You are on page 1of 8

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

Filed with the


Filed with
SC on
the SC on
11/21/16
11/21/16
at 11:52 AM
at ____ AM

REP. EDCEL C. LAGMAN, et


al.,
PETITIONERS
- versus EXECUTIVE
SALVADOR C.
et al.,

SECRETARY
MEDIALDEA,

G.R. No. 225984


(Petition for Prohibition
with
Prayer
for
the
Issuance of a Temporary
Restraining Order or Writ
of Preliminary Injunction)

RESPONDENTS.
x----------------------------------------x

URGENT MOTION OR PETITION FOR THE


EXHUMATION OF WHATEVER WAS BURIED AS
MARCOS REMAINS IN THE LIBINGAN NG MGA
BAYANI ON 18 NOVEMBER 2016
PETITIONERS, through counsel, respectfully file the
instant motion in accordance with the following presentation:
1. In a Manifestation dated 10 November 2016, which was filed
on even date with the Honorable Supreme Court by
registered mail and personally filed in the morning of 11
November 2016, and with the prior knowledge and
conformity of the Petitioners in G.R. Nos. 225973, 226097,
226116 and 226120, it was manifested, among others, that:
1. While they have not received the copies
of the majority Decision, as well as the
dissenting and concurring opinions in the
above-captioned case and in the other
related cases, they are respectfully informing
the Honorable Supreme Court that they will
definitely file a motion for reconsideration,
either separate from or consolidated with
motions for reconsideration of the other

petitioners, within the prescriptive period


from their receipt of the Decision.
2. Considering that the subject Decision is
not yet final and to foreclose the projected
motion/s for reconsideration from being
rendered moot by a precipitate burial of the
late President Ferdinand Marcos in the
Libingan ng mga Bayani, it is respectfully
manifested and prayed that the Honorable
Supreme Court may consider reissuing the
Status (Quo) Ante Order and/or advising the
Respondents not to proceed with the said
burial pending resolution of the motion/s for
reconsideration to be interposed seasonably
by the herein petitioner and the other
petitioners.
3. The principle of courtesy and respect to
be accorded by the parties to the Court
pending the finality of its Decision is also
relevant and compelling.
A copy of said Manifestation is attached as ANNEX A.
2. In the afternoon of 11 November 2016, Petitioners, through
counsel, received copies of the majority Decision, Dissenting
Opinions and Concurring/Separate Opinions in the aboveentitled case which has been consolidated with G.R. Nos.
225973, 226097, 226116 and 226120.
3. Accordingly, Petitioners have fifteen (15) days from 11
November 2016 or up to 26 November 2016 within which to
interpose seasonably a motion for reconsideration. Since 26
November 2016, the expiry date, falls on a Saturday, the
Motion for Reconsideration in due on or before 28 November
2016, the next working day.
4. The rule is indubitable that the subject Decision of the
Honorable Supreme Court becomes final and executory only
after fifteen (15) days from the receipt of the Decision by the
concerned party or parties, unless within the said 15-day
reglementary period, a motion or motions for reconsideration
are filed by the Petitioners, in which case the finality of the
subject Decision is stayed.

5. In the above eventuality, the subject Decision becomes final


and executory 15 days after the concerned parties have
received a copy of the resolution or decision granting the
motion/s for reconsideration and reversing the challenged
decision or denying the motion/s for reconsideration.
6. Section 1 of Rule 52
unequivocally provides:

(Motion

for

Reconsideration)

Section 1. Period for filing. A party may


file a motion for reconsideration of a judgment
or final resolution within fifteen (15) days from
notice thereof, with proof of service on the
adverse party.
7. Similarly, Section 4 of Rule 52 clearly provides:
Section 4. Stay of execution. The
pendency of a motion for reconsideration filed
on time and by the proper party shall stay the
execution of the judgment or final resolution
sought to be reconsidered unless the court,
for good reasons, shall otherwise direct.
8. The right of a party to file a motion for reconsideration
partakes of due process. Such right is impaired and due
process is derailed if a decision which is not final and
executory is prematurely enforced or executed, like in the
case at bar.
9. The finality of the necessary lifting of the Status Quo Ante
Order is contingent on the finality of the main Decision.
Consequently, pending finality of the main Decision, the
lifting of the Status Quo Ante Order also pends.
10.
Pending the finality of the Decision, the absence of an
Order enjoining a precipitate burial of Marcos is of no
moment because the rule is clear that while the
reglementary period for filing a motion for reconsideration by
the proper party or parties has not expired, the principal
Decision, together with any accessory Order, must not be
implemented or enforced.
11.
Thus,
in
TUNG
HO
STEEL
ENTERPRISES
CORPORATION
vs.
TING
GUAN
TRADING
CORPORATION, (G.R. No. 182153, April 7, 2014), it was
held that:
3

Following these rules, therefore, the


pendency of Tung Hos MR with the CA made
the entry of the judgment of the Court in the
Ting
Guan
petition
premature
and
inefficacious for not being final and
executory.
Based on the above consideration, the Court
will not be in error if it applies its ruling in the
case of Realty Sales Enterprises, Inc. and
Macondray Farms, Inc. v. Intermediate
Appellate Court, et al. where the Court in a
per curiam resolution ruled that an entry of
judgment may be recalled or lifted motu
proprio when it is clear that the decision
assailed of has not yet become final under
the rules.
12.
Hence, a premature and void execution of a decision
which is not final and executory could be recalled and lifted
even motu proprio by the Honorable Court.
13.
In Realty Sales Enterprises, Inc. and Macondray
Farms, Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court (G.R. No.
L-67451, April 25, 1989) it was ruled that it was well within
the power of the Court to issue its resolution of March 20,
1985 recalling the entry of judgment of March 18, 1985, as
the judgment had not yet become final and executory, and
giving the petition due course.
14.
In view of the foregoing, the burial of the supposed
remains of the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos on 18
November 2016 in the Libingan ng mga Bayani, by the
Marcos family with the complicity of the public respondents
and the concerned military and police authorities, was
premature, precipitate and irregular because on said date
the subject Decision has not attained finality and was not
executory.
15.
To reiterate, there can be no valid execution or
enforcement of a decision or judgment which is not final and
executory.
16.
Such premature execution is void ab initio and must
perforce be recalled and rectified.

17.
A resolution ordering the immediate exhumation of
whatever was buried in the LNMB as the mortal remains of
Marcos and the eventual return of the same to the Marcos
family is warranted and justified because:
(a)

The burial was premature, precipitate and irregular pending


the finality of the subject Decision.

(b)

Since the object of the premature burial is the so-called


interred mortal remains of Marcos, perforce the same must
be exhumed as a rectification of the void execution.

(c)

The exhumation is imperative in order not to render moot


and academic the Petitioners forthcoming and seasonable
motion/s for reconsideration, the resolution of which had
been preempted by the precipitate burial in the wake of
nationwide protests and cogent commentaries against the
subject Decision of the Honorable Supreme Court.

(d)

The exhumation is also to effectively censure and discipline


the public respondents and the Marcoses for their
contumacious disrespect against the Honorable Supreme
Court and its processes, even as the premature and
surreptitious burial revealed in bold relief the despicable
chicanery of the Marcoses which is an affront against the
Filipino nation and the Honorable Supreme Court itself.

18.
Verily, the controversial majority Decision of the
Supreme Court directed the burial of the mortal remains of
the late dictator Marcos in the Libingan ng mga Bayani.
However, with the inordinate haste and stealthy
circumstances which shrouded the interment, there is no
certainty as to what was actually buried in the LNMB.
19.
Consequently, upon exhumation of whatever was
buried in the LNMB, a forensic examination of the same be
conducted in order that it could be determined with certainty
that what was interred were the mortal remains of Marcos,
not any other artifact or a wax replica of the late dictator,
since his remains could have been buried decades ago in
Batac, Ilocos Norte as he reportedly wished to be buried near
his mother, the late Doa Josefa Edralin Marcos in Batac.
20.
Petitioners reserve
charging with indirect
responsible members of
who conspired and

their right to file a verified petition


contempt the public respondents,
the Marcos family and other persons
facilitated the premature and
5

surreptitious burial of Marcos mortal remains in the


Libingan ng mga Bayani, which constitutes, among others,
improper conduct, tending directly or indirectly, to impede,
obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice.

PRAYER
ACCORDINGLY, it is respectfully prayed
Honorable Supreme Court issue a Resolution:

that

the

1.

