CASE 2016-0079: THE CASE ON MARCOS BURIAL AT LIBINGAN NG MGA

BAYANI (G.R. NO. 225973 AND RELATED CASES) (08 NOV 2016,
PERALTA, J.)

Facts:

During 2016 presidential campaign, President Duterte publicly announced he would

allow the burial of Former President Ferdinand E. Marcos in Libingan ng mga Bayani.
After winning the elections, through Sec. Of National Defense Lorenzana, a
Memorandum was issued to Chief of Staff of AFP, General 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 coutesies for the late
Former President Marcos. Dissatisfied with the issuances and directives, various
petioners filed petition for Certiorari and Prohibition.

Issue:

Whether or not the actions of President Duterte to permit the burial of Former President
Marcos in Libingan ng mga Bayani amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

Court Rulings:

The Court DISMISSED the petitions. Necessarily, the Status Quo Ante Order is hereby
LIFTED.”

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.”‘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

Comments:

The majority of the justices did not find any grave abuse of discretion by the President in
ordering the burial of Marcos at Libingan because this was done under the mandate of
Article VII, Section 17 of the Constitution to ensure the faithful execution of laws.

Mr. Duterte is not bound by the agreement between then President Fidel V. Ramos and
the Marcos family to have the remains interred in Batac, Ilocos Norte.

The President is empowered under the Administrative Code to reserve the cemetery plot
for Marcos until a law is passed stating otherwise.

Despite Marcos’ alleged human rights abuses and corrupt practices, the tribunal could
not deny his right to be acknowledged based on the other positions he held or the awards
he received. His being a former President, military personnel, veteran and Medal of
Valor awardee “satisfies the public requirement.”

The majority of justices argued that Marcos was honorably discharged and recognized as
a retired veteran. This is contrary to claims that Marcos was “dishonorably discharged”
as this only applied to the military under the Articles of War or those in active service.

Marcos has not been convicted of any crimes involving moral turpitude. The majority
said that the various cases cited by petitioners were all civil cases and had no bearing on
the case.

President Duterte acted with grave abuse of discretion because his order to bury Marcos
at Libingan violated the country’s obligations to do justice for human rights victims.

Aside from monetary remedies, the government was bound to provide “nonsymbolic”
reparation to the human rights victims. The legislative and judicial recognition of
Marcos as a dictator, plunderer and human rights violator enough for him not to be
buried in Libingan ng mga Bayani.

Ferdinand E. Marcos is no hero. His remains, by law, cannot be transferred to the

Libingan ng mga Bayani. The order to inter the remains for former President Marcos at
LNMB is contrary to the Constitution, the law, and several executive issuances that have
the force of law, as well as the public policy that the Constitution, the said laws, and
executive issuances espouse and advance.

I disagreed that interring the Marcos remains constituted a public purpose for purpose of
the RAC considering the Solicitor General’s admission that the burial of the Marcos
remains was a campaign promise of the President to the Marcos family. In my opinion,
this indicated that the interment serves no public purpose and does not justify the
disbursement of public funds therefor.