You are on page 1of 6

SATURNINO C. OCAMPO, et al. vs. vs. REAR ADMIRAL ERNESTO C.

ENRIQUEZ
(IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR RESERVIST AND
RETIREE AFFAIRS, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES), et al.
G.R. No. 225973; November 8, 2016
Peralta, J.

FACTS:
In 2016, respondent Delfin Lorenzana (DND Secretary) issued Memorandum Re:
Interment of the late Former President Ferdinand Marcos at LNMB to the
respondent General Ricardo Visaya (AFP Chief). The memorandum was in compliance
to the verbal order of President Duterte to implement his election campaign promise to
have the remains of the Marcos be interred at the LNMB. Respondent Ernesto Enriquez
(AFP Rear Admiral) issued directives to the Philippine Army (PA) Commanding General
to implement the plan for the interment activity. The petitioners, all dissatisfied with the
foregoing issuance, filed their respective petitions for certiorari, prohibition and
mandamus (Rule 65), in their capacities as citizens, human rights violations victims,
legislators, members of the Bar and taxpayers.

ISSUES:

Procedural

1. Is President Duterte's determination to have the remains of Marcos interred at the
LNMB poses a justiciable controversy? NO, it involves a POLITICAL QUESTION-
question of policy based on his wisdom that it shall promote national healing and
forgiveness.

2. Does the petitioners have locus standi to file the instant petitions? NO LEGAL
STANDING because they failed to show that they have suffered or will suffer direct
and personal injury as a result of the interment of Marcos at the LNMB.

3. Did the petitioners violated the doctrines of exhaustion of administrative remedies and
hierarchy of courts? YES, both doctrines were violated.

Substantive

1. Did the respondents DND Secretary and AFP Rear Admiral committed grave abuse of
discretion when they issued the memorandum and directive in compliance with the
verbal order of President Duterte to implement his election campaign promise to have
the remains of Marcos interred at the LNMB? NO GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION.
(a) The President's decision to bury Marcos at the LNMB is in accordance with the
Constitution, the law or jurisprudence.
(b) The President's decision to bury Marcos at the LNMB is not done whimsically,
capriciously or arbitrarily, out of malice, ill will or personal bias.

2. Did the issuance and implementation of the assailed memorandum and directive
violate the Constitution, domestic and international laws -

(a) Sections 2, 11, 13, 23, 26, 27 and 28 of Article II, Section 1 of Article III, Section 17 of
Article 7, Section 1 of Article 11, Section 3(2) of Article 14, and Section 26 of Article 18
of the 1987 Constitution - NOT VIOLATED because the provisions are NOT self-

(2) the person challenging the act must have the standing to question the validity of the subject act or issuance. President Duterte's decision on that political question is outside the ambit of judicial review.NOT VIOLATED. (e) International Human Rights Laws . No. 289 .NOT VIOLATED because National Pantheon different from LNMB. Petitioners merely claim illegal disbursement of public funds. of overreaching significance to society. and (4) the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case. the President decided a question of policy based on his wisdom that it shall promote national healing and forgiveness. PH have been more compliant with human rights obligations.NOT VIOLATED. is inadequate to clothe them with requisite legal standing. In the exercise of his powers under the Constitution and the EO No. (3) the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity. Procedural Grounds 1. There being no taint of grave abuse in the exercise of such discretion. no provision prohibiting the interment of Marcos at LNMB. Does the petitioners have locus standi to file the instant petitions? NO LEGAL STANDING. without showing that Marcos is disqualified to be interred at the LNMB by either express or implied provision of the Constitution. (b) R. the first two requisites for judicial inquiry are absent: (1) there must be an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power. such that their duty to uphold the rule of law. 2000 . as an institution. the laws or jurisprudence. which is a land of the public domain devoted for national military cemetery and military shrine purposes.A. or of paramount public interest.executing.A. Petitioners failed to demonstrate that a clear and imminent threat to their fundamental constitutional rights would result because the interment of Marcos at a cemetery originally established as a national military cemetery and declared a national shrine would have no profound effect on the political. misplaced reliance thereon.Taxpayers have been allowed to sue where there is a claim that public funds are illegally disbursed or that public money is being deflected to any improper purpose. (C) AS CONCERNED CITIZENS – Concerned citizens must substantiate that the issues raised are of transcendental importance. 10368 . (A) AS TAXPAYERS . it involves a political question. (d) AFP Regulation G 161-375 dated September 11. Is President Duterte's determination to have the remains of Marcos interred at the LNMB poses a justiciable controversy? NO. No. Faithful Execution Clause. or that public funds are wasted through the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law. or its members may suffer as a consequence of the act complained of. and other aspects of our national life considering that more than 27 years since his . In this case.NOT VIOLATED. (B) AS MEMBERS OF THE BAR – Members of the bar are required to allege any direct or potential injury which the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987) to allow the interment of Marcos at the LNMB. without more. economic. (c) R. The petitioners failed to disclose such injury. 2. and that their interest in this case is too general and shared by other groups.

