FOR THE GREAT Ferdinand E. Marcos to finally find rest, his remains should have been interred in an appropriate site in Ilocandia in the loving embrace of his kailiyan.

Much will be said about the stealth (sounds like “steal”) with which his body was lowered last Friday into a grave in the Libingan ng mga Bayani, hallowed grounds reserved for Filipino heroes or those who had demonstrated heroism in life.

Only history, not a Supreme Court, will render the final judgment on whether Marcos was a hero or not — but his family and his fragile remains, taken out of a refrigerated glass box in Batac, Ilocos Norte, cannot wait that long.

When then President Fidel V. Ramos allowed in 1989 the bringing home of the body of his deceased cousin – an eerie sort of returning to the scene of the crime – one of his conditions was for a quick burial in the Ilocos.

However, Marcos was buried only last Friday – 23 years after his body arrived in Laoag City from Hawaii via Guam — not in his native Ilocos Norte but at the Libingan in Taguig City.

The family followed home the patriarch, with much of their wealth and influence intact. Then came along President Rodrigo Duterte, a Marcos-admirer waving a banner of Change that saw a switching of burial site.

Duterte, who knew the plan to bury Marcos in his absence (contrary to Malacañang’s feigned ignorance), explained that he just did not want to hurt the feelings of Ilocanos. If so, Ilocos Norte would have been the ideal site.

But as Jose Rizal the authentic hero wrote 120 years ago: “El sitio nada importa.” Amen to that!

• Only SWS gave that ‘excellent’ rating

IT WAS not the people themselves but only the Social Weather Stations that gave the administration’s anti-narcotics campaign an “excellent” rating based on a two-month-old survey conducted during the 100-day honeymoon of the Duterte regime.

The 1,200 respondents merely gave the anti-drugs war a net rating of 78 percent, which the SWS translated to “excellent.” The same respondents gave the administration a 66 percent net satisfaction rating, and the SWS said that meant “very good.”

We are quite worried that broadcasting an “excellent” rating for the anti-narcotics war based on a supposed nationwide poll might give the world the misimpression that Filipinos are cheering the summary execution of suspected drug dealers and users.

It would have been honest if only the percentages were reported and the public was left to decide if the numbers meant “excellent,” “very good,” “fair,” or whatever. An “excellent” to the SWS may just be “good” to the random person, but the number 78 is 78 to most everyone.

On other concerns, the SWS — not the respondents — gave a “good” grade to the administration’s curbing inflation or price increases (33 percent), ensuring that no family goes hungry (37 percent), providing efficient transportation (39 percent), and opening more jobs (46 percent).

Regarding employment, did SWS interviewers bother during their Sept. 24-27 fieldwork to ask respondents if they were employed at the time, if they got the jobs during the Duterte administration, and if they were satisfied with their jobs?

On the anti-narcotics campaign that has piled up some 4,000 cadavers of suspects, the interviewees should have been asked if any household member, relative, or friend was among those killed. Their responses would qualify their answers.

• SWS poll catches up with APEC meet

SINCE significant supervening events have overtaken the SWS survey of last September, the polling firm should have conducted fresh field work instead of dusting off the old data.

Was the “excellent” rating rushed for the APEC leaders’ summit in Peru? Manila’s rising “rock star” of world politics makes no secret of his wanting to crash into the circle of the leaders of China and Russia and, together, arrange a “new world order.”

Duterte has made the necessary noises against the United States to pass the preliminary scrutiny of Beijing (which is still watching for signs of fickleness). Also, before taking off for Peru, the President seconded a move of Putin to sign off from the International Criminal Court.

Resenting ICC comments on alleged extrajudicial killings and human rights violations in his drug drive, Duterte criticized the court as being “useless” and biased against small nations like the Philippines.

Based on his flip-flop record, however, Duterte may just change his mind about following Putin out of ICC. Still fresh in the public mind is his somersault on the Paris Agreement on Climate Change that he had denounced but which, as of this writing, he said he would approve.

Russia signed the Rome Statutes that set up ICC in 2002, but did not ratify the document – unlike the Philippines, which signed and ratified it. This makes it difficult, if not impossible, for the Chief Executive to abrogate the pact without Senate concurrence.

The ICC has jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes committed on its territory, or by its nationals, since Nov. 1, 2011, when the Statute entered into force in the Philippines. The crimes covered do not prescribe.

ICC Chief Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda has set conditions for her accepting Manila’s invitation to come over and investigate the human rights situation. Among her requirements are assurances of access and the security of her team and witnesses. Duterte also has conditions, mainly his being able to cross-examine the prosecutor.

The spectacle of President Duterte, formerly a state prosecutor (aka fiscal) tangling with the ICC chief prosecutor would beat any blockbuster match that promoter Bob Arum could put together.