Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Enriquez case digest 2) Whether the issuance and implementation of the assailed Locus standi
October 9, 2017 memorandum and directive violated the Constitution, and Petitioners have no legal standing to file the petitions for
domestic and international laws? certiorari, prohibition and mandamus because they failed to
Saturnino C. Ocampo, et al. vs. Rear Admiral Ernesto C. show that they have suffered or will suffer direct and
Enriquez, et al., G.R. Nos. 225973, 225984, 226097, 226116, 3) Whether historical facts, laws enacted to recover ill- personal injury as a result of the interment of Marcos at the
gotten wealth from the Marcoses and their cronies, and the LNMB.
226120 & 226294, November 8, 2016 pronouncements of the Court on the Marcos regime have
nullified his entitlement as a soldier and former President to Petitioners cannot also file as taxpayers. They merely claim
Facts: interment at the LNMB? illegal disbursement of public funds, without showing that
During the campaign period for the 2016 Presidential Marcos is disqualified to be interred at the LNMB by either
Election, then candidate Rodrigo R. Duterte publicly 4) Whether the Marcos family is deemed to have waived the express or implied provision of the Constitution, the laws or
announced that he would allow the burial former President burial of the remains of former President Marcos at the jurisprudence.
Ferdinand E. Marcos at the Libingan ng Mga Bayani LNMB after they entered into an agreement with the
("LNMB"). Duterte won the May 9, 2016 elections. Government of the Republic of the Philippines as to the Petitioners Saguisag, et al., as members of the Bar, failed to
conditions and procedures by which his remains shall be disclose the direct or potential injury which they may suffer
On August 7, 2016, Defense Secretary Delfin N. Lorenzana brought back to and interred in the Philippines? as a result of the act complained of. Their interest in this case
issued a Memorandum to AFP Chief of Staff General Ricardo is too general and shared by other groups, such that their
R. Visaya regarding the interment of former President duty to uphold the rule of law, without more, is inadequate
Ferdinand E. Marcos at the Libingan ng Mga Bayani. RULING to clothe them with requisite legal standing.
The Supreme Court denied the petitions.
On August 9, 2016, AFP Rear Admiral Ernesto C. Enriquez Petitioners also failed to prove that the case is of
issued a directive to the Philippine Army on the Funeral transcendental importance. At this point in time, the
Honors and Service for President Marcos. Procedural issues interment of Marcos at a cemetery originally established as
a national military cemetery and declared a national shrine
Dissatisfied with the foregoing issuance, the petitioners filed Political question would have no profound effect on the political, economic,
a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition and Petition for The Court agrees with the OSG that President Duterte's and other aspects of our national life considering that more
Mandamus and Prohibition with the Court. decision to have the remains of Marcos interred at the LNMB than twenty-seven (27) years since his death and thirty (30)
involves a political question that is not a justiciable years after his ouster have already passed. Significantly,
controversy. In the excercise of his powers under the petitioners failed to demonstrate a clear and imminent
ISSUES Constitution and the Administrative Code of 1987 to allow threat to their fundamental constitutional rights.
1) Whether respondents Defense Secretary and AFP Rear the interment of Marcos at the LNMB, which is a land of the
Admiral committed grave abuse of discretion when they public domain devoted for national military cemetery and As to petitioners Senator De Lima and Congressman Lagman,
issued the assailed memorandum and directive in military shrine purposes, President Duterte decided a they failed to show that the burial of Marcos encroaches on
compliance with the verbal order of President Duterte to question of policy based on his wisdom that it shall promote their prerogatives as legislators.
implement his election campaign promise to have the national healing and forgiveness. There being no taint of
remains of Marcos interred at the LNMB? grave abuse in the exercise of such discretion, as discussed Exhaustion of administrative remedies
below, President Duterte's decision on that political Petitioners violated the exhaustion of administrative
question is outside the ambit of judicial review. remedies. Contrary to their claim of lack of plain, speedy,
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, petitioners providing guiding principles to just about anything remotely the other executive functions. It is best construed as an
should be faulted for failing to seek reconsideration of the related to the Martial Law period such as the proposed imposed obligation, not a separate grant of power. The
assailed memorandum and directive before the Secretary Marcos burial at the LNMB. provision simply underscores the rule of law and, corollarily,
ofNational Defense. The Secretary of National Defense the cardinal principle that the President is not above the
should be given opportunity to correct himself, if warranted, Section 1 of Article XI of the Constitution is not a self- laws but is obliged to obey and execute them.
