Ocampo v.

Enriquez (2016)
Concurring Opinion (J. Bersamin)

Issue: W/N the Chief Executive, in verbally authorizing the interment of the remains of Marcos in
the Libingan ng mga Bayani, gravely abused his discretion

Reasons for voting to dismiss the petition and to allow the interment:
1. Interment of remains of Marcos in the LNMB is a matter that exclusively pertains to the
discretion of Pres Duterte as Chief Exec
Character of LNMB as resting place for the war dead and other military personnel
has placed the LNMB under the Presidents control, through the AFP Chief of Staff
o Beyond review by the Court
AFP Regulations G 161-375: prescribed the guidelines that enumerate the persons
whose remains may be interred therein
o President Marcos as former President, Medal of Valor awardee, a veteran
of WWII, a former Senator and Senate President, and a former
Congressman was entitled to be interred in the LNMB
Political question within the exclusive domain of the Chief Exec
o Court must defer to his wisdom and must respect his exercise of discretion
o Thus, directive to Sec. Lorenzana is unassailable
Marcos v. Manglapus case deciding question W/N President of the Philippines had
validly acted in prohibiting return of Marcos family to the country
o Foremost consideration then: return of the Marcoses could dangerously
impact on the nations peace and security
o The impact is not imminent today
2. Laws petitioner have invoked to prevent the interment are not relevant to the LNMB
See: Main opinion
E.g. RA 289 stipulated the establishment of the National Pantheon as the final
resting place for former Presidents, national heroes and patriots to perpetuate
their memory as sources of inspiration and emulation for future generations
o Petitioners asserted that Marcos remains do not deserve to be interred in
the LNMB bc of his gross human rights violations, massive corruption and
plunder of government coffers, and other abuses during his regime
rendered his memory unworthy of perpetuation and could not be a source
of inspiration and emulation, yet the SolGen clarified that LNMB is not the
National Pantheon referred to by RA 289
o Proclamation No. 431 located the National Pantheon in East Ave., QC, but
its establishment was later discontinued
o LNMB is the former Republic Memorial Cemetery (EO 77) reserved as the
final resting place for the war dead of WWII, but Pres Magsaysay renamed
it to LNMB.
o Therefore, LNMB is not the same as the National Pantheon.
 E.g. RA 10368 recognizing the victims of Martial Law and making reparations for
their sufferings by appropriating P10B as compensation for them
o How such law impacts the interment of Marcos remains has not been
persuasively shown
Petitioners have not
o laid out any legal foundation for directly testing issuance of challenged
executive issuances
o cited any specific provision of either the Consti or other existing laws that
would expressly prohibit the interment in the LNMB of Marcos remains
3. None of the disqualifications under AFP Regulations G 161-375 apply to Marcos
Those who are disqualified to have their remains interred in the LNMB:
o personnel who were dishonorably separated/reverted/discharged from
the service, and
o authorized personnel who were convicted by final judgment of an offense
involving moral turpitude
Contention that ousting from the Presidency by the 1986 People Power revolution
was not the same as being dishonorably discharged bc the discharge must be from
the military service