You are on page 1of 6

Legal Technique & Logic OBE Activity:

CLOSING ARGUMENTS AND/OR STORYTELLING


SPEECH

Case: SATURNINO C. OCAMPO, et al. vs.


REAR ADMIRAL ERNESTO C. ENRIQUEZ, et al.,
G.R. NO. 225973, NOV. 8,2016

LLV LAW FIRM (for petitioners)


LORA, JUDE LISANDRO A. (Lead Counsel)
LLUZ, LOURLETH C.
VILLANOBOS, ZARAH T.

Opposing Team: Just Do It Law Firm (for respondents)

January 18, 2017

CASE BRIEF
SATURNINO C. OCAMPO, et al. vs. REAR ADMIRAL ERNESTO
C. ENRIQUEZ, et al., G.R. NO. 225973, NOV. 8,2016
FACTS:

On August 7, 2016, Secretary of National Defense Delfin N. Lorenzana


issued a memorandum to the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines (AFP), General Ricardo R. Visaya, regarding the interment of
former President Ferdinand E. Marcos at the Libingan ng Mga Bayani
(LNMB), in compliance with the verbal order of President Duterte to fulfill
his election campaign promise to that effect.
On August 9, 2016, AFP Rear Admiral Ernesto C. Enriquez issued the
corresponding directives to the Philippine Army Commanding General.
Dissatisfied with the foregoing issuance, various parties filed several
petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, essentially arguing
that the decision to have the remains of former President Marcos interred
at the LNMB violated various laws; that Marcos is not entitled to be
interred at the LNMB; and that the Marcos family has already waived such
burial.
- Saturnino Ocampo, et. al., in their capacity as human rights
advocates and human rights violations victims
- Rene Saguisag and his son, as members of the Bar and human
rights lawyers
- Edcel Lagman, as member of Congress
- Loretta Pargas-Rosales, former Chairperson of CHr, as victims of
State-sanctioned human rights violations during martial law
- Heherson Alvarez, former Senator, as concerned citizens and
taxpayers
- Zaira Baniaga, as concerned citizens and taxpayers
- Algamar Latiph, former chairperson of regional human rights
commission ARMM, on behalf of Moros who are victims during
martial law
- Leila De Lima, as Senator

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not (WON) the issuance of the assailed memorandum and
directive violate the Constitution, domestic and international laws
2. WON the Sec. of National Defense and AFP rear admiral committed
grave abuse of discretion when they issued the memorandum and
directive in compliance with the verbal order of Pres. Duterte to
implement his election campaign promise of Marcos interment in LNMB
3. WON historical facts, laws enacted to recover ill-gotten wealth from the
Marcoses and their cronies, and the decisions of the Court on the
Marcos regime nullified his entitlement as a soldier and former
President to internment at the LNMB

4. WON the Marcos family waived the burial of former President Marcos at
the LNMB by virtue of their agreement with the Government of the
Republic of the Philippines as regards the return and internment of his
remains in the Philippines
SC RULING:
Issue No. 1
NO, the assailed memorandum and directive, being the Presidents
decision, to bury Marcos at the LNMB is in accordance with the Constitution,
domestic and international laws.
Laws and Constitutional provisions cited by petitioner:
Art. II: Sec. 2, 11, 13, 23, 26, 27, and 28 not self-executory
Art. VII: Sec. 17 Faithful execution clause, it is consistent with President
Dutertes mandate, the burial does not contravene RA 289, RA 10368, and
the international human rights laws cited by petitioner
Art. XIV: Sec. 3(2) reliance in this provision is misplaced it refers to duty of
educ institutions to teach values of nationalism and patriotism and respect
for human rights
Art. XI: Sec. 1 not self-executory but RA 6713 (Code of Conduct and
Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees), RA 7080 (Penalizing
Plunder), RA 9485 (Anti-red Tape Act) was enacted pursuant to this
Art. XVIII: Sec. 26 transitory provision and freeze order to recover ill-gotten
wealth
RA 289 authorized the construction of a National Pantheon as a burial place
for Presidents, National Heroes, and Patriots for the perpetuation of the
memory and for the inspiration and emulation of this generation and of
generations still unborn.
Petitioners failed to provide legal and historical bases that LNMB and
National Pantheon is one and the same. LNMB is distinct from the burial
place envisioned in rA 289. The National Pantheon does not exist at present.
Also to apply the standard that LNMB is reserved only for the decent and
brave or hero, it will put into question all the mortal remains therein. The
name of LNMB is a misnomer, interment of Marcos remain does not confer
upon him the status of a hero.
RA 10368 (compensation for Human rights violations victims during
Marcos regime) recognizes the human rights violations committed and gives
them reparation. However, the court cannot subscribe to petitioners logic
that the reparation includes the prohibition of Marcos interment when it is
not provided. It is undue to extend the law beyond what it contemplates.
Legislators could have easily inserted a provision prohibiting Marcos
internment as reparation but they did not. The law is silent and should
remain to be so. We cannot read into law what is simply not there. That
would be tantamount to judicial legislation.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights these are principles
that call for an enactment of legislative measures. The PH is compliant with