considering that AFP Regulations G 161-375 was issued upon executing provision considering that a law should be passed
his order. Questions on the implementation and by the Congress to clearly define and effectuate the principle There is no violation of RA 289.
interpretation thereof demand the exercise of sound embodied therein. Pursuant thereto, Congress enacted the
administrative discretion, requiring the special knowledge, Code of Conduct on Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Petitioners miserably failed to provide legal and historical
experience and services of his office to determine technical Employees, the Ombudsman Act of 1989, Plunder Act, and bases as to their supposition that the LNMB and the National
and intricate matters of fact. If petitioners would still be Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007. To complement these statutes, Pantheon are one and the same. This is not at all unexpected
dissatisfied with the decision of the Secretary, they could the Executive Branch has issued various orders, memoranda, because the LNMB is distinct and separate from the burial
elevate the matter before the Office of the President which and instructions relative to the norms of behavior/code of place envisioned in R.A. No 289. The parcel of land subject
has control and supervision over the Department of National conduct/ethical standards of officials and employees; matter of President Quirino's Proclamation No. 431, which
Defense (DND). workflow charts/public transactions; rules and policies on was later on revoked by President Magsaysay's Proclamation
gifts and benefits; whistle blowing and reporting; and client No. 42, is different from that covered by Marcos'
Hierarchy of Courts feedback program Proclamation No. 208. The National Pantheon does not exist
at present. To date, the Congress has deemed it wise not to
While direct resort to the Court through petitions for the Petitioners' reliance on Sec. 3(2) of Art. XIV and Sec. 26 of A appropriate any funds for its construction or the creation of
extraordinary writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus rt. XVIII of the Constitution is also misplaced. Sec. 3(2) of the Board on National Pantheon. This is indicative of the
are allowed under exceptional cases, which are lacking in Art. XIV refers to the constitutional duty of educational legislative will not to pursue, at the moment, the
this case, petitioners cannot simply brush aside the doctrine institutions in teaching the values of patriotism and establishment of a singular interment place for the mortal
of hierarchy of courts that requires such petitions to be filed nationalism and respect for human rights, while Sec. 26 of remains of all Presidents of the Philippines, national heroes,
first with the proper Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC is Art. XVIII is a transitory provision on sequestration or freeze and patriots.
not just a trier of facts, but can also resolve questions of law orders in relation to the recovery of Marcos' ill-gotten
in the exercise of its original and concurrent jurisdiction over wealth. Clearly, with respect to these provisions, there is no Furthermore, to apply the standard that the LNMB is
petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, and has direct or indirect prohibition to Marcos' interment at the reserved only for the "decent and the brave" or "hero"
the power to issue restraining order and injunction when LNMB. would be violative of public policy as it will put into question
proven necessary. the validity of the burial of each and every mortal remains
The second sentence of Sec. 17 of Art. VII is likewise not resting therein, and infringe upon the principle of separation
violated by public respondents. Being the Chief Executive, of powers since the allocation of plots at the LNMB is based
Substantive issues
the President represents the government as a whole and on the grant of authority to the President under existing laws
sees to it that all laws are enforced by the officials and and regulations. Also, the Court shares the view of the OSG
I. The President's decision to bury Marcos at the LNMB is in
employees of his or her department. Under the Faithful that the proposed interment is not equivalent to the
accordance with the Constitution, the law and jurisprudence.
Execution Clause, the President has the power to take consecration of Marcos' mortal remains. The act in itself
"necessary and proper steps" to carry into execution the does not confer upon him the status of a "hero." Despite its
While the Constitution is a product of our collective history
law. The mandate is self-executory by virtue of its being name, which is actually a misnomer, the purpose of the
as a people, its entirety should not be interpreted as
inherently executive in nature and is intimately related to LNMB, both from legal and historical perspectives, has
neither been to confer to the people buried there the title of There is no violation of International Human Rights Laws. exile, imprisonment, detention or death of great and
"hero" nor to require that only those interred therein should eminent leaders of the nation,"; and (3) Since its
be treated as a "hero." Lastly, petitioners' repeated The nation's history will not be instantly revised by a single establishment, the LNMB has been a military shrine under
reference to a "hero's burial" and "state honors," without resolve of President Duterte, acting through the public the jurisdiction of the PVAO.
showing proof as to what kind of burial or honors that will respondents, to bury Marcos at the LNMB. Whether
be accorded to the remains of Marcos, is speculative until petitioners admit it or not, the lessons of Martial Law are Assuming that P.D. No. 105 is applicable, the descriptive
the specifics of the interment have been finalized by public already engraved, albeit in varying degrees, in the hearts and words "sacred and hallowed" refer to the LNMB as a place
respondents. minds of the present generation of Filipinos. As to the and not to each and every mortal remains interred therein.
