CASE DIGEST

Ocampo v. Enriquez
Constitutional Law

Date November 8, 2016

Petitioners Saturnino C. Ocampo (Satur Ocampo), et al.
Respondents Real Admiral Ernesto C. Enriquez (in his capacity as Deputy Chief of Staff for Reservist
and Retiree Affairs, AFP), et al.
Ponente Peralta, J.
Overview A case regarding the internment of Marcos in the LNMB
Relevant topic Justiciable and Political Questions

RELEVANT CHARACTERS:

FACTS:
 During the May 2016 Presidential elections, Duterte publicly announce he would allow the burial of Marcos at
the Libingan ng mga Bayani (LNMB)
- Claims it would be a step towards national healing and conciliation
- Duterte won the elections
- On Aug. 7, 2016, Secretary of National Defense Delfin Lorenzana (Lorenzana) issued a Memorandum to
General Ricardo Visaya (Chief of Staff of the AFP) regarding the internment of Marcos at the LNMB
- The memorandum directed Visaya to undertake all necessary preparations to facilitate the internment
- Enriquez issued directives to the Philippine Army Commanding General regarding funeral honors and
service for Marcos
 Petitions were filed assailing the above issuances
- Majority are victims or kin of victims of human rights violations during the Marcos regime
- Assert that it is contrary to the Constitution, laws and regulations, and international law
- As a recognized dictator, plunderer, and human rights violator, Marcos has no place in the LMNB which is
reserved for persons worthy of emulation or a source of inspiration

ISSUE – HELD – RATIO:

ISSUES HELD
1) WON the determination to have the remains of Marcos interred at the
LNMB poses a justiciable controversy

RATIO:
Peralta Opinion
 Requisites for exercise of judicial review
- Absent these requisites, the Court may not hear/decide on questions involving the constitutionality or
validity of a law or act of government
1. Actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power
2. Locus standing
3. Question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity
4. Issue of constitutionality must be the lis mota of the case
 Political Question Doctrine
- Scope has been limited by Sec. 1, Art. VIII of the 1987 Constitution
 Court agrees that Duterte’s decision to have the remains of Marcos interred at the LMNB is a non-justiciable
political question
- Duterte decided a question of policy based on his wisdom that it shall promote national healing and
forgiveness
- LMNB is a land of the public domain devoted for national military cemetery and military shrine purposes
- Outside the ambit of judicial review

Mendoza Separate Opinion

Political Question Doctrine
 Issue is a truly political question
- No justiciable controversy
- Court should not take sides in political controversy
 Issue is not whether Marcos is a hero or not who deserves to be interred at the LMNB
- Controversy is the decision of the Duterte Administration to allow the internment

Page 1 of 3
CASE DIGEST
Ocampo v. Enriquez
Constitutional Law

- Marcos was not and will never be a hero and his internment at the LMNB will not erase the atrocities
committed during his authoritarian rule
- His place in history will ultimately be judged by the people
 In Tanada v. Cuenco, Court expounded on the concept of political question:
- It is not within the province of the courts to pass judgment upon the policy of legislative or executive action
- Where discretionary powers are granted by the Constitution or by law, the manner in which those powers
are exercised is not subject to judicial review
- Courts concern themselves only with questions as to the existence and extent of those powers
 Political Question
- Question of policy
- Questions which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity or in
which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the political branches
- Concerned with issues on wisdom and not legality of the act/policy
 Political question doctrine remains operative despite expansion of judicial power
- “truly political questions” are still recognized and are beyond judicial review out of respect of the
separation of powers
- CJ Concepcion clarified that expansion of judicial power does not mean to do away with political question
doctrine
- Not truly political questions may be reviewed
 Determination of whether a question is “truly political” or not lies in the answer to the question of whether there
are constitutionally imposed limits on powers or functions conferred upon political bodies
- If yes, courts are duty-bound to examine whether the government branch properly acted within such limits
 Nonetheless, even in cases where matters of policy are brought before the courts, “grave abuse of discretion”
on the part of the government branch must still be established
- Otherwise, the Court may not decide on the question in the place of the official who has the authority to do
so
- E.g. of non-justiciable political questions
1. Court cannot question the President’s recognition of a foreign government
2. Court cannot set aside a presidential pardon though it may appear that the beneficiary is totally
undeserving of the grant
3. Court may not amend the Constitution because the power to do so is reserved to the people

Internment of Marcos at LMNB is a discretionary act of Duterte

 Executive power is vested in the President
- Inherent in executive power is the duty to faithfully execute the laws
 Art. VII, Sec. 17 embodies the faithful execution clause
 “The President shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus, and offices. He shall
ensure that the laws be faithfully executed”
- Executive is given much leeway in ensuring faithful execution of laws
- Any act pursuant to the faithful execution clause is deemed a political question
- Only question is as to its wisdom and not legality
- Such is a ministerial duty of the President, not discretionary
 Discretionary vs. Ministerial Acts
- Spouses Marquez vs. Spouses Alindog
- Discretionary = law gives the official the right to decide how and when his duty shall be performed
- Ministerial = discharge of duty does not required the exercise of official discretion or judgment
 Authority of Duterte to allow Marcos’ internment at the LMNB is derived from the residual powers of the
executive
- Marcos v. Manglapuz expounds on the residual powers of the President
- President’s residual power to protect the general welfare of the people
- President is clothed with extraordinary powers in times of emergency
- President is also tasked with attending to the day-to-day problems of maintaining peace and order and
ensuring domestic tranquility
 Duterte’s rationale was for national healing, reconciliation and forgiveness
- So the country could move forward in unity far from the spectre of the martial law regime
- Petitioners challenge the wisdom of the decision of the President
- Court defers from exercising jurisdiction when the wisdom of an act is challenged

No Grave Abuse of Discretion

 No abuse of discretion on the part of respondents
- Capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment
Page 2 of 3
CASE DIGEST
Ocampo v. Enriquez
Constitutional Law

- So patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty
enjoined by law
- Power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner beause of passion or hostility
 Respondents did not act in contravention of the Constitution or the law
- Were in fact, guided by and complied with the law
 AFP Regulation G 161-375 remains to be the sole legal basis in determining who are qualified to
be interred in the LNMB
 Provides that Marcos is eligible for internment in the LNMB as former President, veteran of WWII,
and retired military personnel
- By basing their decision on applicable laws and regulations, respondents may not be said to have acted
with grave abuse of discretion
- It is not for the Court to determine who is worthy of inspiration or emulation
- There is nothing in the Constitution expressly nor impliedly prohibiting the internment of Marcos in the
LNMB
- His internment will not be contrary to RA 289 (Pantheon Law) or RA 10368 (seeks to recognize the
heroism of human rights violations victims or HRVV)
 As a final note, the Mendoza clarified that the Court is not passing judgment on whether Marcos deserves to
be buried in the LNMB
- Merely exercising judicial restraint as the issues at hand are truly political in nature and best left to the
discretion of the President
- Burial of Marcos at the LNMB will not re-write history

RULING:
WHEREFORE, the petitions are DISMISSED.

Page 3 of 3