Ivan Verna B.

Ramos

1-G

OUTLINE FOR CONCURRING OPINION IN OCAMPO V. ENRIQUEZ

I. Facts
a. Arguments of the petitioners
b. The decision of the Court
II. Concurrence:
a. The petitioners do not have legal standing to file the case.
b. LNMB is not a site contemplated for great and eminent leaders of the
nation but rather a military memorial.
c. The burial of Marcos in LNMB is a recognition of his deeds as a soldier
and not as a former president of the country.
d. The order of President Duterte to have the remains of Marcos interred at
the LNMB is a valid exercise of discretionary power vested on him by
virtue of his position.
III. Conclusion

Summary of arguments:

The petitioners do not have a locus standi to bring the case before the Court as they
did not actually sustain an injury by the issuance of the Memorandum ordering the
interment of Marcos in the LNMB. The LNMB is a shrine intended for military memorials
and not for commemoration “of the birth, exile, imprisonment, detention or death of
great and eminent leaders of the nation.” Furthermore, contrary to the petitioners’
asseverations, there is no law or jurisprudence that prohibits the burial of Marcos in the
LNMB. Following the AFP Regulation G 161-375, Marcos was a military personnel, a
Medal of Valor awardee, and a veteran who did not have any of the disqualifications
that would bar the transfer of his remains in the military cemetery. Finally, the burial of
Marcos in the LNMB is a valid exercise of discretionary power of President Duterte as
head of the executive department under which the Department of National Defense
operates and manages the said memorial.