unborn, it must be said that the preservation and Hence, the burial of Marcos at the LNMB does not diminish
No violation of RA 10639 . popularization of our history is not the sole responsibility of said cemetery as a revered and respected ground. Neither
the Chief Executive; it is a joint and collective endeavor of does it negate the presumed individual or collective
The Court cannot subscribe to petitioners' logic that the every freedom-loving citizen of this country. "heroism" of the men and women buried or will be buried
beneficial provisions of R.A. No. 10368 are not exclusive as it therein. The "nation's esteem and reverence for her war
includes the prohibition on Marcos' burial at the LNMB. It Notably, complementing the statutory powers and functions dead, " as originally contemplated by President Magsaysay
would be undue to extend the law beyond what it actually of the Human Rights Victims' Claims Board and the HRVV in issuing Proclamation No. 86, still stands unaffected. That
contemplates. With its victim-oriented perspective, our Memorial Commission in the memorialization of HRVV s, the being said, the interment of Marcos, therefore, does not
legislators could have easily inserted a provision specifically National Historical Commission of the Philippines (NHCP), constitute a violation of the physical, historical, and cultural
proscribing Marcos' interment at the LNMB as a "reparation" formerly known as the National Historical Institute (NHJ), is integrity of the LNMB as a national military shrine.
for the Human Rights Violations Victims (HRVVs). The law is mandated to act as the primary government agency
silent and should remain to be so. This Court cannot read responsible for history and is authorized to determine all The LNMB is considered as a national shrine for military
into the law what is simply not there. It is irregular, if not factual matters relating to official Philippine history. memorials. The PVAO, which is empowered to administer,
unconstitutional, for Us to presume the legislative will by develop, and maintain military shrines, is under the
supplying material details into the law. That would be II. The President's decision to bury Marcos at the LNMB is not supervision and control of the DND. The DND, in tum, is
tantamount to judicial legislation. done whimsically, capriciously or arbitrarily, out of malice, ill under the Office of the President.
will or personal bias.
The enforcement of the HRVV s' rights under R.A. No 10368 The presidential power of control over the Executive Branch
will surely not be impaired by the interment of Marcos at the The LNMB was not expressly included in the national shrines of Government is a self-executing provision of the
LNMB. As opined by the OSG, the assailed act has no causal enumerated in PD 105 Constitution and does not require statutory
connection and legal relation to the law. The subject implementation, nor may its exercise be limited, much less
memorandum and directive of public respondents do not P.D. No. 105 does not apply to the LNMB. Despite the fact withdrawn, by the legislature. This is why President Duterte
and cannot interfere with the statutory powers and that P.D. No. 208 predated P.D. No. 105, the LNMB was not is not bound by the alleged 1992 Agreement between
functions of the Board and the Commission. More expressly included in the national shrines enumerated in the former President Ramos and the Marcos family to have the
importantly, the HRVVs' entitlements to the benefits latter. The proposition that the LNMB is implicitly covered in remains of Marcos interred in Batac, Ilocos Norte. As the
provided for by R.A. No 10368 and other domestic laws are the catchall phrase "and others which may be proclaimed in incumbent President, he is free to amend, revoke or rescind
not curtailed. R.A. No. 10368 does not amend or repeal, the future as National Shrines" is erroneous because: (1) As political agreements entered into by his predecessors, and
whether express or implied, the provisions of the stated, Marcos issued P.D. No. 208 prior to P.D. No. 105; (2) to determine policies which he considers, based on informed
Administrative Code or AFP Regulations G 161-375. Following the canon of statutory construction known as judgment and presumed wisdom, will be most effective in
ejusdem generis, 138 the LNMB is not a site "of the birth, carrying out his mandate.
