OCAMPO et. al v.

ERNESTO ENRIQUEZ

G.R no 225973, September 2016

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. Duterte’s determination to have the remains of Marcos interred at LNMB poses a
justiciable controversy

NO. The Court agrees with the OSG that Pres. Duterte’s 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 of 1987) to allow the interment in LNMB which is a land of public
domain 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 Secretary’s 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 President’s 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 Duterte’s 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
petitioner’s 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 nation’s 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 President’s 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 Duterte’s 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.
IFURUNG VS. CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES

G.R. no 232131

April 24, 2018

Facts:

Petitioner asserts that he has a locus standi in the correction of a statutory wrong in the case of Funa vs.
Villar. He alleges that Section 8 (3) of RA 6770, which provides that in case of vacancy in the Office of the
Ombudsman due to death, resignation, removal or permanent disability of the incumbent Ombudsman
and his deputies, a new Ombudsman shall be appointed to a full term of seven (7) years, is constitutionally
infirm as it intervenes section 11 in relation to Article IX of the constitution. That the incumbent
ombudsman and deputies have been overstaying in their present positions for more than two years
considering that their terms have expired on February 2015. Considering that the intent of the framers of
the Constitution was that the position of the Ombudsman and its deputies shall have the same status as
the three constitutional commissions, the limitations as to the latter’s term of office shall likewise apply
to the ombudsman and deputies. That ombudsman Morales have been holding position in de facto
capacity since February 02, 2015 to present. Petitioner speculates that such fresh term of seven years
could effectively deprive an incoming president the power and opportunity to appoint an Ombudsman.

Respondents on the other hand, explained that there are other offices created by the Constitution, viz:
Supreme Court, Judicial Bar Council, Senate Electoral Tribunal, HR Electoral Tribunal, judges of lower
courts, elective officials, and the CHR among others, where such distinction does not apply. Moreover,
the present petition, which involves a collateral attack on the respondent's title should be dismissed for
being an improper remedy. Respondent's emphasize that the proper remedy would have been a petition
for Quo Warranto under Rule 66 of the Rules of Court which should be initiated by the Solicitor General
or public prosecutor when directed by the President of the Philippines.

Issue:

Whether or not Section 8 (3) of RA no 6770 which extends the period of office by the respondents is
unconstitutional for being violative of Section 11 in relation to Sections 8 and 10 Article IX of the
Constitution

Ruling:
Section 8 (3) of RA no 6770 is not unconstitutional.

Petitioner anchors his challenge on the constitutionality of Sec 8 (3) of RA 6770 in the belief that the
Ombudsman and the deputies have the same rank and salary as the chairman and the members of the
constitutional commisions, their term of office, following the Court's disquisition in Gaminde, shall always
be seven years counted from 2 Februay 1987 and seven years hereafter, and not the full term of seven
years.

It must also be stressed out that the Office of the Ombudsman is not a constitutional commission. Section
1, Article IX of the 1987 Constitution specifically enumerates the independent constitutional commissions
in the PH, namely: the CSC, the COMELEC, and the COA. Clearly provided in Section 7 is that these three
constitutional commissions shall decide by a majority of vote of all its members any case or matter
brought before it. Incontrast, the Office of the Ombudsman, albeit composed of the Ombudsman, known
to be the Tanodbayan, the Overall deputy, the Deputy for Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao, The Deputy for
the Military and other Law Enforcement Office, and the Special Prosecutor is not a collegiate body. The
Ombudsman and the deputies do not resolve cases by a majority of all its members but rather are confined
within the sphere of their respective jurisdiction. (in Luzon, Visayas, Mindanao and MOLEO for those
assigned in the Military and police). The Overall Deputy on the one hand, oversees and administers the
operations of the different offices under the Office of the Ombudsman while the Ombudsman is the final
approving authority of the disposition of cases before the sectoral offices.

In our review of Sec 8 (3) of RA 6770, we note that in case of death, resignation, removal, or permanent
disability of the Ombudsman, the new Ombudsman shall be appointed for a full term. It is consistent with
the constitution in so far as it provides the Ombudsman and the deputies shall serve for a term of seven
years. harmonizing the two, it refers to any vacancy for the positions of Ombudsman and the deputies.
the Gaminde ruling applies to the constitutional commissions and not to the Office of the Ombudsman.