Ocampo v.
Enriquez of 1987) to allow the interment in LNMB which is a land of public domain
Facts: During 2016 presidential campaign, Duterte publicly announced he would
allow the burial of Marcos in LNMB. After winning the elections, through Sec. of
National Defense Lorenzana, a Memorandum was issued to Chief of Staff of AFP,
Gen. Visaya, for the interment of Marcos, in compliance with the verbal order of
the President to implement his election campaign promise. AFP rear Admiral
Enriquez issued directives to the Philippine Army Commanding General to
provide services, honors, and other courtesies for the late Former President
Marcos. Dissatisfied with the issuances and directives, various petitioners filed
petition for Certiorari and Prohibition.
- Saturnino Ocampo, et. al., in their capacity as human rights advocates
and human rights violations victims
- Rene Saguisag and his son, as members of the Bar and human rights
lawyers
- Edcel Lagman, as member of Congress
- Loretta Pargas-Rosales, former Chairperson of CHr, as victims of State-
sanctioned human rights violations during martial law
- Heherson Alvarez, former Senator, as concerned citizens and taxpayers
- Zaira Baniaga, as concerned citizens and taxpayers
- Algamar Latiph, former chairperson of regional human rights
commission ARMM, on behalf of Moros who are victims during martial
law
- Leila De Lima, as Senator
Issues
PROCEDURAL
1. Whether Pres. Dutertes determination to have the remains of Marcos
interred at LNMB poses a justiciable controversy
NO. The Court agrees with the OSG that Pres. Dutertes decision to have the
remains of Marcos interred at the LNMB involves a political question that is not a
justiciable controversy. It is also under the Constitution and EO 292 (Admin Code
devoted for national military cemetery and military shrine purposes. It is based
on his wisdom that it shall promote national healing and forgiveness. It is outside
the ambit of judicial review.
2. Whether petitioners have locus standi to file the instant petitions
NO. Petitioners failed to show that they have suffered or will suffer direct or
personal injury as a result of the interment of Marcos at the LNMB. The
interment of Marcos would have no profound effect on the political, economic,
and other aspects of our national life considering that more than 27 years since
his death and 30 years after his ouster have already passed. Petitioners failed to
demonstrate a clear and imminent threat to their fundamental constitutional
rights
3. Whether petitioners violated the doctrines of exhaustion of
administrative remedies and hierarchy of courts
YES. Petitioners violated the doctrines of exhaustion of administrative remedies
and hierarchy of courts. They should seek reconsideration of the assailed
memorandum and directive before the Secretary of National Defense and give
them the opportunity to correct themselves, if warranted. If petitioners are still
dissatisfied with the Secretarys decision they could have elevated it before the
Office of the President which has control and supervision of the DND.
Even though there are exceptions that would warrant a direct resort to the
Supreme Court under exceptional cases, the petitioners cannot brush aside the
doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts that requires such petitions to be filed first with
the proper RTC which are not only 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.
In fine, the petitions at bar should be dismissed on procedural grounds alone.
SUBSTANTIVE
 1. Whether the issuance and implementation of the memorandum violates
the Constitution, domestic and international law
NO. The Presidents decision to bury Marcos at the LNMB is in accordance with
the Constitution, the law or jurisprudence.
Laws and Constitutional provisions cited by petitioner:
Art. II: Sec. 2, 11, 13, 23, 26, 27, and 28 not self-executory
Art. VII: Sec. 17 Faithful execution clause, it is consistent with President
Dutertes mandate, the burial does not contravene RA 289, RA 10368, and the
international human rights laws cited by petitioner
Art. XIV: Sec. 3(2) reliance in this provision is misplaced it refers to duty of educ
institutions to teach values of nationalism and patriotism and respect for human
rights
Art. XI: Sec. 1 not self-executory but RA 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for Public Officials and Employees), RA 7080 (Penalizing Plunder), RA
9485 (Anti-red Tape Act) was enacted pursuant to this
Art. XVIII: Sec. 26 transitory provision and freeze order to recover ill-gotten
wealth
RA 289 authorized the construction of a National Pantheon as a burial place for
Presidents, National Heroes, and Patriots for the perpetuation of the memory
and for the inspiration and emulation of this generation and of generations still
unborn.
Petitioners failed to provide legal and historical bases that LNMB and National
Pantheon is one and the same. LNMB is distinct from the burial place envisioned
in rA 289. The National Pantheon does not exist at present. Also to apply the
standard that LNMB is reserved only for the decent and brave or hero, it will put
into question all the mortal remains therein. The name of LNMB is a misnomer,
interment of Marcos remain does not confer upon him the status of a hero.
