Ocampo et al.

vs Enriquez et al
GR No. 225973- Nov 08, 2016

Facts:

On July 11, 2016, President Rodrigo Duterte issued a verbal order to

implement his election promise to have the remains of the late former Pres.
Ferdinand Marcos be interred at the Libingan ng mga Bayani. In
compliance with the said verbal order public respondent Delfin Lorenzana,
Secretary of National Defense, issued a memorandum to the public
respondent Gen, Ricardo Visaya, AFP, Chief of staff regarding the
interment of Marcos at the LNMB.
Dissatisfied with the issuances petitioners filed petitions for certiorari
and prohibitions in their capacities as human rights victims or human
rights advocates, legislators, members of the bar and taxpayers.

Issues:
Procedural
1. Whether Pres. Duterte’s determination to have the remains of
Marcos be interred at the LNMB poses a justiciable controversy.
2. Whether petitioners have Locus Standi to file the instant petitions.

Substantive
1. Whether the respondents committed grave abuse of discretion,
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, when they issued the assailed
memorandum and directive in compliance with the verbal order of Pres.
Duterte.

Held:
Procedural Issue

1st issue- The Court agrees with the OSG that President Duterte's decision to
have the remains of Marcos interred at the LNMB involves a political
question that is not a justiciable controversy. In the exercise of his powers
under the Constitution and the Executive Order (E.O.) No. 292 (otherwise
known as the Administrative Code of 1987) to allow the interment of
Marcos at the LNMB, which is a land of the public domain devoted for
national military cemetery and military shrine purposes, President Duterte
decided a question of policy based on his wisdom that it shall promote
national healing and forgiveness. There being no taint of grave abuse in the
exercise of such discretion, President Duterte's decision on that political
question is outside the ambit of judicial review.
2nd issue- Unless a person has sustained or is in imminent danger of
sustaining an injury as a result of an act complained of, such proper party
has no standing.29 Petitioners, who filed their respective petitions
for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, in their capacities as citizens,
human rights violations victims, legislators, members of the Bar and
taxpayers, have no legal standing to file such petitions 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.

Substantive Issue- There is grave abuse of discretion when an act is (1) done
contrary to the Constitution, the law or jurisprudence or (2) executed
whimsically, capriciously or arbitrarily, out of malice, ill will or personal
bias.46 None is present in this case.
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 Court to interpose its authority to check
and override an act entrusted to the judgment of another branch. At bar,
President Duterte, through the public respondents, acted within the bounds
of the law and jurisprudence.
Tolentino vs Secretary of Finance
GR 115455 Oct. 30, 1995

Facts:

Petitioners Arturo Tolentino et al. are questioning the constitutionality of RA

7716 otherwise known as the Value Added tax (EVAT) Law. Tolentino averred that this
revenue bill did not “exclusively originate” from the House of Rep. as required by sec.
24, Art. 6 of the constitution. Even though RA 7716 originated as HB 11197 and that it
passed three readings in the House of Rep. ,the same did not complete the three
readings in Senate for after the first reading it was referred to the Senate Ways and
Means Committee thereafter Senate passed its own version known as Senate Bill 1630.
Tolentino contends that what the Senate could have done is amend House Bill
11197 by striking out its text and substituting it with the text of SB 1630 in that way “the
bill remains a House Bill and the Senate version just becomes the text (only the text) of
the HB”.

Issue:
1. Whether or not RA 7716 otherwise known as EVAT Law is unconstitutional?

Held:

The contention has no merit.

The enactment of S. No. 1630 is not the only instance in which the Senate proposed an
amendment to a House revenue bill by enacting its own version of a revenue bill. On at
least two occasions during the Eighth Congress, the Senate passed its own version of
revenue bills, which, in consolidation with House bills earlier passed, became the
enrolled bills. On the other hand, the Ninth Congress passed revenue laws which were
also the result of the consolidation of House and Senate bills.
Thus, the enactment of S. No. 1630 is not the only instance in which the Senate,
in the exercise of its power to propose amendments to bills required to originate in the
House, passed its own version of a House revenue measure.

Art. VI, Sec. 24 provides that all appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills
authorizing increase of the public debt, bills of local application, and private bills must
"originate exclusively in the House of Representatives," it also adds, "but the Senate
may propose or concur with amendments." In the exercise of this power, the Senate
may propose an entirely new bill as a substitute measure. As petitioner Tolentino states
in a high school text, a committee to which a bill is referred may do any of the following:

(1) to endorse the bill without changes; (2) to make changes in the
bill omitting or adding sections or altering its language; (3) to make
and endorse an entirely new bill as a substitute, in which case it will
be known as a committee bill; or (4) to make no report at all.