Officers of the AFP; (f) Active and retired military personnel vires for purportedly providing incomplete, whimsical, and
Moreover, under the Administrative Code, the President has of the AFP to include active draftees and trainees who died capricious standards for qualification for burial at the LNMB.
the power to reserve for public use and for specific public in line of duty, active reservists and CAFGU Active Auxiliary
purposes any of the lands of the public domain and that the (CAA) who died in combat operations or combat related It is not contrary to the "well-established custom," as the
reserved land shall remain subject to the specific public activities; (g) Former members of the AFP who laterally dissent described it, to argue that the word "bayani" in the
purpose indicated until otherwise provided by law or entered or joined the PCG and the PNP; (h) Veterans of LNMB has become a misnomer since while a symbolism of
proclamation. At present, there is no law or executive Philippine Revolution of 1890, WWI, WWII and recognized heroism may attach to the LNMB as a national shrine for
issuance specifically excluding the land in which the LNMB is guerillas; (i) Government Dignitaries, Statesmen, National military memorial, the same does not automatically attach
located from the use it was originally intended by the past Artists and other deceased persons whose interment or to its feature as a military cemetery and to those who were
Presidents. The allotment of a cemetery plot at the LNMB reinterment has been approved by the Commander-in- already laid or will be laid therein. As stated, the purpose of
for Marcos as a former President and Commander-in-Chief, Chief, Congress or the Secretary of National Defense; and G) the LNMB, both from the legal and historical perspectives,
a legislator, a Secretary of National Defense, a military Former Presidents, Secretaries of Defense, Dignitaries, has neither been to confer to the people buried there the
personnel, a veteran, and a Medal of Valor Statesmen, National Artists, widows of Former Presidents, title of "hero" nor to require that only those interred therein
awardee, whether recognizing his contributions or simply Secretaries of National Defense and Chief of Staff. should be treated as a "hero."
his status as such, satisfies the public use requirement. The
disbursement of public funds to cover the expenses Similar to AFP Regulations G 161-374, the following are not In fact, the privilege of internment at the LNMB has been
incidental to the burial is granted to compensate him for qualified to be interred in the LNMB: (a) Personnel who were loosen up through the years. Since 1986, the list of eligible
valuable public services rendered. dishonorably separated/reverted/discharged from the includes not only those who rendered active military service
service; and (b) Authorized personnel who were convicted or military-related activities but also non-military personnel
Likewise, President Duterte's determination to have Marcos' by final judgment of an offense involving moral turpitude. who were recognized for their significant contributions to
remains interred at the LNMB was inspired by his desire for the Philippine society (such as government dignitaries,
national healing and reconciliation. Presumption of In the absence of any executive issuance or law to the statesmen, national artists, and other deceased persons
regularity in the performance of official duty prevails over contrary, the AFP Regulations G 161-375 remains to be the whose interment or reinterment has been approved by the
petitioners' highly disputed factual allegation that, in the sole authority in determining who are entitled and Commander-in-Chief, Congress or Secretary of National
guise of exercising a presidential prerogative, the Chief disqualified to be interred at the LNMB. Interestingly, even Defense). In 1998, the widows of former Presidents,
Executive is actually motivated by utang na loob (debt of if they were empowered to do so, former Presidents Secretaries of National Defense and Chief of Staff were
gratitude) and bayad utang (payback) to the Marcoses. As Corazon C. Aquino and Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III, who added to the list. Whether or not the extension of burial
the purpose is not self-evident, petitioners have the burden were themselves aggrieved at the Martial Law, did not revise privilege to civilians is unwarranted and should be restricted
of proof to establish the factual basis of their claim. They the rules by expressly prohibiting the burial of Marcos at the in order to be consistent with the original purpose of the
failed. Even so, this Court cannot take cognizance of factual LNMB. The validity of AFP Regulations G 161-375 must, LNMB is immaterial and irrelevant to the issue at bar since it
issues since We are not a trier of facts. therefor, be sustained for having been issued by the AFP is indubitable that Marcos had rendered significant active
Chief of Staff acting under the direction of the Secretary of military service and military-related activities.
AFP Regulations G 161-375 must be sustained. National Defense, who is the alter ego of the President.
Petitioners did not dispute that Marcos was a former
Under AFP Regulations G 161-375, the following are eligible AFP Regulations G 161-375 should not be stricken down in President and Commander-in-Chief, a legislator, a Secretary
for interment at the LNMB: (a) Medal of Valor Awardees; (b) the absence of clear and unmistakable showing that it has of National Defense, a military personnel, a veteran, and a
Presidents or Commanders-in-Chief, AFP; ( c) Secretaries of been issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack Medal of Valor awardee. For his alleged human rights abuses
National Defense; ( d) Chiefs of Staff, AFP; ( e) General/Flag or excess of jurisdiction. Neither could it be considered ultra and corrupt practices, we may disregard Marcos as a
President and Commander-in-Chief, but we cannot deny him and Macapagal). All of them were not convicted of a crime separated/reverted/discharged from the service" as
the right to be acknowledged based on the other positions involving moral turpitude. In addition, the classification contemplated by AFP Regulations G 161-375. Dishonorable
he held or the awards he received. In this sense, We agree between a military personnel and a former President is discharge through a successful revolution is an extra-
with the proposition that Marcos should be viewed and germane to the purposes of Proclamation No. 208 and P.D. constitutional and direct sovereign act of the people which
judged in his totality as a person. While he was not all good, No. 1076. While the LNMB is a national shrine for military is beyond the ambit of judicial review, let alone a mere
he was not pure evil either. Certainly, just a human who memorials, it is also an active military cemetery that administrative regulation.
