TORRES – CASE DIGEST CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

Ocampo et al. vs. Enriquez,

G.R. Nos. 225973
8 November 2016.
PERALTA, J,:

FACTS

During the campaign period for 2016 elections, Rodrigo Duterte announced that he would allow
the burial of former President Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani (LNMB). On August 7,
2016 public the Secretary of National Defense Delfin Lorenzana issued a Memorandum to the
Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) General Ricardo Visaya in regards to
the interment (Burial) of Marcos at the LNMB to comply with the verbal order of President Duterte.
Two days after, AFP Rear Admiral Ernesto Enriquez issued the directives to the Philippine Army
(PA) in order to provide all the necessary services for the interment of Former President Marcos.

With the foregoing issuance, various petitioners were dissatisfied and filed for several petitions,
prohibitions, and mandamus arguing that the burial of Marcos in LNMB violated laws, that it
condones the abuses during Martial Law, that Marcos was not allowed to be buried in LNMB, and
that the Marcos family has already waived such burial when they entered into an agreement with
the Philippine Government.

ISSUES
(PROCEDURAL)

1.1 ) Is President Duterte’s determination to have the remains of Marcos at the LNMB a
Justiciable Controversy?
1.2 ) Does the petitioner have Locus Standi to file the petition?
1.3 ) Is the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies and hierarchy of courts violated
by the petitioners?
(SUBSTANTIVE)

2.1) Did respondent Secretary of National Defense and AFP Rear Admiral committed grave
abuse of discretion?
 TORRES – CASE DIGEST CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

2.2) Is the issuance and implementation of the memorandum and directive violating the
Constitution, domestic, and international laws?
2.3) Does the historical facts, laws that enacted to recover their ill-gotten wealth, and the
pronouncements of the court over his regime null his entitlement as a soldier and former
President eligible for interment at the LNMB?
2.4) Is the burial of Marcos deemed waived due to the agreement between the family of Marcos
and the Philippine government as to the conditions and procedures by which his remains shall be
brought back and interred?

RULING

1.1 NO. President Duterte’s determination to have the remains of Marcos at LNMB is not a
Justiciable Controversy.
The court agrees that the case involves political question that is not justiciable controversy. President
Duterte decided a question of policy based on what he thinks shall promote national hearing and
forgiveness thus, having no taint of grave abuse of discretion, the president’s decision on that is outside
of judicial review.

1.2 NO. The petitioner does not have Locus Standi to file the petition.
The petitioners failed to show that they have suffered or will suffer any direct and personal injury as a
result of the burial of Marcos in the LNMB and unless a person actually sustains or is in danger of
sustaining an injury as a result of an act complained, then the petitioners do not have a legal standing.
The petitioners as well must provide evidence that the issue are of grave national importance but since
it has been more than 27 years since the death of Marcos, the interment would have no effect on political,
economic and other aspects thus, the petitioner failed to prove that there is a threat to their constitutional
rights.

1.3 YES. The petitioners violated administrative remedies and hierarchy of courts.
The petitioners failed to avail first of all the means of administrative process and its probable remedy
available before seeking the intervention of the court exercising its judicial power. In terms of hierarchy of
courts, it is required that the filing should start with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) before the higher courts
which the petitioners fail to recognize.
 TORRES – CASE DIGEST CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

2.1 NO. Secretary Lorenza and General Enriquez did not commit grave abuse of discretion
There is only grave abuse of discretion if an act is done against the constitution which was rendered not
present. If the executed acts are whimsically, capriciously, or arbitrarily out of malice, ill will, or
personal bias which was not present in the case as well.

2.2 NO. It does not violate the Constitution, Domestic and International Laws.
The petitioners view the ratification of the 1987 Constitution as a condemnation of the Marcos regime
because it is a “Human Rights Constitution” and is a “Post Dictatorship Charter” but the OSG stated
that the constitution, although a product of history, should not be interpreted as principles remotely
related to Martial Law such as the LNMB Burial proposal. With respect to the provisions of Domestic
Laws, the petitioners failed to present any direct or indirect cause to prohibit Marcos’ burial at LNMB.

2.3 No. Marcos is still liable for interment at the LNMB.

The AFP Regulation 161-375 supersedes past AFP Regulations, wherein under the said regulations, (J)
Former Presidents and (A) Awardees of Medal of Valor are eligible for interment at the LNMB. In the
scenario that we disregard Marcos as the President and Commander In Chief, due to his alleged human
rights crime, we cannot deny that he shall be recognized for the other positions such as military
activities and he held and awards he has received, such as the Medal of Valor award.

2.4 NO. The burial was not waived due to prior agreements.
President Duterte is not bound by the said prior agreement between former President Ramos. As the
present President of the Republic of the Philippines, Duterte is free to amend, revoke, or rescind any
political agreements done by previous administrations. He has the power to determine policies which
he thinks is most effective in carrying out his mandate, based on informed judgment and presumed
wisdom.

Thus, with the facts presented and rulings of the court, there is no legal basis for the said petition
where we can deny Marcos of his rightful place at the LNMB.

Dissenting/Concurring Opinions to be followed.;