
imprisoned, 34,000 tortured and 3,240 killed, as per Amnesty International report. Many lives were lost, basic
freedoms were suspended, and democracy was at its lowest point. Martial Law victims are classified as
heroes under Republic Act no. 10368, which states that,
"it is hereby declared the policy of the State to recognize the heroism and sacrifices of all Filipinos who were
victims of summary execution, torture, enforced or involuntary disappearance and other gross human rights
violations committed during the regime of former President Ferdinand E. Marcos covering the period from
September 21, 1972 to February 25, 1986"

The burial of Ferdinand Marcos would therefore be an insult to the heroes of Martial Law, which in fact,
are already recognized by the law as heroes more than just victims, and is already trying to compensate their
families for the loss of their family members during the regime.
The likes of Judy Taguiwalo, who was raped, detained while pregnant, and subjected to different torture
devices will be forgotten. The Dictator who allowed the torture, killings, and disappearances of Jose Lacaba,
Carlos Centenera, Natham and Susan Quimpo, and other victims shall be vindicated because of this burial.
The burial would make Ferdinand Marcos a hero despite the political abuses that he committed
during his regime. Making the oppressor of the heroes of Martial Law a hero as well is a contradiction that we
cannot afford to propagate to the next generations.
Ferdinand Bongbong Marcos once said in an interview, Let us leave history to the professors, to those who
study the history of the Philippines. It is not our job. Our job is to look at what the people need at present.
Bongbongs statement is an attempt to forget, and to revise the realities of the past. History is not only confined
within the realm of the professor, of the student, and of the historian. History determines our collective identity
as a people and as a nation. Burying Marcos in the Libingan ng Mga Bayani would not be representative of our
collective identity as a nation- because we are a nation which fought a dictator, and a nation who learns from
our past.