Ocampo vs.

Rear Admiral Enriquez

GR No. 225973, November 8, 2016
Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies – before being allowed to seek
intervention of the court, one should have availed first of all the means of administrative
processes available

Grave abuse of discretion:

1. When an act is done contrary to the Constitution
2. When executed whimsically, capriciously or arbitrarily out of malice, ill will or personal
bias
Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency – all executive and administrative organizations are
adjuncts of the Executive Department, the heads of the various executive departments are
assistants and agents of the Chief Executive; the acts of such agents are, unless disapproved or
reprobated by the Chief Executive, presumptively his acts.

FACTS:
1. On Aug. 7, 2016, Sec of Nat’l Defense Delfin Lorenzana issued a Memorandum to the
Chief of Staff of AFP regarding the interment of Marcos at the LNMB.
2. Several petitions were then filed before the Court in their capacities as human rights
advocates, members of the Bar, human rights victims, concerned citizens and taxpayers,
as well as public officials.

ISSUES:
Whether there exists a justiciable controversy.
Whether petitioners have locus standi.
Whether petitioners violated the doctrines of exhaustion of administrative remedies and
hierarchy of courts.

HELD:
Ponente – Justice Peralta
The Court held that the president’s decision to have the remains of Marcos interred at the LNMB
involves a political question that is not a justiciable controversy. The president decided a
question of policy based on his wisdom that it shall promote national healing and forgiveness.
The issue is not dependent on the legality of a particular measure. There is also no valid
constitutional or legal basis to hold that there was grave abuse of discretion. Thus, the issue is
beyond the ambit of judicial review.

At this point in time, the interment of Marcos at a cemetery originally established as a national
military cemetery and declared a national shrine would have no profound effect on the political,
economic, and other aspects of our national life considering that more than 27 years since his
death and 30 years after his ouster have already passed. Significantly, petitioners failed to
demonstrate a clear and imminent threat to their fundamental constitutional rights.

As for the Congress members who also filed their petitions, in the absence of a clear showing of
any direct injury to their person or the institution to which they belong, their standing as such
cannot be upheld. They do not specifically claim that the official actions complained of encroach
upon their prerogatives as legislators.

Contrary to their claim of lack of plain, speedy, adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law,
petitioners should be faulted for failing to seek reconsideration of the assailed memorandum and
directive before the Secretary of National Defense. The Secretary of National Defense should be
given opportunity to correct himself, if warranted, considering that it was issued upon his order.
Questions on the implementation and interpretation thereof demand the exercise of sound
administrative discretion, requiring the special knowledge, experience and services of his office
to determine technical and intricate matters of fact. If petitioners would still be dissatisfied with
the decision of the Secretary, they could elevate the matter before the Office of the President
which has control and supervision over the DND.

Moreover, petitioners cannot simply brush aside the doctrine of hierarchy of courts that requires
such petitions to be filed first with the proper Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC is not just a
trier of facts, but can also resolve questions of law in the exercise of its original and concurrent
jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, and has the power to issue a
restraining order and an injunction when proven necessary. In fine, the petitions at bar should be
dismissed on procedural grounds alone.