The Supreme Court’s decision about whether President Marcos’s burial should proceed revived the classic debate between law and morality— whether society’s moral principles should be read into what the law says whenever the highest court of the land is called upon to interpret the law. Under our judicial system, decisions of the Supreme Court form part of the “law of the land,” that is to say, it becomes part of the larger legal system accorded with all the binding virtue found in any other law or regulation. It becomes “enforceable” much like any other rule in the statute books. The Court’s decision to allow Marcos’s burial also uncovered current understandings – “idiosyncracies” if you will – held by the incumbent Justices of the Philippine Supreme Court. Knowing this, of course, will be of pragmatic value to many lawyers with cases pending before the Court, but the greater jurisprudential, longer term question would be whether Philippine judges ought to hew more closely to a belief that law is but a sovereign command devoid of morals and a moral history, or to a belief whether law is really a manifestation of a deeper, moral code shared by a people willing to be governed by it.