9/8/22, 2:41 AM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

[187] Vol. IV Record, September 19, 1986, pp. 829-831; See also Bernas, Joaquin G.,

S.J., The Intent of the 1986 Constitution Writers. 1995. pp. 116-117.

DISSENTING OPINION

SERENO, CJ:

The whole thesis of respondents on the substantive issues lies in the absence of an
express prohibition against the burial of former President Marcos; hence, they argue
that this Court cannot characterize the current President's decision to have him buried
at the Libingan ng mga Bayani (LMB) as one made in grave abuse of discretion.

Nothing can be more wrong, and no view more diminishing of the Judiciary's mandated
role under the 1987 Constitution.

If the absence of an express prohibition were to be the primary or sole determinant of

the merits of this case, then even the processing clerk of the administrative office
supervising the LMB could decide this matter by simply ticking off the appropriate box
in a Yes or No question that asks: "Is there an express statute that prohibits a
President from burying a former bemedalled soldier or president in the Libingan ng Mga
Bayani? If yes, bury. If no, do not bury."

To the contrary, the case can only be decided by deeply and holistically analyzing the
extent and implications of the legal phenomenon called the power to exercise
presidential discretion, and how it should be measured in this case.

In light of allegations that the decision to bury the late President will run counter to the
Constitution, statutory standards and judicial pronouncements, this Court must take a
step back in history to understand what the Constitution that it is defending stands for;
whether it is in danger of being violated in spirit or in letter; and whether this danger is
of such kind and degree that the exercise of presidential discretion should be
restrained. This Court must also compare the statutory standards that have been raised
and determine whether the course of action proposed by the President would run
counter to those standards. This Court must also examine the doctrines and language
employed in many of its decisions if it is to guard against heresy directed at the spirit of
the Constitution that could undermine not just one doctrine, but perhaps the moral
legitimacy of the Court itself.

This is how consequential any statement coming from the Court on this issue could be.

The Court's bounden duty is not only to preserve the Constitution, but also
itself.

It has been posited that the Court should not meddle in a political maneuver that the
President is compelled to make. Whether it is a maneuver that is animated by the need
to maintain credibility in the eyes of important supporters, or whether it is necessary to
advance unity in this country, is not a motivation that the President should be
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/62526 63/275