Ocampo v.

Enriquez 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
Facts: During 2016 presidential campaign, Duterte publicly announced he would on his wisdom that it shall promote national healing and forgiveness. It is outside
allow the burial of Marcos in LNMB. After winning the elections, through Sec. of
the ambit of judicial review.
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 2. Whether petitioners have locus standi to file the instant petitions
the President to implement his election campaign promise. AFP rear Admiral
Enriquez issued directives to the Philippine Army Commanding General to NO. Petitioners failed to show that they have suffered or will suffer direct or
provide services, honors, and other courtesies for the late Former President personal injury as a result of the interment of Marcos at the LNMB. The
Marcos. Dissatisfied with the issuances and directives, various petitioners filed 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
petition for Certiorari and Prohibition.
his death and 30 years after his ouster have already passed. Petitioners failed to
- Saturnino Ocampo, et. al., in their capacity as human rights advocates demonstrate a clear and imminent threat to their fundamental constitutional
and human rights violations victims rights
- Rene Saguisag and his son, as members of the Bar and human rights
3. Whether petitioners violated the doctrines of exhaustion of
lawyers
- Edcel Lagman, as member of Congress administrative remedies and hierarchy of courts
- Loretta Pargas-Rosales, former Chairperson of CHr, as victims of State- YES. Petitioners violated the doctrines of exhaustion of administrative remedies
sanctioned human rights violations during martial law and hierarchy of courts. They should seek reconsideration of the assailed
- Heherson Alvarez, former Senator, as concerned citizens and taxpayers memorandum and directive before the Secretary of National Defense and give
- Zaira Baniaga, as concerned citizens and taxpayers them the opportunity to correct themselves, if warranted. If petitioners are still
- Algamar Latiph, former chairperson of regional human rights dissatisfied with the Secretarys decision they could have elevated it before the
commission ARMM, on behalf of Moros who are victims during martial Office of the President which has control and supervision of the DND.
law
- Leila De Lima, as Senator Even though there are exceptions that would warrant a direct resort to the
Supreme Court under exceptional cases, the petitioners cannot brush aside the
Issues 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
PROCEDURAL
law in the exercise of its original and concurrent jurisdiction over petitions for
1. Whether Pres. Dutertes determination to have the remains of Marcos certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, and has the power to issue restraining
interred at LNMB poses a justiciable controversy order and injunction when proven necessary.

NO. The Court agrees with the OSG that Pres. Dutertes decision to have the In fine, the petitions at bar should be dismissed on procedural grounds alone.
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 SUBSTANTIVE
 1. Whether the issuance and implementation of the memorandum violates RA 10368 (compensation for Human rights violations victims during Marcos
the Constitution, domestic and international law regime) recognizes the human rights violations committed and gives them
reparation. However, the court cannot subscribe to petitioners logic that the
NO. The Presidents decision to bury Marcos at the LNMB is in accordance with reparation includes the prohibition of Marcos interment when it is not provided.
the Constitution, the law or jurisprudence. It is undue to extend the law beyond what it contemplates. Legislators could
Laws and Constitutional provisions cited by petitioner: 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
Art. II: Sec. 2, 11, 13, 23, 26, 27, and 28 not self-executory law what is simply not there. That would be tantamount to judicial legislation.

Art. VII: Sec. 17 Faithful execution clause, it is consistent with President International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights these are principles that call
Dutertes mandate, the burial does not contravene RA 289, RA 10368, and the for an enactment of legislative measures. The PH is compliant with its
international human rights laws cited by petitioner international obligations evident by the various RAs, exec issuances, and even in
the Constitution
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 Our nations history will not be instantly revised by a single resolve of President
rights 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
Art. XI: Sec. 1 not self-executory but RA 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical
hearts and minds of the present generation of Filipinos.
Standards for Public Officials and Employees), RA 7080 (Penalizing Plunder), RA
9485 (Anti-red Tape Act) was enacted pursuant to this 2. Whether the Sec. of National Defense and AFP rear admiral commited
grave abuse of discretion when they issued the memorandum and
Art. XVIII: Sec. 26 transitory provision and freeze order to recover ill-gotten
directive in compliance with the verbal order of Pres. Duterte to
wealth
implement his election campaign promise of Marcos interment in LNMB
RA 289 authorized the construction of a National Pantheon as a burial place for
The Presidents decision to bury Marcos at the LNMB is not done whimsically,
Presidents, National Heroes, and Patriots for the perpetuation of the memory
capriciously or arbitrarily, out of malice, ill will or personal bias. Presumption of
and for the inspiration and emulation of this generation and of generations still
regularity in the performance of official duty prevails over the petitioners
unborn.
allegation of Dutertes utang na loob or bayad utang to the Marcoses. Petitioners
Petitioners failed to provide legal and historical bases that LNMB and National should establish such claims but failed to do so. Then again, the court is not a
Pantheon is one and the same. LNMB is distinct from the burial place envisioned trier of facts.
in rA 289. The National Pantheon does not exist at present. Also to apply the
3. Whether historical facts, laws enacted to recover ill-gotten wealth of
standard that LNMB is reserved only for the decent and brave or hero, it will put
Marcos and his cronies, and pronouncement of SC, nullifies his
into question all the mortal remains therein. The name of LNMB is a misnomer,
entitlement as a soldier and former President to interment at the LNMB
interment of Marcos remain does not confer upon him the status of a hero.
National Shrines are governed by NHCP, military shrines are not. They are Moral Turpitude conduct that is contrary to community standards of justice,
governed by PVAO of DND. LNMB is a military shrine. honesty, or good morals.

Magsaysay issued EO 77 orders remains of war dead interred at Bataan to be 4. Whether the Marcos family waived the burial of remains of Marcos in
reinterred in McKinley to minimize expenses and accessibility to widows. 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
Magsaysay issued Proc. 86 changing the name to LNMB and interred in the PH.
Garcia issued Proc. 423, Marcos issued Proc and General Orders, Cory issued EOs
The presidential power of control over the Executive Branch of Government is a
too. The point is the PVAO manages military shrines which is under DND which is self-executing provision of the Constitution nor its exercise be limted by
under the Office of the President legislature. As the incumbent President, Duterte is not bound by the 1992
AFP Regulations G 161-375 who may be interred 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
a.) Medal of Valor awardee agreements entered into by his predecessors, and to determine policies which he
b.) Presidents or Commander-in-Chief, AFP considers, based on informed judgment and presumed wisdom, will be most
c.) Sec. of National Defense effective in carrying out his mandate.
d.) Chief of Staff, AFP
e.) General/Flag Officers, AFP
f.) Active and retired military personnel
In sum, there is no clear constitutional or legal basis to hold that there was grave
g.) Gov dignitaries, statesman,national artists and others as long as abuse of discretion which would justify the Court to interpose its authority to
approved by the C-i-C, Congress or Sec. of National defense check and override an act entrusted to the judgment of another branch. The
h.) Widows of former presidents President through respondents acted within the bounds of law and
Petitioners did not dispute that Marcos was a former President and C-i-C, jurisprudence. The Court must uphold what is legal and just and that is not to
legislator, Sec. of National Defense, veteran, medal of valor awardee. deny Marcos of his rightful place in LNMB

Marcos does not have any disqualification. He was not convicted of moral WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the petitions are DISMISSED. Necessarily,
turpitude nor dishonourably discharged. the Status Quo Ante Order is hereby LIFTED.

Marcos rendered significant active military service and military-related activities.

THOSE WHO Are NOT QUALIFIED:

a.) Personnel who are dishonorably discharged