Chief Justice Sereno
He was not
The Chief Justice believes that President
Rodrigo Duterte "acted (with) grave abuse of
discretion" in ordering Marcos' internment at
LNMB. For her, the burial violates Philippine
law and international law in relation to do
justice for human rights victims.
Sereno explained that reparations for
human rights victims under martial law also
includes non-monetary remedies, such as
"symbolic reparation." She pointed out that
Marcos' burial at the LNMB would be the exact
opposite of symbolic reparation.
According to the PIO, the Chief Justice
disagrees that the burial would serve a public
purpose, as pointed out that the legislative and
judicial branches of government recognize
Marcos as a dictator, plunderer and a human
rights violator.
"For the Court to pretend that the
present dispute is a simple question of the
entitlement of a soldier to a military burial is to
take a regrettably myopic [nearsighted] view of
the controversy. It would be to disregard
historical truths and legal principles that
persist after death."
Senior Associate Justice Carpio
The PIO said that Senior Associate
Justice Carpio's dissent focused on the removal
of Marcos & President & Commander-in-Chief
during the People Power Revolution of 1986.
For Carpio, Marcos ceased to be
qualified for burial at the LNMB because of
People Power, even assuming the former
president was a Medal of Valor Awardee. The
Senior Associate Justice  reasoned that this
amounted to a dishonorable discharge.
He cited a 1989 Court ruling (Marcos vs.
Manglapus) that described Marcos as "a
dictator forced out of office and into exile after
causing 20 years of political, economic, and
social havoc in the country." Carpio reasoned
that Marcos' burial at the LNMB had no public
purpose, as it would cause injury to human
rights victims of the late president's
administration & the people who ousted him.  to reserve land for public use.
Associate Justice Leonen
Associate Justice Leonen said that it is
"illegal" for the remains of Marcos to be buried
at the LNMB. "Marcos is no hero.
even an exemplary public officer. He is not
worthy of emulation and inspiration by those
who suffer poverty as a result of the
opportunity lost during his administration, by
those who continue to suffer the trauma of the
violations to the human dignity of their persons
and of their family."
Among other things, Leonen argued
that, assuming military regulations were valued
when issued, the orders of the President and
other officials for Marcos' burial violate
Republic Act 289, which requires those buried
to have led lives worthy of "inspiration and
emulation."
The Associate Justice added that the
actions of public respondents are contrary to
the President's oath of office "because they
encourage impunity, which is the result of
rewarding the person who presided over
human rights violations and who personally
participated in the plunder of public treasury,"
the PIO said.
In his dissent, Leonen said that Marcos'
burial at the LNMB "is not an act of national
healing." "It is an effort to forget our collective
shame, to bury our inaction for many years. It
is to contribute to the impunity against human
rights abuses and the plunder of our public
trust."
 
Justice Caguioa
For Justice Caguioa, Duterte's order to
inter Marcos at the LNMB stands contrary to
the Constitution, the law, and several other
issuances that have the force of the law.
Caguioa argued that "burying (Marcos)
at the LNMB does not make him a national
hero, disregards the status of the LNMB as a
national shrine, the public policy in treating
national shrines, the standards set forth in
these laws and executive issuances as well as in
the AFP (Armed Forces of the Philippines)
LNMB burial regulations."
He also argued that the President's
verbal order falls short of an executive order
required to exercise the chief executive's power