The list of elected and appointed officials included those who served under Marcos and those who opposed him. Apparently, the public judged them according to their individual merits, real or imagined, and not on their past affiliation.

But politicians, being politicians, brought up the pro-Marcos, anti-Marcos theme in their campaigns. Some sections of media echoed it. Still, the people voted as they wished, whenever their votes were counted.

Apparently, the wounds the President alluded to were only kept open by those who got political and other kinds of mileage from them. Among them are the rabid pursuers of ill-gotten wealth, who, until now, continue to make normal living difficult for those who are regarded, rightly or wrongly, falsely or truly, as cronies and beneficiaries of the Marcos era.

Ironically, it’s not the big fish who have a difficult time of it, but the small and insignificant, who still have to get official permission to travel to go about their legitimate business.

The greater irony is that recovering loot takes precedence over justice to the victims of human rights violations. The millions of dollars won by these victims have been allocated to agrarian reform program despite budget provisions for it. That’s what most partisans mean when they speak of retribution.

In their minds, the Marcos period won’t go away for as long as there is no restitution and retribution even when a lot of looting had occurred since 1986. By saying that nothing could match the so-called kleptocracy, all the succeeding ones could be safely passed over, albeit with gestures like anti-graft commissions and agencies.

For this reason, the President could probably be more precise about what she means by just closure. The justice commissions of liberated countries brought to justice only the more ruthless violators of human rights. In the healing process, they didn’t talk about recovering money but about restoring human dignity.