erred like us. recognizes the status or position held by the persons
interred therein. It is undeniable that former President Marcos was forced out
Aside from being eligible for burial at the LNMB, Marcos of office by the people through the so-called EDSA
possessed none of the disqualifications stated in AFP Likewise, Marcos was honorably discharged from military Revolution. Said political act of the people should not be
Regulations G 161-3 7 5. He was neither convicted by final service. PVAO expressly recognized him as a retired veteran automatically given a particular legal meaning other than its
judgment of the offense involving moral turpitude nor pursuant to R.A. No. 6948, as amended. Petitioners have not obvious consequence - that of ousting him as president. To
dishonorably separated/reverted/discharged from active shown that he was dishonorably discharged from military do otherwise would lead the Court to the treacherous and
military service. service under APP Circular 17, Series of 1987 (Administrative perilous path of having to make choices from multifarious
Discharge Prior to Expiration of Term of Enlistment) for inferences or theories arising from the various acts of the
The fact remains that Marcos was not convicted by final violating Articles 94, 95 and 97 of the Articles of War. The people. It is not the function of the Court, for instance, to
judgment of any offense involving moral turpitude. No less NHCP study is incomplete with respect to his entire military divine the exact implications or significance of the number
than the 1987 Constitution mandates that a person shall not career as it failed to cite and include the official records of of votes obtained in elections, or the message from the
be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process the AFP. number of participants in public assemblies. If the Court is
of law. not to fall into the pitfalls of getting embroiled in political
The word "service" in AFP Regulations G 161-375 should be and oftentimes emotional, if not acrimonious, debates, it
Also, the equal protection clause is not violated. Generally, construed as that rendered by a military person in the AFP, must remain steadfast in abiding by its recognized guiding
there is no property right to safeguard because even if one including civil service, from the time of his/her commission, stars - clear constitutional and legal rules - not by the
is eligible to be buried at the LNMB, such fact would only give enlistment, probation, training or drafting, up to the date of uncertain, ambiguous and confusing messages from the
him or her the privilege to be interred therein. Unless there his/her separation or retirement from the AFP. Civil service actions of the people.
is a favorable recommendation from the Commander- in- after honorable separation and retirement from the AFP is
Chief, the Congress or the Secretary of National Defense, no outside the context of "service" under AFP Regulations G Ocampo v. Enriquez
right can be said to have ripen. Until then, such inchoate 161-375.
right is not legally demandable and enforceable. Facts: During 2016 presidential campaign, Duterte publicly
Hence, it cannot be conveniently claimed that Marcos' announced he would allow the burial of Marcos in LNMB.
Assuming that there is a property right to protect, the ouster from the presidency during the EDSA Revolution is After winning the elections, through Sec. of National
requisites of equal protection clause are not met. 181 In this tantamount to his dishonorable separation, reversion or Defense Lorenzana, a Memorandum was issued to Chief of
case, there is a real and substantial distinction between a discharge from the military service. The fact that the Staff of AFP, Gen. Visaya, for the interment of Marcos, in
military personnel and a former President. The conditions of President is the Commander-in-Chief of the AFP under the compliance with the verbal order of the President to
dishonorable discharge under the Articles of War attach only 1987 Constitution only enshrines the principle of supremacy implement his election campaign promise. AFP rear Admiral
to the members of the military. There is also no substantial of civilian authority over the military. Not being a military Enriquez issued directives to the Philippine Army
distinction between Marcos and the three Philippine person who may be prosecuted before the court martial, the Commanding General to provide services, honors, and other
Presidents buried at the LNMB (Presidents Quirino, Garcia, President can hardly be deemed "dishonorably
courtesies for the late Former President Marcos. Dissatisfied controversy. It is also under the Constitution and EO 292 of Courts that requires such petitions to be filed first with
with the issuances and directives, various petitioners filed (Admin Code of 1987) to allow the interment in LNMB which the proper RTC which are not only trier of facts but can also
petition for Certiorari and Prohibition. is a land of public domain devoted for national military resolve questions of law in the exercise of its original and
cemetery and military shrine purposes. It is based on his concurrent jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari,
- Saturnino Ocampo, et. al., in their capacity as
wisdom that it shall promote national healing and prohibition and mandamus, and has the power to issue
human rights advocates and human rights forgiveness. It is outside the ambit of judicial review. restraining order and injunction when proven necessary.
violations victims
- Rene Saguisag and his son, as members of the Bar 2. Whether petitioners have locus standi to file the In fine, the petitions at bar should be dismissed on
and human rights lawyers instant petitions procedural grounds alone.
