R. L. A. Pangalangan, G. Fernandez, Ruby Rosselle L. Tugade
{"title":"Marcosian Atrocities: Historical Revisionism and the Legal Constraints on Forgetting","authors":"R. L. A. Pangalangan, G. Fernandez, Ruby Rosselle L. Tugade","doi":"10.1163/15718158-01902003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Philippines resoundingly cried ‘never again’ to the horrors of the Marcos dictatorship through the People Power revolution of 1986. Thirty years later, the Filipino people have come to realise that success is indeed fleeting. On 18 November 2016, the remains of Philippine dictator Ferdinand E. Marcos were buried in the Libingan ng mga Bayani—the Heroes’ Cemetery. While the Philippine Supreme Court insists that the hero’s burial conferred to the author of the nation’s darkest chapter is a political question, from established doctrines here and abroad, the authors seek to derive the political answer. This article will look at the legitimacy of memory laws within the Philippine Constitutional framework. Finding guidance from the Auschiwtz lie case of the German Constitutional Court, the article seeks to combat historical revisionism and prohibit the Marcosian lie. Our research begins by looking at the resurgence of authoritarianism as seen through the populist presidency of Rodrigo Roa Duterte. We will then proceed to address the threshold issue of state-sanctioned narratives. Recognising that the duty to establish the truth involves the power to determine the narrative, the authors will reconcile the conflicting demands of the freedom of thought and the right to the truth. We will then proceed by utilising the fact-opinion distinction to demonstrate how the Marcosian lie may be the valid subject of regulation. The last phase of the research looks into the approaches adopted by the United Nations (un) Human Rights Committee and the European Court of Human Rights in dealing with negationism and historical revisionism.","PeriodicalId":35216,"journal":{"name":"Asia-Pacific Journal on Human Rights and the Law","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/15718158-01902003","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asia-Pacific Journal on Human Rights and the Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718158-01902003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The Philippines resoundingly cried ‘never again’ to the horrors of the Marcos dictatorship through the People Power revolution of 1986. Thirty years later, the Filipino people have come to realise that success is indeed fleeting. On 18 November 2016, the remains of Philippine dictator Ferdinand E. Marcos were buried in the Libingan ng mga Bayani—the Heroes’ Cemetery. While the Philippine Supreme Court insists that the hero’s burial conferred to the author of the nation’s darkest chapter is a political question, from established doctrines here and abroad, the authors seek to derive the political answer. This article will look at the legitimacy of memory laws within the Philippine Constitutional framework. Finding guidance from the Auschiwtz lie case of the German Constitutional Court, the article seeks to combat historical revisionism and prohibit the Marcosian lie. Our research begins by looking at the resurgence of authoritarianism as seen through the populist presidency of Rodrigo Roa Duterte. We will then proceed to address the threshold issue of state-sanctioned narratives. Recognising that the duty to establish the truth involves the power to determine the narrative, the authors will reconcile the conflicting demands of the freedom of thought and the right to the truth. We will then proceed by utilising the fact-opinion distinction to demonstrate how the Marcosian lie may be the valid subject of regulation. The last phase of the research looks into the approaches adopted by the United Nations (un) Human Rights Committee and the European Court of Human Rights in dealing with negationism and historical revisionism.
菲律宾通过1986年的人民力量革命(People Power revolution)向马科斯独裁统治的恐怖呐喊“永不再来”。三十年后,菲律宾人民开始意识到,成功确实是短暂的。2016年11月18日,菲律宾独裁者费迪南德·e·马科斯的遗体被安葬在利比亚英雄公墓。尽管菲律宾最高法院坚持认为,将这位英雄的葬礼授予这个国家最黑暗篇章的作者是一个政治问题,但作者们试图从国内外的既定教义中得出政治答案。本文将探讨记忆法在菲律宾宪法框架内的合法性。文章以德国宪法法院奥斯维辛集中营谎言案为指导,试图反对历史修正主义,禁止马克思主义谎言。我们的研究首先从罗德里戈·罗阿·杜特尔特(Rodrigo Roa Duterte)的民粹主义总统任期来看威权主义的复苏。然后,我们将继续讨论国家认可的叙事的门槛问题。作者认识到,确立真相的责任包括决定叙事的权力,他们将调和思想自由和了解真相的权利这两种相互冲突的要求。然后,我们将利用事实-意见的区别来证明马尔科斯谎言如何可能是有效的监管主体。研究的最后阶段探讨了联合国人权事务委员会和欧洲人权法院在处理否定主义和历史修正主义方面所采取的方法。
期刊介绍:
The Asia-Pacific Journal on Human Rights and the Law is the world’s only law journal offering scholars a forum in which to present comparative, international and national research dealing specifically with issues of law and human rights in the Asia-Pacific region. Neither a lobby group nor tied to any particular ideology, the Asia-Pacific Journal on Human Rights and the Law is a scientific journal dedicated to responding to the need for a periodical publication dealing with the legal challenges of human rights issues in one of the world’s most diverse and dynamic regions.