Ordering the immediate exhumation of whatever was buried


as the mortal remains of the late President Ferdinand E.
Marcos in the Libingan ng mga Bayani on 18 November 2016
because the hasty and surreptitious interment was
premature, void and irregular considering that the subject
Decision dated 08 November 2016 was indubitably not final
and executory, and the lifting of the Status Quo Ante Order,
an accessory directive, was also not yet final;

2.

Subjecting whatever is exhumed to a forensic examination in


order to determine with certainty that the mortal remains
of the late dictator Marcos, not any other artifact or a wax
replica of him, were interred in the Libingan ng mga Bayani
on 18 November 2016; and

3.

Making of record Petitioners reservation to file a verified


petition for contempt against the public respondents,
responsible members of the Marcos family and culpable
military and police officials and personnel who conspired and
facilitated the premature and clandestine Marcos burial.
Petitioners pray for other just and equitable reliefs.
Quezon City, for Manila
21 November 2016
LAGMAN* LAGMAN & MONES LAW
FIRM
Counsel for the Petitioners
2/F Tempus Place Condominium
Makatarungan cor. Matalino Sts., Brgy.
Central, Diliman, Quezon City
Telefax: 433-5353
6

lagmanlaw@gmail.com

----------------------*Rep. Edcel C. Lagman is on leave for being a Member of the House of


Representatives

EDCEL GRECO A. B. LAGMAN


Roll of Attorneys No. 45738 24 May 2001
PTR No. 3309045/Quezon City/16 August 2016
IBP Lifetime No. 012364/16 January 2014/Albay Chapter
MCLE Compliance No. V No. 000288
Mobile No. 09163324958

NOTICE
The Clerk of Court
Supreme Court En Banc
Padre Faura, Manila
G R E E T I N G S:
Please submit the foregoing urgent motion or petition
for the consideration of the Honorable Supreme Court en
banc as soon as possible.

EDCEL GRECO A. B. LAGMAN


EXPLANATION
The foregoing Manifestation is filed personally with the
Honorable Supreme Court and copies thereof served on the
other parties, through counsel, by registered mail because of
time and personnel constraints, although earnest efforts will
be made to effect personal service.
EDCEL GRECO A. B. LAGMAN

Copy furnished by registered mail:

SOLICITOR GENERAL JOSE C. CALIDA


Counsel for the Public Respondents
OSG Building, 134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi
Village, Makati City

QC Hall Post Office


Registry Receipt No. ____
21 November 2016

ATTY. HYACINTH E. RAFAEL-ANTONIO


Counsel for the Heirs of Ferdinand E. Marcos
Suite A, 18th Floor, Tower 6798
6789 Ayala Avenue, Makati City

QC Hall Post Office


Registry Receipt No. ____
21 November 2016

ATTYS. EDRE U. OLALIA, JULIAN F.


OLIVA, JR., EPHRAIM B. CORTEZ,
MINERVA F. LOPEZ, MARIA AGATHA A.
MIJARES, JOSALEE S. DENILA, ODINA E.
BATNAG AND FRANK LLOYD B.
TIONGSON
Counsel for Petitioners Saturnino Ocampo,
et al.
National Union of Peoples Lawyers (NUPL)
3/F Erythrina Bldg., No. 1 Matatag corner
Maaralin Sts., Central District, Quezon City

QC Hall Post Office


Registry Receipt No. ____
21 November 2016

ATTYS. IBBARA M. GUTIERREZ III,


MARIA CONCEPCION B. MENDOZABALDUEZA, DARWIN P. ANGELES
Counsel for Petitioners Loretta Ann Rosales,
et al.
9/F Filgarcia Bldg., Kalayaan Avenue corner
Mayaman St., Quezon City

QC Hall Post Office


Registry Receipt No. ____
21 November 2016

ATTY. REODY ANTHONY M. BALISI


Counsel for Petitioners Heherson Alvarez, et
al.
4/F S and L Building, de la Rosa corner
Esteban Sts., Legaspi Village, Makati City

QC Hall Post Office


Registry Receipt No. ____
21 November 2016

ATTY. ALGAMAR A. LATIPH


Malayang and Latiph Law Office
Counsel for Petitioners in G.R. No. 226120
G/F ICC Bldg., NIA Compound, EDSA
Diliman, Quezon City

QC Hall Post Office


Registry Receipt No. ____
21 November 2016