Ocampo v.

Enriquez
G.R. No. 225973
8 November 2016

Article 2 Declaration of Principles and State Policies

Section 2:The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, adopts the
generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the
policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations.

Section 11. The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for
human rights. (RELATING TO HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS, RA 10368, with its victim
oriented perspective, legislators could’ve easily made a provision for FmrPres Marcos not to be
interred in LNMB as “reparations” for the victims, but this was not the case. Being that it’s not
mentioned, it would be undue to extend the law and subscribe to the Petitioner’s reasoning that
the beneficial provisions impliedly included this)

Section 13. The State recognizes the vital role of the youth in nation-building and shall promote
and protect their physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual, and social well-being. It shall inculcate in
the youth patriotism and nationalism, and encourage their involvement in public and civic
affairs. (AN ACTION FOR UNITY? PDu30’s single resolve, along with the public respondents
actions will not revise history, contrary to what Petitioners are saying. The lessons of Martial law
have already been engraved, albeit to differing degrees in the hearts and minds of the present
generation of Filipinos. As for the unborn, it must be said that the preservation and
popularization of our history is not the sole responsibility of the Chief Executive, it’s a joint and
collective endeavor of every freedom-loving citizen of this country)

Section 23. The State shall encourage non-governmental, community-based, or sectoral

organizations that promote the welfare of the nation.

Section 26. The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit

political dynasties as may be defined by law. (While for Marcos’ alleged human rights abuses and

corrupt practices, his eligibility with being a president and commander in chief (despite his ouster,

it may not be conveniently claimed that this is tantamount to his dishonorable separation, reversion

or discharge from the military service with the President being the C-I-C, being that the

constitution only enshrines the principle of supremacy of civilian authority over military) is may

be disregarded, Petitioners did not take into consideration that he is also a legislator, SECRETARY

OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, A MILITARY PERSONNEL (honorably discharged), A VETERAN

(he is recognized as such by RA 6948), AND A MEDAL OF VALOR AWARDEE, *those in caps

are categories that make him eligible to be interred at LNMB, fact remains that Marcos passed and

was never convicted of an offense involving moral turptitude, no less than the constitution states

that nobody shall be answerable to a criminal offense without due process of law)

Section 27. The State shall maintain honesty and integrity in the public service and take positive

and effective measures against graft and corruption. (like sec28, unlike what Petitioner’s claim

that President acted on a debt of gratitude “utang ng loob” to the Marcoses, there exists a

presumption of regularity with the performance of the president’s duty, most especially when it

also considers a political question of wisdom)

Section 28. Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts and implements a

policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest. (umm, on one hand

pdu30 announced it in his campaign, on the other hand it was suddenly done?)

Facts:

While campaigning for the 2016 Presidential Elections, then candidate Rodrigo Roa Duterte
publicly announced that one of his plans once he wins the presidential seat would be to finally
allow the burial of Former President Ferdinand E. Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani
(LNMB). He claims that this should allow for “national healing” by reconciling the two sides
that divided the country. Duterte then proceeded to win the Presidential seat on the May 9 2016
Elections.

On August 7, 2016, Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana issued a memorandum to AFP Chief of
Staff Ricardo Viscaya regarding the planned interment of Former President Marcos at the
Libingan ng mga Bayani.

Two days later, AFP Rear Admiral Ernesto Enriquez (Primary respondent for this case) issued a
directive to the Philippine Army on the Funeral Honors and Service to Frmr. Pres. Marcos.

Petitioners (Saturnino Ocampo et. al., in their capacities as human rights violations victims, Rene
Saguisag and his son, as members of the Bar and human rights lawyers, Edcel Lagman as a
member of the House of Representatives and as Honorary Chairperson of Families and Victims
of Involuntary Disappearance (FIND)) filed their respective petitions for certiorari, prohibition
and mandamus.

Issues:

Procedural:

1. Whether Petitioners have locus standi (NO)

2. Whether President Duterte’s directive to inter Marcos’ remains at LNMB is a justiciable
matter (NO)
3. Whether petitioners did not properly exhaust all available administrative remedies and
following the hierarchy of courts (YES)

Substantive:
1. Whether or not Respondents committed grave abuse of discretion by complying with
President Duterte’s verbal owner (NO)
2. Whether President Duterte is bound by Former President Ramos’ agreement with the
Marcos family as to the bringing back of Marcos’ remains to the country (NO)
3. Whether jurisprudence and action to recover ill-gotten wealth from the Marcoses, as well
as international agreements for human rights violations reparations, have nullified his
entitlement as a former president and honorably discharged soldier for interment at
LNMB (NO)
4. Whether the respondents actions were unconstitutional and violated any domestic and
international laws (NO)

Ratio:

Procedural:

FIRST ISSUE

Locus standi is the right to sue where a party alleges a personal stake in the outcome of the
controversy. Unless a person has sustained or is in imminent danger of sustaining an injury as a
result of the act complained of, the party has no standing. The petitioners, (in their capacity as
citizens, taxpayers, legislators etc.) have failed to show that they have suffered or will suffer
direct personal injury as a result of the interment.

Citizens have not shown their capacity that the citizenry would be affected as a whole society. In
fact, the President’s decision to do so is said to be for the well-being of the citizens as a time for
reconciliation and “public healing”.

Taxpayers, while the interment would use the funds that came from taxpayers to fund its
operation, have not proven that the usage of these funds is contrary to what is deserving of a
Former President and/or Honorably discharged soldier. Being that Marcos is still eligible to be
interred, he, like the many others interred therein, will be interred with the use of taxpayers funds
as this is considered as a small token for the service they have given to the country.

National Shrines are governed by NHCP, military shrines are not.

They are governed by PVAO of DND. LNMB is a military shrine.
AFP Regulations G 161-375: Who may be interred
1. Medal of Valor awardee
2. Presidents or Commanders-in-Chief of AFP
3. Secretary of National Defense
4. Chief of Staff of AFP
5. General or Flag Officers of AFP
6. Active and retired military personnel
7. Government dignitaries, statesmen, national artists and others as
long as approved by the C-i-C, Congress or Secretary of National
Defense
8. Widows of former presidents
Those who are not qualified:
1. Personnel who are dishonorably discharged
2. Convicted of final judgment of an offense involving moral
turpitude.

SECOND ISSUE

For something to be considered a justiciable issue (or where the constitutionality or validness of
an act or a law could be heard and decided by the court), there are 4 prerequisites it must obtain

1. Actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power;

2. Person challenging the act must have the standing to question the validity of the act;
3. Question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity; ang
4. Issue of constitutionality must be the very list mota of the case

Opinions: