Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 52 views

    Republic of The Philippines Supreme Court Manila en Banc: Intervenors

    Uploaded by

    Danica Irish Revilla
    The document is a motion for reconsideration filed by petitioners in response to the Supreme Court's decision allowing the burial of former President Ferdinand Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani (Heroes' Cemetery). The petitioners argue that a status quo ante order should be issued to prevent a hasty burial, as preparations were reportedly already underway despite the decision not being final. They contend that allowing the burial before their motion for reconsideration is resolved would violate their right to due process and cause irreparable injury by honoring Marcos as a hero while claims of his human rights violations remain outstanding.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Republic of The Philippines Supreme Court Manila en Banc: Intervenors

    Uploaded by

    Danica Irish Revilla
    52 views6 pages
    The document is a motion for reconsideration filed by petitioners in response to the Supreme Court's decision allowing the burial of former President Ferdinand Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani (Heroes' Cemetery). The petitioners argue that a status quo ante order should be issued to prevent a hasty burial, as preparations were reportedly already underway despite the decision not being final. They contend that allowing the burial before their motion for reconsideration is resolved would violate their right to due process and cause irreparable injury by honoring Marcos as a hero while claims of his human rights violations remain outstanding.

    Original Description:

    Motion for Reconsideration

    Original Title

    MR

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document is a motion for reconsideration filed by petitioners in response to the Supreme Court's decision allowing the burial of former President Ferdinand Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani (Heroes' Cemetery). The petitioners argue that a status quo ante order should be issued to prevent a hasty burial, as preparations were reportedly already underway despite the decision not being final. They contend that allowing the burial before their motion for reconsideration is resolved would violate their right to due process and cause irreparable injury by honoring Marcos as a hero while claims of his human rights violations remain outstanding.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    52 views6 pages

    Republic of The Philippines Supreme Court Manila en Banc: Intervenors

    Uploaded by

    Danica Irish Revilla
    The document is a motion for reconsideration filed by petitioners in response to the Supreme Court's decision allowing the burial of former President Ferdinand Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani (Heroes' Cemetery). The petitioners argue that a status quo ante order should be issued to prevent a hasty burial, as preparations were reportedly already underway despite the decision not being final. They contend that allowing the burial before their motion for reconsideration is resolved would violate their right to due process and cause irreparable injury by honoring Marcos as a hero while claims of his human rights violations remain outstanding.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 6

    Republic of the Philippines

    Supreme Court
    Manila

    EN BANC

    SATURNINO C. OCAMPO, TRINIDAD G.R. No. 225973


    H. REPUNO, BIENVENIDO LUMBERA,
    BONIFACIO P. ILAGAN, NERI JAVIER
    COLMENARES, MARIA CAROLINA P.
    ARAULLO, M.D., SAMAHAN NG EXDETAINEES
    LABAN SA DETENSYON
    AT ARESTO (SELDA), represented by
    DIONITO CABILLAS, CARMENCITA
    M. FLORENTINO, RODOLFO DEL
    ROSARIO, FELIX C. DALISAY, and
    DANILO M. DELA FUENTE,
    Petitioners,

    - versus -

    REAR ADMIRAL ERNESTO c.


    ENRIQUEZ (in his capacity as the Deputy
    Chief of Staff for Reservist and Retiree
    Affairs, Armed Forces of the Philippines),
    The Grave Services Unit (Philippine
    Army), and GENERAL RICARDO R.
    VISAYA (in his capacity as the Chief of
    Staff, Armed Forces of the Philippines),
    DEFENSE SECRETARY DELFIN
    LORENZANA, and HEIRS OF
    FERDINAND E. MARCOS, represented
    by his surviving spouse Imelda Romualdez
    Marcos,
    Respondents.
    x --------------------------------------------------- x

    RENE A.V. SAGUISAG, SR., RENE A.Q.


    SAGUISAG, JR., RENE A.C. SAGUISAG
    III,
    Intervenors.
    x --------------------------------------------------- x

    REP. EDCEL C. LAGMAN, in his G.R. No. 225984


    personal and official capacities and as a
    member of Congress and as the Honorary
    Chairperson of the Families of Victims of
    Involuntary Disappearance (FIND);
    FAMILIES OF VICTIMS OF
    INVOLUNTARY DISAPPEARANCE
    (FIND), represented by its CoChairperson,
    NILDA L. SEVILLA; REP.
    TEDDY BRAWNER BAGUILAT, JR.;
    REP. TOMASITO S. VILLARIN; REP.
    EDGAR R. ERICE; and REP.
    EMMANUEL A. BILLONES,
    Petitioners,

    - versus -

    EXECUTIVE SECRETARY SALVADOR


    C. MEDIALDEA; DEFENSE
    SECRETARY DELFIN N. LORENZANA;
    AFP CHIEF OF STAFF LT. GEN.
    RICARDO R. VISAYA; AFP DEPUTY
    CHIEF OF STAFF REAR ADMIRAL
    ERNESTO C. ENRIQUEZ; and HEIRS
    OF FERDINAND E. MARCOS,
    represented by his surviving spouse
    IMELDA ROMUALDEZ MARCOS,
    Respondents.
    x --------------------------------------------------- x

    LORETTA ANN PARGAS-ROSALES, G.R. No. 226097


    HILDA B. NARCISO, AIDA F. SANTOSMARANAN,
    JO-ANN Q. MAGLIPON,
    ZENAIDA S. MIQUE, FE B.
    MANGAHAS, MA. CRISTINA P.
    BAWAGAN, MILA D. AGUILAR,
    MINERVA G. GONZALES, MA.
    CRISTINA V. RODRIGUEZ, LOUIE G.
    CRISMO, FRANCISCO E. RODRIGO,
    JR., LIWAYWAY D. ARCE, and
    ABDULMARI DE LEON IMAO, JR.,
    Petitioners,
    - versus -
    EXECUTIVE SECRETARY SALVADOR
    C. MEDIALDEA, DEFENSE
    SECRETARY DELFIN LORENZANA,
    AFP DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF REAR
    ADMIRAL ERNESTO C. ENRIQUEZ,
    AFP CHIEF OF STAFF LT. GEN.
    RICARDO R. VISAYA, and PHILIPPINE
    VETERANS AFFAIRS OFFICE (PVAO)
    Administrator Lt. Gen. Ernesto G.
    Carolina (Ret.),
    Respondents.
    x --------------------------------------------------- x
    HEHERSON T. ALVAREZ, JOEL C. G.R. No. 226116
    LAMAN GAN, FRANCIS X.
    MANGLAPUS, EDILBERTO C. DE
    JESUS, BELINDA 0. CUNANAN,
    CECILIA GUIDOTE ALVAREZ, REX
    DEGRACIA LORES, SR., ARNOLD
    MARIE NOEL, CARLOS MANUEL,
    EDMUND S. TAYAO, DANILO P.
    OLIVARES, NOEL F. TRINIDAD, JESUS
    DELA FUENTE, REBECCA M.
    QUIJANO, FR. BENIGNO BELTRAN,
    SVD, ROBERTO S. VERZOLA,
    AUGUSTO A. LEGASTO, JR., and JULIA
    KRISTINA P. LEGASTO,
    Petitioners,
    - versus -
    EXECUTIVE SECRETARY SALVADOR
    C. MEDIALDEA, DEFENSE
    SECRETARY DELFIN LORENZANA,
    AFP CHIEF OF STAFF LT. GEN.
    RICARDO R. VISAYA, AFP DEPUTY
    CHIEF OF STAFF REAR ADMIRAL
    ERNESTO C. ENRIQUEZ, and
    PHILIPPINE VETERANS AFFAIRS
    OFFICE (PVAO) of the DND,
    Respondents.
    x --------------------------------------------------- x
    ZAIRA PATRICIA B. BANIAGA, JOHN G.R. No. 226117
    ARVIN BUENAAGUA, JOANNE ROSE
    SACE LIM, JUAN ANTONIO RAROGAL
    MAGALANG,
    Petitioners,
    - versus -
    SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE
    DELFIN N. LORENZANA, AFP CHIEF
    OF STAFF RICARDO R. VISAYA,
    ADMINISTRATOR OF THE
    PHILIPPINE VETERANS AFFAIRS
    OFFICE ERNESTO G. CAROLINA,
    Respondents.
    x ------------------------------------------------ x
    ALGAMAR A. LATIPH, G.R. No. 226120
    Petitioner,
    - versus -
    SECRETARY DELFIN N. LORENZANA,
    sued in his capacity as Secretary of
    National Defense, LT. GEN. RICARDO R.
    VISAYA, in his capacity as Chief of Staff
    of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and
    LT. GEN. ERNESTO G. CAROLINA
    (ret.), in his capacity as Administrator,
    Philippine Veterans Affairs Office (PVAO),
    Respondents.
    x ------------------------------------------------ x
    LEILA M. DE LIMA, in her capacity as G.R. No. 226294
    SENATOR OF THE REPUBLIC and as
    TAXPAYER,
    Petitioner,
    - versus -
    HON. SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA,
    DEFENSE SECRETARY DELFIN
    LORENZANA, AFP CHIEF OF STAFF
    LT. GEN. RICARDO R. VISAYA,
    UNDERSECRETARY ERNESTO G.
    CAROLINA, in his capacity as
    PHILIPPINE VETERANS AFFAIRS
    OFFICE (PVAO) ADMINISTRATOR and
    B/GEN. RESTITUTO L. AGUILAR, in his
    capacity as SHRINE CURATOR AND
    CHIEF , VETERANS MEMORIAL
    AND HISTORICAL DIVISION and
    HEIRS OF FERDINAND EDRALIN
    MARCOS,
    Respondents.

    MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION


    (Of the Decision Dated November 8, 2016)

    Petitioners, through counsels, respectfully aver that –

    Petitioners received their copy of the Decision promulgated by this Honorable Court on
    November 8, 2016 through registered mail on November 11, 2016, which reads –

    Conclusion
    In sum, there is no clear constitutional or legal basis to hold that there was a
    grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction which would
    justify the Court to interpose its authority to check and override an act entrusted
    to the judgment of another branch. Truly, the President's discretion is not totally
    unfettered. "Discretion is not a freespirited stallion that runs and roams wherever
    it pleases but is reined in to keep it from straying. In its classic formulation,
    'discretion is not unconfined and vagrant' but 'canalized within banks that keep it
    from overflowing."' 186 At bar, President Duterte, through the public respondents,
    acted within the bounds of the law and jurisprudence. Notwithstanding the call of
    human rights advocates, the Court must uphold what is legal and just. And that is
    not to deny Marcos of his rightful place at the LNMB. For even the Framers of
    our Constitution intend that full respect for human rights is available at any stage
    of a person's development, from the time he or she becomes a person to the time
    he or she leaves this earth.

    There are certain things that are better left for history - not this Court - to
    adjudge. The Court could only do so much in accordance with the clearly
    established rules and principles. Beyond that, it is ultimately for the people
    themselves, as the sovereign, to decide, a task that may require the better
    perspective that the passage of time provides. In the meantime, the country must
    move on and let this issue rest.
    WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the petitions are DISMISSED.
    Necessarily, the Status Quo Ante Order is hereby LIFTED.

    Availing of their rights under section 1, Rule 52 of the Rules of Court, petitioners move
    for the reconsideration of the Decision promulgated on November 8, 2016 based on the
    following:

    That, there is a need for the issuance of a status quo ante (SQA) order
    considering that there had been reports that preparations for the interment of
    former President Ferdinand Marcos Sr. were already being undertaken by the
    government and the Marcos family even if the decision was not yet final and
    executory.

    That, the petitioners contend that the interment cannot be allowed pending
    the finality of the decision.

    Petitioners also urged the high court to remind the respondents that
    preparations for the burial could not push through because the decision was not
    yet final and motions for reconsideration would still be filed.

    That, they further argued that a hasty interment of the remains of Marcos
    Sr. would result in a grave and irreparable injury to the petitioners’ rights because
    it would send the message that the late dictator was a hero.

    The petitioners noted that Marcos’ remains had been interred for two
    decades in a crypt in Ilocos Norte, thus, the Marcos family would not suffer grave
    and irreparable injury if the court issued an SQA pending the finality of its
    decision.

    DISCUSSION

    On the first paragraph, the hasty interment of Marcos Sr. in the LNMB will render
    moot the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioners. Petitioners are asking
    respondents to respect their right to due process as well as that of other human
    rights violations’ victims who will be seeking the reversal of the honorable court’s
    decision.

    Despite the fact that the decision is not final and executory and considering that
    the period for the filing of a motion for reconsideration has not even commenced,
    there have been reports that the preparations for the interment of former President
    Ferdinand Marcos Sr. are being undertaken by respondents causing concern
    among petitioners that his remains may be hastily transferred to the Libingan ng
    mga Bayani even before the filing of a motion for reconsideration by petitioners
    or during its pendency.”

    Sending this message, which, once made cannot be taken back, is injurious to the
    victims of human rights violations during martial law as it honors their tormentor
    and puts into question their claims as victims of human rights violations
    committed by Marcos Sr. and his henchmen during those dark and bloody days.

    It is also injurious to the Filipino people who suffered from poverty through those
    years as a result of the plunder of public funds by Marcos Sr.

    On the contrary, his hasty interment would only complicate the situation,
    especially if the decision was reversed on reconsideration, as this would entail the
    exhumation of his remains and its reinterment in Ilocos.
    PRAYER

    WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, it is most respectfully prayed that:

    This honorable court to direct respondents to hold in abeyance or refrain


    from executing any plans on the interment of the remains of Marcos Sr. at
    the Libingan ng mga Bayani pending the finality of the honorable court’s
    decision on this Motion for Reconsideration.

    Lucena City, Quezon Province, November 29, 2016.

    Respectfully submitted.

    Loida Alibuyog

    Xerxes Batralo

    Maria Janina Lourdes Formaran

    Jerromeo Brusas

    Marilyn Garcia

    Louis Aurelio Nava

    Mark Adrian Mijares

    Liezl De Mesa

    Raemeus Evangelista

    Julian Suarez

    Danica Irish Revilla

    Counsels for Petitioners

    You might also like