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

See, for example, how this Court articulated its duty to protect the environment,[5]
women,[6] children,[7] labor,[8] the indigenous people,[9] and consistently, those who
have been or are in danger of being deprived of their human rights.[10]

Note the power that the Constitution vests in the Court to actively promulgate rules for
the protection of human rights, and how the Court in turn described this duty when it
promulgated the writs of kalikasan, habeas data, and amparo.[11]

Any conclusion in this case that betrays a lack of enthusiasm on the part of this Court
to protect the cherished values of the Constitution would be a judicial calamity. That
the Judiciary is designed to be passive relative to the "active" nature of the political
departments is a given. But when called upon to discharge its relatively passive role,
the post-1986 Supreme Court has shown zealousness in the protection of constitutional
rights, a zealousness that has been its hallmark from then up to now. It cannot, in the
year 2016, be reticent in asserting this brand of protective activism.

Not everything legally required is written in black and white; the Judges' role
is to discern within the penumbra.

As early as 1950, the Civil Code, a creation of the Legislature, has instructed the
Judiciary on how to proceed in situations where there is no applicable law or where
there is ambiguity in the legislation that seems to apply to the case at hand. The code
provides:

Article 9. No judge or court shall decline to render judgment by reason of

the silence, obscurity or insufficiency of the laws.

Article 10. In case of doubt in the interpretation or application of laws, it is

presumed that the lawmaking body intended right and justice to prevail.

I do not believe that this Court is bereft of sufficient guides that can aid in the exercise
of its role of protecting and advancing constitutional rights. It must with a magnifying
lens examine whether clear intent, historical references, and express mandates can be
found in the 1987

Constitution and whether these are relevant to this case. We must pick them out and
examine them. The ill-gotten wealth statutes, the remedial human rights legislation -
all describe the burden of a nation that must recover from the financial and moral
plunder inflicted upon this nation by Marcos, his family and his cronies. We must get
our bearings from these guideposts and find out if they instruct us on what must be
done with respect to his proposed burial beyond the express and implied condemnation
of the wrongs he has committed against the country. The pronouncements of this Court
and those of the Sandiganbayan, the legal pleadings and administrative propositions
submitted by the Philippine government to international and local tribunals from 1987
to the present a full 29 years from these we must infer an indication of the treatment
that should be given to the proposed action of the Government.

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/62526 65/275