Ocampo et al. vs. Enriquez et al.

2016-11-08 EN BANC DECISION Peralta, J.

G.R. No. 225973 and G.R. No. 225984 and G.R. No. 226097 and G.R. No. 226116 and G.R. No.
226117 and G.R. No. 226120 and G.R. No. 226294
Article 2. Declaration of Principles and State Created by: Elmalyn Comora
Policies
Petitioner/s: SATURNINO C. OCAMPO et. al Respondent/s: REAR ADMIRAL ERNESTO c.
ENRIQUEZ et.al
Recit Ready Summary:

This case is known as the Marcos burial issue. Various petitioners have filed a case to the judicial
court on year 2016 for the current President Rodrigo Roa Duterte has advised the National Defense
Secretary to order a memo to the AFP Chief of Staff, General Ricardo Visaya allowing the remains of
the late ex President Ferdinand Marcos to be buried in the Libingan ng mga Bayani (LNMB), Fort
Bonifacio Taguig City. The commanding General of AFP Rear Admiral Ernesto Enriquez is also
directed to allow his men to provide service of honors for the ex President Marcos. However, many
petitioners from different groups of human rights advocates and legislators filed a petition to the
Supreme Court.

The supreme court has divided the issues into procedural and substantial issues based from the
appeal of the petitioners whereas , if the issue is a Justiciable controversy ,have complied to locus
standi requirement of the court, if the petitioners have exhausted administrative remedies before
filing it to the Supreme court and if they have followed the rules of hierarchy of the courts .
Moreover, a more deeper issue was also petitioned if wherefore, the President's decision to bury
Marcos at the LNMB is in accordance with the Constitution, the law or jurisprudence, and if it is not
done whimsically, capriciously or arbitrarily, out of malice, ill will or of his personal bias and if Marcos
is really entitled to be buried in LNMB.

The court has the following decision in relation to the presented issues:

a. President Duterte's decision to have the remains of Marcos interred at the LNMB involves a
political question that is not a justiciable controversy.

b. As for the Locus Standi, petitioners are proved that has no personal stake in the outcome of the
controversy, thus they have no legal standing for this case.

c. The petitioners has failed to seek reconsideration of the assailed memorandum and directive
before the Secretary of National Defence and the Office of the President once escalated.

d. The petitioners has violated the doctrine of the hierarchy of courts for they simply aside that
requires such petition to be filed first within the proper RTC.

e. With respect to the provisions in our constitution Sec. 3(2) of Art. XIV and Sec. 26 of Art. XVIII and
The second sentence of Sec. 17 of Art. VII is not violated by the respondents and has no direct
prohibition to Marco’s interment at LNMB and does not contravene R.A. No. 289 and R.A. No. 10368,
and the international human rights laws cited by petitioners.

f. The arbitrariness, malice, ill will or personal bias is not proven before the court for there are
Presidential decrees and AFP regulations that will allow Marcos to be buried in the LNMB site.
g. The court stated that we cannot deny him the right to be acknowledged based on the other
positions he held or the awards he received and Marcos should be viewed and judged in his totality
as a person. He is also not disqualify to be buried in the site under AFP regulation G 161-375 and
the equal protection clause is not violated.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court has decide that there are things that should be better left for
history and the country must move on and from the issue relating to the late Ferdinand Marcos’
burial thus, the petitions are dismissed and his remains was now buried to the LNMB.
Facts :

President Rodrigo R. Duterte instructed Secretary of National Defense Delfin Lorenzana to issue a
Memorandum to the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), General Ricardo
Visaya directing the latter to undertake preparations to have the remains of the late former
President Ferdinand E. Marcos be transported from Ilocos Norte in order to be interred at the
Libingan ng mga Bayani (LNMB), in accordance with the verbal order of President Rodrigo Duterte
to implement his election campaign promise.

In turn, AFP Rear Admiral Enriquez issued the directives to the Philippine Army (PA) Commanding
General to provide the service honors, specifically to provide all necessary military honors accorded
for a President.

However, Petitioners, representing various groups and interests mostly from the human rights
group, filed the present petitions with the Supreme Court, to challenge the above directives.

Issues and (Ruling) :

Procedural
(A) WON President Duterte's determination to have the remains of Marcos interred at the LNMB
poses a justiciable controversy. (NO)
(B) WON petitioners have locus standi to file the instant petitions. (NO)
(C) WON petitioners violated the doctrine administrative remedies and hierarchy of courts. (YES)

Substantive
(A) WON the President's decision to bury Marcos at the LNMB is in accordance with the Constitution,
the law or jurisprudence. (YES)
(B) WON the President's decision to bury Marcos at the LNMB is tainted with arbitrariness, malice,
ill will or personal bias. (NO)
(C) WON historical facts, laws enacted to recover ill-gotten wealth from the Marcoses and their
cronies, and the pronouncements of the Court on the Marcos regime have nullified his entitlement
as a soldier and former President to interment at the LNMB. (NO)
Rationale/Analysis/Legal Basis:

I. Procedural Issues
A. Justiciable controversy
President Duterte's decision to have the remains of Marcos interred at the LNMB involves
a political question that is not a justiciable controversy
“ 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 Administrative Code of 1987 (Executive Order No. 292 ) 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.”