- Edcel Lagman, as member of Congress SUBSTANTIVE
NO. Petitioners failed to show that they have suffered or will
- Loretta Pargas-Rosales, former Chairperson of CHr,
suffer direct or personal injury as a result of the interment 1. Whether the issuance and implementation of the
as victims of State-sanctioned human rights
of Marcos at the LNMB. The interment of Marcos would
violations during martial law memorandum violates the Constitution, domestic
have no profound effect on the political, economic, and
- Heherson Alvarez, former Senator, as concerned and international law
other aspects of our national life considering that more than
citizens and taxpayers 27 years since his death and 30 years after his ouster have NO. The President’s decision to bury Marcos at the LNMB is
- Zaira Baniaga, as concerned citizens and taxpayers already passed. Petitioners failed to demonstrate a clear and in accordance with the Constitution, the law or
- Algamar Latiph, former chairperson of regional imminent threat to their fundamental constitutional rights jurisprudence.
human rights commission ARMM, on behalf of
3. Whether petitioners violated the doctrines of Laws and Constitutional provisions cited by petitioner:
Moros who are victims during martial law
exhaustion of administrative remedies and
- Leila De Lima, as Senator
hierarchy of courts Art. II: Sec. 2, 11, 13, 23, 26, 27, and 28 – not self-executory
HELD: Political questions refer "to those questions which, under the Constitution, are to be
decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary
authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the government. It is
concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality of a particular measure."
Certain types of cases often have been found to present political questions.One such category
involves questions of foreign relations.It is well-established that "the conduct of the foreign
relations of our government is committed by the Constitution to the executive and legislative-
-'the political'--departments of the government, and the propriety of what may be done in the
exercise of this political power is not subject to judicial inquiry or decision."
Not all cases implicating foreign relations present political questions, and courts certainly
possess the authority to construe or invalidate treaties and executive agreements. However,
the question whether the Philippine government should espouse claims of its nationals
against a foreign government is a foreign relations matter, the authority for which is
demonstrably committed by our Constitution not to the courts but to the political branches.In
Evardone v. COMELEC EVARDONE’S CONTENTION: Art. X Sec. 3 provides that the process of election on recall and in the exercise of such
Felipe Evardone Congress shall enact a LGC which shall provide for mechanisms of powers, promulgate the necessary rules and regulations.
COMELEC, Alexander Apelado, Victorino Aclan and recall, initiative, and referendum. His theory is that since there 3. The TRO does not render nugatory the signing process; it is
Noel Aclan was, during the period material to the case, no local LGC enacted valid and has a legal effect. However, herein petitions have
Mayor Evardone challenges the constitutionality of by Congress after the effectivity of the 1987 Const., there is no become moot and academic.
COMELEC Reso 2272 based on Art. X Sec. 3 Const., he law which will serve as basis for the COMELEC Resolution. Records show that Evardone knew of the Notice of
claims that there is no LGC which will serve as basis Recall as early as on Feb 1990, but he was not vigilant in
for COMELEC in issuing said Reso. Ct said that the LGC COMELEC’S REBUTTAL: The constitutional provision does not following it up and determining the outcome of such notice.
in place was BP 337. Thus, the assailed Reso is a valid refer only to a LGC which is in futurum but also in esse. The
As attested by Election Resgistrar, 34% signed the petition
exercise of COMELEC’s powers based on Secs. 54 to adoption of the 1987 Const. did not abrogate the provisions of BP
59 of BP 337. for recall. There is no turning back the clock.
337, unless a certain provision thereof is clearly irreconcilable
WON the electorate of the Municipality of Sulat has lost
with the 1987 Const. In this case, there is no inconsistency, thus
Doctrine on effectivity of the LGC of 1991: Since the both are operative. confidence in the incumbent mayor is a political question.
