ADVOCATING FOR PERMANENT BURIAL RIGHTS

ADVOCATING FOR PERMANENT BURIAL RIGHTS 

It seems that very few people paid attention to the issue of temporary burial rights in the Philippines—until the case of Barangka, Marikina exploded in the media. Like many others, I had assumed that burial rights in cemeteries were permanent, meaning that once you were laid to rest, you would stay there forever. 

But the Marikina case shocked us into realizing the truth: in public cemeteries, the use of burial lots is often subject to municipal ordinances. In other words, they are “for rent.” And if the “rental” is not renewed, the remains of the dead can be removed— “evicted,” to use a harsh but accurate word. 

I cannot help but feel sad whenever I think about this. The rich can “rest in peace” forever in their mausoleums and memorial parks. But the poor cannot even have security of tenure in their graves. If their relatives fail to pay, their bones may be dug up and displaced. Do you call that justice? 

Here we see inequality that extends even beyond life. Sad to say, in the Philippines, there is inequality even in death. 

So, what has happened? Have burial plots become like market stalls—rented for a time, and if unpaid, simply vacated? Shouldn’t there be a principle that burial plots are beyond the commerce of man? 

To be fair, I understand the dilemma of local governments. As populations grow, cemetery space runs out. But is that not part of their function—to plan for the needs of the future? Morbid as it may sound, people die every day, and their final resting places should be part of long-term urban planning. 

This is where I think LGUs must innovate. Instead of relying only on traditional burial grounds, they could offer the option of cremation and build public columbaria. Cremated remains take far less space, but the decision to cremate should be up to the relatives. Old bones from temporary graves could also be respectfully transferred into communal ossuaries, again with the consent of the relatives. These are solutions that balance dignity with practicality. 

But here is the bigger question: should we not legislate permanent burial rights nationwide? At present, local ordinances can dictate how long one can “rent” a grave, and practices differ from city to city. That opens the door to abuse. 

What we need is a national law that guarantees permanent interment in public cemeteries. Such a law should prohibit “grave rentals” and ensure that remains are undisturbed unless the family consents or if a court orders it otherwise. Unauthorized exhumations should be penalized. 

The Commission on Human Rights has already pointed out that disrespectful handling of remains may even violate human rights. After all, how can we claim to value human dignity if we cannot even respect the dead? 

Of course, the space issue remains. But building columbaria is one solution. Eco-burial zones, where remains are interred in biodegradable urns, could be another. LGUs could also designate burial grounds for indigent families, ensuring that no one is denied a dignified resting place simply because of poverty. 

This leads me back to the Marikina case. Has there been proper closure? Have the displaced families been given justice? Or will this issue fade away until another cemetery scandal shocks us again? 

We cannot allow this cycle to continue. The national government, through Congress, should act now. At the same time, LGUs should step up in planning for sustainable and dignified cemetery services. 

The dead should not be treated as a burden to be managed. They are reminders of our shared humanity. If we cannot provide justice and equality even in death, what does that say about the kind of society we are building? 

For me, the call is clear: let us advocate for permanent burial rights. 

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres 
iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com 

12-13-2025