its international obligations evident by the various RAs, exec issuances, and
even in the Constitution
Our nations history will not be instantly revised by a single resolve of
President Duterte to bury Marcos at the LNMB. Whether petitioners admit it
or not, the lessons of Martial Law are already engraved, albeit in varying
degrees, in the hearts and minds of the present generation of Filipinos.

Issue No. 2
The Presidents decision to bury Marcos at the LNMB is not done
whimsically, capriciously or arbitrarily, out of malice, ill will or personal bias.
Presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty prevails over the
petitioners allegation of Dutertes utang na loob or bayad utang to the
Marcoses. Petitioners should establish such claims but failed to do so. Then
again, the court is not a trier of facts.

Issue No. 3
National Shrines are governed by NHCP, military shrines are not. They are
governed by PVAO of DND. LNMB is a military shrine.
Magsaysay issued EO 77 orders remains of war dead interred at Bataan to
be reinterred in McKinley to minimize expenses and accessibility to widows.
Magsaysay issued Proc. 86 changing the name to LNMB
Garcia issued Proc. 423, Marcos issued Proc and General Orders, Cory issued
EOs too. The point is the PVAO manages military shrines which is under DND
which is under the Office of the President.
AFP Regulations G 161-375 who may be interred
a.) Medal of Valor awardee
b.) Presidents or Commander-in-Chief, AFP
c.) Sec. of National Defense
d.) Chief of Staff, AFP
e.) General/Flag Officers, AFP
f.) Active and retired military personnel
g.) Gov dignitaries, statesman,national artists and others as long as
approved by the C-i-C, Congress or Sec. of National defense
h.) Widows of former presidents
Petitioners did not dispute that Marcos was a former President and C-i-C,
legislator, Sec. of National Defense, veteran, medal of valor awardee.
Marcos does not have any disqualification. He was not convicted of moral
turpitude nor dishonourably discharged.

Marcos rendered significant active military service and military-related


activities.
THOSE WHO Are NOT QUALIFIED:
a.) Personnel who are dishonorably discharged
b.) Convicted of final judgment of an offense involving moral turpitude
Moral Turpitude conduct that is contrary to community standards of justice,
honesty, or good morals.

Issue No. 4
The presidential power of control over the Executive Branch of
Government is a self-executing provision of the Constitution nor its exercise
be limted by legislature. As the incumbent President, Duterte is not bound by
the 1992 Agreement between ramos and the Marcos family to have the
remains of Marcos interred in Ilocos Norte, he is free to amend, revoke or
rescind political agreements entered into by his predecessors, and to
determine policies which he considers, based on informed judgment and
presumed wisdom, will be most effective in carrying out his mandate.

In sum, there is no clear constitutional or legal basis to hold that there


was grave abuse of discretion which would justify the Court to interpose its
authority to check and override an act entrusted to the judgment of another
branch. The President through respondents acted within the bounds of law
and jurisprudence. The Court must uphold what is legal and just and that is
not to deny Marcos of his rightful place in LNMB.

In sum, there is no clear constitutional or legal basis to hold that there


was grave abuse of discretion which would justify the Court to interpose its
authority to check and override an act entrusted to the judgment of another
branch. The President through respondents acted within the bounds of law
and jurisprudence. The Court must uphold what is legal and just and that is
not to deny Marcos of his rightful place in LNMB.

CLOSING ARGUMENTS