Ocampo v.

Enriquez

Facts: During 2016 presidential campaign, Duterte publicly announced he would allow the burial of
Marcos in LNMB. After winning the elections, through Sec. of National Defense Lorenzana, a
Memorandum was issued to Chief of Staff of AFP, Gen. Visaya, for the interment of Marcos, in
compliance with the verbal order of the President to implement his election campaign promise. AFP rear
Admiral Enriquez issued directives to the Philippine Army Commanding General to provide services,
honors, and other courtesies for the late Former President Marcos. Dissatisfied with the issuances and
directives, various petitioners filed petition for Certiorari and Prohibition.

- 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

PROCEDURAL

1. Whether Pres. Duterte’s determination to have the remains of Marcos interred at LNMB poses a
justiciable controversy

NO. The Court agrees with the OSG that Pres. Duterte’s decision to have the remains of Marcos interred
at the LNMB involves a political question that is not a justiciable controversy. It is also under the
Constitution and EO 292 (Admin Code of 1987) to allow the interment in LNMB which is a land of public
domain devoted for national military cemetery and military shrine purposes. It is based on his wisdom
that it shall promote national healing and forgiveness. It is outside the ambit of judicial review.

2. Whether petitioners have locus standi to file the instant petitions

NO. Petitioners failed to show that they have suffered or will suffer direct or personal injury as a result
of the interment of Marcos at the LNMB. The interment of Marcos would have no profound effect on
the political, economic, and other aspects of our national life considering that more than 27 years since
his death and 30 years after his ouster have already passed. Petitioners failed to demonstrate a clear
and imminent threat to their fundamental constitutional rights

3. Whether petitioners violated the doctrines of exhaustion of administrative remedies and

hierarchy of courts
YES. Petitioners violated the doctrines of exhaustion of administrative remedies and hierarchy of courts.
They should seek reconsideration of the assailed memorandum and directive before the Secretary of
National Defense and give them the opportunity to correct themselves, if warranted. If petitioners are
still dissatisfied with the Secretary’s decision they could have elevated it before the Office of the
President which has control and supervision of the DND.

Even though there are exceptions that would warrant a direct resort to the Supreme Court under
exceptional cases, the petitioners cannot brush aside the doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts that requires
such petitions to be filed first with the proper RTC which are not only trier of facts but can also resolve
questions of law in the exercise of its original and concurrent jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus, and has the power to issue restraining order and injunction when proven
necessary.

In fine, the petitions at bar should be dismissed on procedural grounds alone.

SUBSTANTIVE

1. Whether the issuance and implementation of the memorandum violates the Constitution,
domestic and international law

NO. The President’s decision to bury Marcos at the LNMB is in accordance with the Constitution, the law
or jurisprudence.

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 Duterte’s 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
petitioner’s 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 nation’s history will not be instantly revised by a single resolve of President Duterte to bury Marcos
at the LNMB. Whether petititoners 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.

2. Whether the Sec. of National Defense and AFP rear admiral commited 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

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. Presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty
prevails over the petitioners allegation of Duterte’s 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.

3. Whether historical facts, laws enacted to recover ill-gotten wealth of Marcos and his cronies,
and pronouncement of SC, nullifies his entitlement as a soldier and former President to
interment at the LNMB

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.

4. Whether the Marcos family waived the burial of remains of Marcos in LNMB when they entered
into agreement with Gov. of PH as to the condition and procedures by which his remains shall
be brought back to and interred in the PH.

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

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the petitions are DISMISSED. Necessarily, the Status Quo Ante
Order is hereby LIFTED.