LGC of 1991 will take effect only on Jan. 1, 1992, the
old LGC (BP 337) is still the law applicable to the issues HOWEVER, recall at this time is no longer possible
present case.
because of the limitation provided in Sec. 55 (2) of BP 337,
facts of the case WON Resolution No. 2272 is constitutional? YES
which states:
Evardone is the mayor of the Municipality of Sulat, Eastern WON the TRO issued by SC rendered nugatory the signing process “Sec. 55. Who May be Recalled; Ground for Recall;
Samar, having been elected to the position during the 1988 local of the petition for recall held pursuant to Resolution No. 2272? When Recall may not be held—
elections. On Feb. 4, 1990, Apelado et al. filed a petition for recall NO (2) No recall shall take place within 2 yrs from the date
of Evardone. Thereafter, COMELEC issued Resolution No. 90-0557, of the official’s assumption of office or 1 year immediately
ratio
which approved the recommendation of the Election Registrar of preceding a regular local election.”
Sulat, Eastern Samar to hold and conduct the signing of the 1. First, the applicable law is BP 337. The Const. has mandated a synchronized natl and local
petition for recall on Jul. 14, 1990. COMELEC also has a prior Art. XVIII Sec. 3 of the 1987 Const. expressly provides election on May 2, 1992. Thus, to hold an election on recall
resolution on recall proceedings, Resolution No. 2272 (based on that all existing laws not inconsistent with the 1987 Const. approximately 7 months before the regular local election will
the Const. and Secs. 54 to 59) dated May 23, 1990. shall remain operative, until amended, repealed or revoked. be violative of the above provisions of the applicable LGC (BP
On Jul. 10, 1990, Evardone filed before SC a petition for RA 7160, providing for the LGC of 1991, approved by the 337).
prohibition with urgent prayer for TRO, which SC issued on Jul. 12. President on Oct. 10, 1991 specifically repeals BP 337, as Accordingly, the petitions are dismissed for having
However, it was only on Jul. 15 that the field agent of COMELEC provided in Sec. 534 Title IV of said Act. But RA 7160 will take become moot and academic.
received the telegraphic notice of the TRO—a day after the effect only on Jan. 1, 1992 and therefore, the old LGC— BP
completion of the signing process. So, the signing process pushed 337—is still the law applicable to the present case. This was
through. also discussed by the Const. Commissioner Nolledo during
the Const. deliberations.
COMELEC thereafter nullified the signing process. Apelado et
2. The assailed Resolution is based on Secs. 54 to 59 of BP 337. It
al. filed an MR, but COMELEC denied the same. is constitutional.
Chapter 3 (Secs. 54 to 59) of BP 337 provides for the
Evardone now challenges the constitutionality of Resolution
No. 90-0557, asserting that Art. X Sec. 3 of the 1987 Const. mechanism for recall of local elective officials. Sec. 59
repealed BP 337. expressly authorizes COMELEC to conduct and supervise the
TAÑADA & MACAPAGAL VS. CUENCO ET.AL. Digested his right to nominate 2 more senators; he is in estoppel. morals are at issue, the power to waive is inexistent.
TAÑADA & MACAPAGAL VS. CUENCO ET.AL. They contend that the present action is not the proper Tañada never led Primicias to believe that his nominations
remedy, but an appeal to public opinion. on behalf of the CP are valid. WHEREFORE: The Senate
G.R. No. L-10520 February 28, 1957 cannot elect members of the ET not nominated by the
ISSUES: proper party, nor can the majority party elect more than 3
FACTS:
members of the ET. Furthermore, the CRS has no standing
On Feb. 22, 1956, the Senate on behalf of the Nacionalista 1.WON Court has jurisdiction over the matter to nominate, and the election of respondents Cuenco &
Party elected respondents Cuenco & Delgado as members Delgado void ab initio. The appointment of the staff
of the Senate Electoral Tribunal upon the nomination of 2.WON Constitutional right of CP can be exercised by NP, or members are valid as it is a selection of personnel - a
Senator Primicias, an NP member. The two seats, originally the Committee on Rules for the Senate matter under the discretion of the Chairman. PARAS
for minority party nominees, were filled with NP members DISSENTING: The procedure or manner of nomination
to meet the Constitutional mandate under Sec.2 Art. 6, HELD: cannot affect Consti mandate that the Senate is entitled to
over the objections of lone Citizen Party Senator Tañada. 6 seats in the ET. The number of seats (9) must be held
Consequently, the Chairman of the Tribunal appointed the fixed, since the Consti must have consistent application.