RA 10368 (compensation for Human rights violations victims during Marcos
regime) recognizes the human rights violations committed and gives them
reparation. However, the court cannot subscribe to petitioners logic that the
reparation includes the prohibition of Marcos interment when it is not provided.
It is undue to extend the law beyond what it contemplates. Legislators could
have easily inserted a provision prohibiting Marcos internment as reparation but
they did not. The law is silent and should remain to be so. We cannot read into
law what is simply not there. That would be tantamount to judicial legislation.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights these are principles that call
for an enactment of legislative measures. The PH is compliant with its
international obligations evident by the various RAs, exec issuances, and even in
the Constitution
Our nations history will not be instantly revised by a single resolve of President
Duterte to bury Marcos at the LNMB. Whether petititoners admit it or not, the
lessons of Martial Law are already engraved, albeit in varying degrees, in the
hearts and minds of the present generation of Filipinos.
2. Whether the Sec. of National Defense and AFP rear admiral commited
grave abuse of discretion when they issued the memorandum and
directive in compliance with the verbal order of Pres. Duterte to
implement his election campaign promise of Marcos interment in LNMB
The Presidents decision to bury Marcos at the LNMB is not done whimsically,
capriciously or arbitrarily, out of malice, ill will or personal bias. Presumption of
regularity in the performance of official duty prevails over the petitioners
allegation of Dutertes utang na loob or bayad utang to the Marcoses. Petitioners
should establish such claims but failed to do so. Then again, the court is not a
trier of facts.
3. Whether historical facts, laws enacted to recover ill-gotten wealth of
Marcos and his cronies, and pronouncement of SC, nullifies his
entitlement as a soldier and former President to interment at the LNMB
National Shrines are governed by NHCP, military shrines are not. They are
governed by PVAO of DND. LNMB is a military shrine.
Magsaysay issued EO 77 orders remains of war dead interred at Bataan to be
reinterred in McKinley to minimize expenses and accessibility to widows.
Magsaysay issued Proc. 86 changing the name to LNMB
Garcia issued Proc. 423, Marcos issued Proc and General Orders, Cory issued EOs
too. The point is the PVAO manages military shrines which is under DND which is
under the Office of the President
AFP Regulations G 161-375 who may be interred
a.) Medal of Valor awardee
b.) Presidents or Commander-in-Chief, AFP
c.) Sec. of National Defense
d.) Chief of Staff, AFP
e.) General/Flag Officers, AFP
f.) Active and retired military personnel
g.) Gov dignitaries, statesman,national artists and others as long as
approved by the C-i-C, Congress or Sec. of National defense
h.) Widows of former presidents
Petitioners did not dispute that Marcos was a former President and C-i-C,
legislator, Sec. of National Defense, veteran, medal of valor awardee.
Marcos does not have any disqualification. He was not convicted of moral
turpitude nor dishonourably discharged.
Marcos rendered significant active military service and military-related activities.
THOSE WHO Are NOT QUALIFIED:
a.) Personnel who are dishonorably discharged
b.) Convicted of final judgment of an offense involving moral turpitude
Moral Turpitude conduct that is contrary to community standards of justice,
honesty, or good morals.
4. Whether the Marcos family waived the burial of remains of Marcos in
LNMB when they entered into agreement with Gov. of PH as to the
condition and procedures by which his remains shall be brought back to
and interred in the PH.
The presidential power of control over the Executive Branch of Government is a
self-executing provision of the Constitution nor its exercise be limted by
legislature. As the incumbent President, Duterte is not bound by the 1992
Agreement between ramos and the Marcos family to have the remains of
Marcos interred in Ilocos Norte, he is free to amend, revoke or rescind political
agreements entered into by his predecessors, and to determine policies which he
considers, based on informed judgment and presumed wisdom, will be most
effective in carrying out his mandate.
In sum, there is no clear constitutional or legal basis to hold that there was grave
abuse of discretion which would justify the Court to interpose its authority to
check and override an act entrusted to the judgment of another branch. The
President through respondents acted within the bounds of law and
jurisprudence. The Court must uphold what is legal and just and that is not to
deny Marcos of his rightful place in LNMB
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the petitions are DISMISSED. Necessarily,
the Status Quo Ante Order is hereby LIFTED.