The history of the LNMB reveals its nature and purpose as a national military cemetery and national shrine. they could appeal before the Office of the President. but can also resolve questions of law in the exercise of its original and concurrent jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari. national heroes and patriots. Petitioners did not specifically claim that the official actions complained of such as the memorandum and the directive.The RTC is not just a trier of facts. the instances of grave abuse of discretion are absent: (a) when an act is done contrary to the Constitution. In this case. the law or jurisprudence. Section 17 . THE LAW OR JURISPRUDENCE – 2. (B) VIOLATION OF HIERARCHY OF COURTS . the law or jurisprudence. Section 1 of Article 3. 3. Did the issuance and implementation of the assailed memorandum and directive violate the Constitution. (D) AS HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS VICTIMS DURING THE MARTIAL LAW . 27 and 28 of Article 2. Petitioners failed to prove the presence of exceptional grounds that will allow direct resort to the SC through petitions under Rule 65. ill will or personal bias. or (b) when an act is executed whimsically. encroach on their prerogatives as legislators. and has the power to issue restraining order and injunction when proven necessary. (A) VIOLATION OF EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES . both doctrines were violated.death and 30 years after his ouster have already passed. under the administration of the AFP.Under the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. THE ACT IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE CONSTITUTION. While there are exceptions to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. If petitioners would still be dissatisfied with his decision. 26. 13. Petitioners' arguments of historical revisionism and disregard of the state recognition as heroes are founded on the wrong premise that the LNMB is the National Pantheon intended by law to perpetuate the memory of all Presidents. one should have availed first of all the means of administrative processes available. prohibition and mandamus. Did the petitioners violated the doctrines of exhaustion of administrative remedies and hierarchy of courts? YES. out of malice. before a party is allowed to seek the intervention of the court. domestic and international laws . capriciously or arbitrarily. (A) Sections 2. 23. Did the respondents DND Secretary and AFP Rear Admiral committed grave abuse of discretion when they issued the memorandum and directive in compliance with the verbal order of President Duterte to implement his election campaign promise to have the remains of Marcos interred at the LNMB? NO GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION. 11. petitioners failed to prove the presence of any of those exceptions. Substantive Grounds 1.The President's decision to bury Marcos at the LNMB is in accordance with the Constitution. (E) AS LEGISLATORS – There must be a clear showing of any direct injury to their person or the institution to which they belong. They should be faulted for failing to seek reconsideration of the assailed memorandum and directive before the DND Secretary.

