The Society of Honor by Joe America

By Karl Garcia

---

---

I. The Problem of Responsibility Across Time

Modern societies periodically confront a difficult question: to what extent should responsibility for past wrongdoing extend across generations? This arises whenever contemporary figures are connected—by office, institution, or lineage—to historical crimes. Examples include calls for apologies related to colonial slavery, wartime atrocities, or authoritarian rule.

Such demands are rooted in real harms and unresolved injustices. Yet they expose a structural tension between legal accountability, which is personal and time-bound, and historical memory, which is collective and persistent. When accountability fails within the lifespan of perpetrators, responsibility risks shifting from deeds to associations—from actions to descendants.

---

II. Accountability and the Limits of Law

Functioning legal systems rely on individual responsibility: crimes are investigated, perpetrators are tried, and penalties are imposed on those proven guilty. Crucially, this framework depends on timeliness. When justice is delayed for decades, perpetrators may die, evidence deteriorates, and enforcement mechanisms weaken.

At this point, accountability often changes form. Legal processes give way to symbolic or institutional remedies—truth commissions, historical commissions, reparations programs, or asset recovery agencies. These mechanisms serve important functions, particularly in preserving historical record and acknowledging harm. But they are not substitutes for personal criminal accountability. When justice becomes symbolic, moral responsibility can become diffuse and imprecise.

---

III. Marcos and Martial Law: A Philippine Case Study

The Philippine experience under Ferdinand Marcos Sr. (1965–1986) exemplifies this problem. Martial Law (1972–1981) involved systematic human rights violations, suppression of democratic institutions, and large-scale corruption. These facts are well-documented by sources such as Amnesty International, the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines, and scholarly accounts.

After the 1986 People Power Revolution, the Philippine state attempted accountability through mechanisms like the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG). Significant assets were recovered, and victims of human rights abuses were legally recognized and compensated through legislation such as the Human Rights Victims’ Reparation and Recognition Act of 2013.

However, accountability remained partial and delayed. Many cases lingered for decades, some perpetrators died without facing trial, and enforcement of asset recovery was slow and uneven. As a result, legal responsibility did not fully accumulate while perpetrators were alive and prosecutable.

---

IV. The Consequence of Delayed Justice

When justice is delayed beyond the lifespan of perpetrators, unresolved responsibility does not vanish. Public anger, moral condemnation, and historical reckoning often attach themselves to associations, surnames, or descendants, rather than individual actions.

This dynamic explains why debates around the Marcos legacy persist. Ferdinand Marcos Jr. did not author Martial Law or commit its abuses, and attributing these actions to him directly would be factually incorrect. Yet his political rehabilitation occurs within a system that never completed a full and timely accounting of the dictatorship’s crimes.

The resulting tension is not about inherited guilt but inherited unresolved accountability.

---

IV-B. Efforts Made, but the Anchor Remains

It is important to acknowledge that Philippine institutions and civil society have repeatedly attempted to demand accountability. Legal mechanisms, such as the PCGG and human rights tribunals, were activated. Public opinion, civic activism, investigative journalism, and electoral processes also sought to penalize wrongdoing—through votes, campaigns, and petitions. These were not mere symbolic gestures; they were sincere, structural, and legal attempts to confront past abuses.

Yet somehow, a built-in albatross persists. Political dynasties, weak enforcement, protracted litigation, fragmented agencies, and loopholes in laws acted as structural anchors that slowed or diffused the impact of these efforts. Despite repeated interventions, justice often remained partial, delayed, or symbolic, allowing unresolved accountability to accumulate across generations.

This explains why even in societies that have tried hard, public frustration continues. The law, institutions, and civic engagement all strive for resolution—but without a complete, timely, and enforceable closure, the burden of historical wrongdoing subtly lingers, creating a shadow over both history and contemporary actors.

---

V. Memory Versus Punishment

Historical memory is essential. Denial or revisionism erodes democratic integrity and retraumatizes victims. Yet memory alone cannot perform the function of justice. When memory becomes a proxy for punishment, it risks arbitrariness and hereditary moral judgment.

The rule of law depends on distinguishing:

• Individual legal responsibility, and
• Collective memory and moral reckoning.

Conflating these categories weakens legal standards and shifts accountability from institutions to identities.

---

VI. Dynasties, Inheritance, and Systemic Failure

The persistence of political dynasties in the Philippines—including but not limited to the Marcos family—reflects institutional weaknesses rather than individual culpability. Courts, political parties, enforcement agencies, and electoral systems failed to impose cumulative consequences on wrongdoing. Over time, surnames became proxies for unresolved institutional failure.

Public frustration is understandable. But targeting descendants cannot substitute for structural reform. Punishing names while sparing systems produces moral expression without deterrence.

---

VII. Inheritance Without Punishment in Business and Politics

Not all descendants of powerful families directly benefit from wrongdoing, and many are far removed from the political or financial misdeeds of their forebears. In the Philippines, this includes heirs who inherit businesses, properties, or social status without having participated in corruption or human rights abuses.

Legal and ethical frameworks recognize this distinction. Civil and criminal law treat individuals separately from their ancestors: assets obtained illegally may be subject to recovery, but only to the extent that evidence links them to unlawful acts. Heirs who acquire wealth or positions through legitimate succession are not automatically guilty. Punishing them solely for their surname would violate fundamental principles of justice and property rights.

At the same time, society may hold these heirs to higher ethical expectations in public service or business governance. Transparency, responsible management, and avoidance of conflicts of interest are ways to mitigate the moral shadow cast by family history. The focus shifts from inherited guilt to inherited opportunity and responsibility—a framework that encourages accountability without arbitrary punishment.

---

VIII. Conclusion: What Justice Requires

The Marcos case illustrates a broader principle: inherited blame emerges most strongly where accountability was possible but incomplete. This is not a moral achievement but an institutional failure.

A serious democratic society must recognize that:

• Justice delayed does not transform into justice through symbolism.
• Institutions must act decisively, or responsibility will inevitably drift forward, distorting both justice and history.

At the same time, heirs or descendants who are legally and ethically separate from past wrongs should not bear inherited guilt. Instead, the lesson is that privilege, opportunity, and inherited power carry responsibility, not automatic punishment. Ensuring timely accountability and robust institutions protects both justice and fairness, preventing moral confusion from being passed along with family names.

---