B. Locus standi
Locus standi requirement
“Defined as a right of appearance in a court of justice on a given question, locus standi
requires that a party alleges such personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to
assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the
court depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions. 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.

Petitioners have no legal standing

“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.”

C. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

Petitioners violated the doctrines of exhaustion of administrative remedies
16. Under the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, before a party is allowed
to seek the intervention of the court, one should have availed first of all the means of
administrative processes
available. If resort to a remedy within the administrative machinery can still be made by
giving the administrative officer concerned every opportunity to decide on a matter that
comes within his jurisdiction, then such remedy should be exhausted first before the court's
judicial power can be sought

D. Hierarchy of Courts
Petitioners violated the doctrine of hierarchy of courts
“ While direct resort to the Court through petitions for the extraordinary writs of certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus are allowed under exceptional cases, which are lacking in this
case, petitioners cannot simply brush aside the doctrine of hierarchy of courts that requires
such petitions to be filed first with the proper Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC is not just
a trier of facts, but can also resolve questions of law in the exercise of its original and
concurrent jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, and has the
power to issue restraining order and injunction when proven necessary.”

II. Substantial Issues

A. The President's decision to bury Marcos at the LNMB is in accordance with the
Constitution, the law or jurisprudence
- The principles and state policies embodied in the Constitution are not self-executing
provisions, the disregard of which can give rise to a cause of action in the courts .

It does not violated Sec. 1 of Art. XI of the Constitution. Petitioners' reliance on Sec. 3(2) of
Art. XIV and Sec. 26 of Art. XVIII of the Constitution is misplaced for there is no direct or
indirect prohibition to Marcos' interment at the LNMB. The second sentence of Sec. 17 of
Art. VII pertaining to the duty of the President to "ensure that the laws be faithfully
executed," which is identical to Sec. 1, Title I, Book III of the Administrative Code of 1987, is
likewise not violated by public respondents also President Duterte's mandate under Sec.
17, Art. VII of the Constitution, the burial of Marcos at the LNMB does not contravene R.A.
No. 289, R.A. No. 10368, and the international human rights laws cited by petitioners.
Moreover, The LNMB is distinct and separate from the burial place envisioned in R.A. No
289. (construction of the National Pantheon) The National Pantheon does not exist at
present.

- Proposed internment of Marcos in the LNMB does not confer upon him the status of a
"hero"

To apply the standard that the LNMB is reserved only for the "decent and the brave" or
"hero" would be violative of public policy for the allocation of plots at the LNMB is based
on the grant of authority to the President under existing laws and regulations. The proposed
interment is not equivalent to the consecration of Marcos' mortal remains. The act in itself
does not confer upon him the status of a "hero." Despite its name, which is actually a
misnomer, the purpose of the LNMB, both from legal and historical perspectives, has neither
been to confer to the people buried there the title of "hero" nor to require that only those
interred therein should be treated as a "hero."

B. The President's decision to bury Marcos at the LNMB is not done whimsically,
capriciously or arbitrarily, out of malice, ill will or personal bias

-The Libingan Ng Mga Bayani is not a national shrine covered under PD 105, but a national
military shrine under the jurisdiction of the PVAO
-The interment of Marcos does not violate the physical, historical, and cultural integrity of
the LNMB as a national military shrine
-Presidential power of control (incumbent President Duterte not bound by political
agreements entered into by his predecessors)
-The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty has not been overcome
-AFP Regulation G 161-375 remains authoritative in determining who are entitled and
disqualified to be interred at the LNMB
-Doctrine of qualified political agency (Alter ego principle)

C. Entitlement of Marcos to be buried in the LNMB

-Qualification of Marcos under AFP Regulation G 161-375 (notwithstanding the corruption

tainting
his presidential legacy, he is qualified to be buried in the LNMB based on his other
achievements)
-Marcos possessed none of the disqualifications under AFP Regulations G 161-375
-Marcos' ouster from the presidency via people power revolution is not tantamount to his
dishonorable discharge from the military service
-Equal protection clause is not violated.

Disposition:
All of the premises stated are considered by the court, however the petition for court
certiorari, prohibition and mandamus are DISMISSED and the Status Quo Ante Order is
hereby LIFTED. (EN BANC Decision)