" Despite its name.of Article 7. and infringe upon the principle of separation of powers since the allocation of plots at the LNMB is based on the grant of authority to the President under existing laws and regulations. which is a "post-dictatorship charter" and a "human rights constitution. The act of interment in itself does not confer upon him the status of a "hero. Section 1 of Article 11. 17. No.A. To apply the standard that the LNMB is reserved only for the "decent and the brave" or "hero" would be violative of public policy as it will put into question the validity of the burial of each and every mortal remains resting therein.A. No. not a separate grant of power. Section 3(2) of Article 14. Petitioners’ contentions: R.Not a self-executing provision because a law should be passed by the Congress to clearly define and effectuate the principle embodied therein." Both here and abroad." Ratio: (I) ARTICLE 2 .NOT VIOLATED. Under the Faithful Execution Clause. there is no direct or indirect prohibition to Marcos' interment at the LNMB. (II) ARTICLE 11 . Ratio: Petitioners are mistaken. The mandate is self-executory by virtue of its being inherently executive in nature and is intimately related to the other executive functions. They are used by the judiciary as aids or as guides in the exercise of its power of judicial review. that Marcos' acts and deed are neither worthy of perpetuation in our memory nor serve as a source of inspiration and emulation of the present and future generations. LNMB is distinct and separate while the National Pantheon does not exist at present. the purpose of the LNMB. (B) R.Not intended to be self-executing provisions because they do not embody judicially enforceable constitutional rights. ARTICLE 7 – Not violated by public respondents. has neither been to confer to the people buried there the title of "hero" nor to require that only those interred therein should be treated as a "hero. the President has the power to take "necessary and proper steps" to carry into execution the law. It is best construed as an imposed obligation. (III) ARTICLES 14 & 18 .A. violating the letter and spirit of the 1987 Constitution. both from legal and historical perspectives. No 289 provides for the legal standard by which a person's mortal remains may be interred at National Pantheon (and LNMB) is reserved only for the "decent and the brave" or "hero. national heroes and patriots. which is actually a misnomer.Petitioners' reliance thereon is misplaced because in these provisions. (IV) SEC. and by the legislature in its enactment of laws. 289 .authorized the construction of a National Pantheon as the burial place of the mortal remains of all the Presidents of the Philippines. thereby. LNMB and the National Pantheon are NOT one and the same. and also provided for the creation of a Board on National Pantheon." (C) On R. and Section 26 of Article 18 of the 1987 Constitution . 10368 – provided monetary and non-monetary reparation to martial law . Petitioners’ contentions: the burial of Marcos at the LNMB has the effect of not just rewriting history as to the Filipino people's act of revolting against an authoritarian ruler but also condoning the abuses committed during the Martial Law.

by the legislature. protect and fulfill the country's human rights obligations. the three branches of the government.A. through the enactment of the Constitution. Legal Basis: (a) The presidential power of control over the Executive Branch of Government is a self-executing provision of the Constitution and does not require statutory implementation. Ratio: With its victim-oriented perspective. This Court cannot read into the law what is simply not there. That would be tantamount to judicial legislation.A. nor may its exercise be limited. (E) ON INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAWS – includes International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. the President has the power to reserve for public use and for specific public purposes any of the lands of the public domain and that the reserved land shall remain subject to the specific public purpose indicated until otherwise provided by law or proclamation. veterans. No. 10368) is silent and should remain to be so. sufferings. After the People Power Revolution. (b) Under the Administrative Code. the chief of staff shall be responsible for the issuance of interment directive for all active military personnel. and other human rights laws Petitioners’ contentions: the burial of Marcos at the LNMB will violate the rights of the HRVVs to "full" and "effective" reparation which is provided under the International Human Rights Laws. CAPRICIOUSLY OR ARBITRARILY. retirees. OUT OF MALICE. but they did not. President Duterte. No. ILL WILL OR PERSONAL BIAS - There is no clear constitutional or legal basis to hold that there was a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction which would justify the SC to interpose its authority to check and override an act entrusted to the judgment of another branch. No. Ratio: The Philippines is more than compliant with its international obligations.A. if not unconstitutional. and judicial remedies. The allotment of a cemetery plot at the LNMB for Marcos whether recognizing his . 10368 include the prohibition on Marcos' burial at the LNMB. As it is. the law (R. laws. 289. have done their fair share to respect. acted within the bounds of the law and jurisprudence. (D) AFP REGULATIONS G 161-375 – implement the R. THE ACT IS NOT EXECUTED WHIMSICALLY. deprivations and damages they experienced. It is irregular. No. administrative and executive orders.A. The enforcement of the HRVVs' rights will not be impaired by the interment of Marcos at the LNMB as the assailed act has no causal connection and legal relation to the law. injuries.victims (HRVV) and/or their families for the deaths. Petitioners’ contentions: The beneficial provisions of R. much less withdrawn. and reservists. 10368 a provision specifically proscribing Marcos' interment at the LNMB as a "reparation" for the HRVVs. for SC to presume the legislative will by supplying material details into the law. through the public respondents. our legislators could have easily inserted in R.

satisfies the public use requirement. the AFP Regulations remains to be the sole authority in determining who are entitled and disqualified to be interred at the LNMB. contributions or simply his status as such. . The disbursement of public funds to cover the expenses incidental to the burial is granted to compensate him for valuable public services rendered. (c) Under AFP Regulations G 161-375. Marcos possessed none of the disqualifications stated in AFP Regulations. He was neither convicted by final judgment of the offense involving moral turpitude nor dishonorably separated/reverted/discharged from active military service. the following are eligible for interment at the LNMB . Aside from being eligible for burial at the LNMB.…Former Presidents… In the absence of any executive issuance or law to the contrary.