1. Yes. The Court has jurisdiction. RATIO: The case at bar is
rest of the respondents as staff members of Cuenco & There is no rule against the minority party nominating a
not an action against the Senate compelling them to allow
Delgado. Petitioner alleges that the nomination by Sen. majority party member to the ET. Furthermore, the Senate,
petitioners to exercise duties as members of ET. The ET is
Primicias on behalf of the Committee on Rules for the and not the parties, elect on the ET members, brushing
part of neither House, even if the Senate elects its
Senate, violates Sec. 2, Art. 6 of PC, since 3 seats on the aside partisan concerns. LABRADOR DISSENTING: The
members. The issue is not the power of the Senate to elect
ETare reserved for minority senators duly nominated by the petition itself is unconstitutional under Art. 6 Sec. 2
or nominate, but the validity of the manner by which power
minority party representatives. Furthermore, as because:1.9-member ET mandate violated2.right to elect of
was exercised (constitutionality).The Court is concerned
respondents are about to decide on Electoral Case No. 4 of Senate held in abeyance by refusal of minority party to
with the existence and extent of said discretionary powers.
Senate, the case at bar is a violation not only of Tañada's nominate3.process of nomination effectively superior to
2. No. RATIO: Although respondents allege that the
right as CP member of ET, but respondent Macapagal's power to elect (party v. Senate power)4.SC arrogation of
Constitutional mandate of 6 Senate members in the ET
right to an impartial body that will try his election protest. power in determining Con Con’s proviso of <9 ET member
must be followed, this cannot be done without violating the
Petitioners pray for a writ of preliminary injunction against sunder certain circumstances The refusal of Tañada to
spirit & philosophy of Art. 6, Sec. 2, which is to provide
respondents (cannot exercise duties), to be made nominate mustbe considered a waiver of privilege based on
against partisan decisions. The respondents' practical
permanent after a judgment to oust respondents is passed. constitutionality and reason, in order to reconcile two
interpretation of the law (modifying law to fit the situation)
Respondents contend that the Court is without jurisdiction applications of Art. 6, Sec. 2.
cannot be accepted; although they followed mandate on
to try the appointment of ET members, since it is a
number, they disobeyed mandate on procedure. The
constitutional right granted to Senate. Moreover, the
contention that petitioner Tañada waived his rights or is in
petition is without cause of action since Tañada exhausted
estoppel is not tenable. When interests of public policy &
Lorenzo Tañada vs Mariano Cuenco HELD: No. The SC took cognizance of the case and ruled that the issue is
a justiciable question. The term Political Question connotes what it means
After the 1955 national elections, the membership in the Senate was in ordinary parlance, namely, a question of policy. It refers to those
overwhelmingly occupied by the Nacionalista Party. The lone opposition questions which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in
senator was Lorenzo Tañada who belonged to the Citizen’s Party. their sovereign capacity; or in regard to which full discretionary authority
Diosdado Macapagal on the other hand was a senatorial candidate who has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the
lost the bid but was contesting it before the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET). government. It is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not
But prior to a decision the SET would have to choose its members. It is legality, of a particular measure.
provided that the SET should be composed of 9 members comprised of the
following: 3 justices of the Supreme Court, 3 senators from the majority In this case, the issue at bar is not a political question. The Supreme Court
party and 3 senators from the minority party. But since there is only one is not being asked by Tañada to decide upon the official acts of Senate.
minority senator the other two SET members supposed to come from the The issue being raised by Tañada was whether or not the elections of the
minority were filled in by the NP. Tañada assailed this process before the 5 NP members to the SET are valid – which is a judicial question. Note that
Supreme Court. So did Macapagal because he deemed that if the SET the SET is a separate and independent body from the Senate which does
would be dominated by NP senators then he, as a member of the not perform legislative acts.
Liberalista Party will not have any chance in his election contest. Senator But how should the gridlock be resolved?
Mariano Cuenco et al (members of the NP) averred that the Supreme Court
cannot take cognizance of the issue because it is a political question. The nomination of the last two members (who would fill in the supposed
Cuenco argued that the power to choose the members of the SET is vested seat of the minority members) must not come from the majority party. In this
in the Senate alone and the remedy for Tañada and Macapagal was not to case, the Chairman of the SET, apparently already appointed members that
raise the issue before judicial courts but rather to leave it before the bar of would fill in the minority seats (even though those will come from the
public opinion. majority party). This is still valid provided the majority members of the SET
(referring to those legally sitting) concurred with the Chairman. Besides, the
ISSUE: Whether or not the issue is a political question. SET may set its own rules in situations like this provided such rules comply
with the Constitution.