CASE ANALYSIS ON MARCOS BURIAL

I-

Identity of the Parties:

Associate Justices Arturo Brion, Presbitero Velasco Jr, Diosdado

Peralta, Lucas Bersamin, Mariano del Castillo, Jose Perez, Teresita de
Castro, Jose Mendoza, and Estela Perlas-Bernabe voted in favor of giving
Marcos a hero's burial. On the otherhand, Chief Justice Maria Lourdes
Sereno, together with Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, and
Associate Justices Marvic Leonen, Francis Jardeleza, and Alfredo Benjamin
Caguioa dissented.
Conforming to the majority vote decision of the Supreme Court voted
for 9-5 to allow the burial of Ferdinand Marcos at the Libingan ng mga
Bayani (LNMB).
II-

Prior Proceedings:

The magistrates held two rounds of oral arguments on the petitions

against the hero's burial for Marcos on August 31 and September 8. On
August 23, the High Court issued a status quo ante order (SQAO) on the
burial of Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani until September 13. On
September 8, it extended the order until October 18 and then held it further
until November 8.
Marcos familys 1992 agreement with then president Fidel Ramos
President Marcos right to be buried at the national cemetery has been
waived due to his heirs agreement with former president Fidel Ramos in
1992. The deal permitted the family to bring home to the Philippines the
remains of the exiled president as long as it would be brought straight to
Ilocos Norte without military honors. It also specified that he would not be
buried at the national shrine.

III-

THEORIES:

Heros burial for the late dictator contradicts the 1987 Constitution,
which is an anti-dictatorship constitution.
It amounts for a total denial of the abuses committed by the Marcos
regime.
It violates sections 11 and 13, Article II, of the Constitution, which
mandates the state to uphold human rights by educating the youth.
1

 It defies Section 17, Article VII, which calls for the faithful execution
of existing laws, such as the law creating the national pantheon for
Presidents, National Heroes and Patriots (Republic Act 289) and the
Martial Law Victims Reparations Law (Republic Act 10368).
The burial violates the International Covenant of Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR) and international norms on the right to the truth and
the duty of the state to preserve memory and guarantee non-repetition.
ICCPR mandates the state to ensure that a person whose rights are
violated must be recognized and be given effective remedy.
Allowing a heros burial for Marcos denies Martial Law victims the
remedies awarded to them by competent authorities.
IV-

Objectives:

In order to for the Marcos Libingan burial case to be finally settled on

the grounds of historical verdict conforming the Philippine Constitutional
frame. Thus allowing, law and history collaborate in its resolution.
V-

Key Facts:

The long-running issue of whether or not former president Ferdinand

Marcos should be buried at the Libingan ng mga Bayani (Heroes' Cemetery)
has finally been put to rest. Marcos was stealthily buried at the Heroes'
Cemetery past noon with full military honors. Just 10 days earlier, the
Supreme Court on November 8, decided that the late dictator can be buried
at the Libingan nearly 3 months after President Rodrigo Duterte gave his
marching orders for burial preparations. Martial Law victims had filed
petitions to block it.
The High Tribunal consolidated petitions against a hero's burial.
All in all, 6 petitions were lodged before the SC, opposing Duterte's "verbal
order" to the Department of National Defense to proceed with the
preparation for a Marcos state burial.

VI-

Issues:

a) Whether or not Pres. Duterte exercised a grave abuse of discretion in

allowing Marcos to be buried at LNMB?

b) Whether or not the decision made by Supreme Court was a justiciable

one?
VII- Holdings/ Rulings:
Answer to issue no.1:
There was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of President
Duterte in allowing Former President Marcos to be buried at LNMB.
Duterte took the position in early August that Marcos is qualified to be
buried at the Libingan ng mga Bayani because he is "a former soldier and
former president of the Philippines."
The High Tribunal said that as an incumbent President, Duterte is
free to amend, revoke or rescind political agreements entered into by his
predecessors to determine policies which he considers, based on informed
judgment and presumed wisdom, as the most effective way in carrying out
his mandate as the President of this country.
Answer to issue no.2:
The decision made by Supreme Court was a justiciable one.
The negative assessments of Marcos were not the ratio decidendi
(legal reasoning basis) for the decision (and we are not going back here to
the core constitutional argumentation therein). Those negative assessments
of Marcos can be considered mere obiter dicta or side commentaries or
opinions that may be relevant to but are not the actual basis, factual and
legal, for resolving the constitutional issue.
The Supreme Court (SC) Spokesperson Theodore Te announced
Tuesday, November 8, that the High Court has lifted the status quo ante
order and allowed state interment for the late dictator, arguing that there is
no specific law prohibiting it.

VIII. Ratio Decidendi:

The justices ruled on the issue, saying they viewed and judged Marcos
"in his totality as a person." The High Court said that Marcos has the right to
be acknowledged for his service as former president, defense secretary,
soldier, war veteran, and a Medal of Valor awardee among the
qualifications for state interment under the regulations of the Armed Forces
of the Philippines.
3

IX.

Disposition:

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, as discussed below, President Duterte's decision on that political
question is outside the ambit of judicial review.