Docket No. : G.R. No.

225973, November 8, 2016

Petitioner:

Respondent: TOLL REGULATORY BOARD,DOTC

Source: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/feb2015/gr_181293_2015.html

Subject: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1

Syllabus/ Chapter 11 – Powers of the President

Topic: The Control Power

Facts:

On November 8, 2016, the Supreme Court of the Philippines dismissed multiple petitions challenging
the planned burial of former President Ferdinand E. Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani (LNMB), a
national cemetery reserved for heroes and martyrs. The petitioners, including Ocampo et al. and
Lagman et al., contested the legality of the burial, alleging violations of the 1987 Constitution, laws, and
jurisprudence.

The petitioners argued that Marcos' burial at the LNMB would result in the illegal use of public funds,
promote historical revisionism, and disregard the rights of victims of human rights violations committed
during Marcos' regime. They contended that the Court had the duty to review governmental actions for
grave abuse of discretion, even those previously considered political questions.

LEGAL issues:

Whether Marcos' burial at the LNMB violated constitutional principles, including respect for human
rights and public accountability.

The applicability of military regulations (AFP Regulations G 161-375) and special laws (RA No. 289) in
determining eligibility for burial at LNMB.

Compliance with international law standards, particularly regarding impunity for human rights violations.

The petitioners emphasized the importance of locus standi, asserting their personal and substantial
interest in the case due to the direct injury they would suffer from Marcos' burial at LNMB.

Ruling:

The Court, in its ruling, affirmed the dismissal of the petitions. It upheld President Rodrigo R. Duterte's
discretionary authority over LNMB, citing his control and commander-in-chief powers. The Court
rejected arguments invoking international law, emphasizing the primacy of domestic legal provisions. It
clarified that principles on impunity lack binding force under international law and cannot override
domestic statutes.

Ultimately, the Court concluded that there was no statutory prohibition against Marcos' burial at LNMB,
and the Constitution's plain text prevailed in interpretation. Special laws, such as RA No. 289, were
deemed applicable, further supporting the legality of Marcos' burial.

In summary, the Court upheld the legality of Ferdinand Marcos' burial at the Libingan ng mga
Bayani, affirming presidential discretion and the absence of statutory barriers to the interment.
In the case of Ocampo et al. vs. Republic of the Philippines regarding the burial of Ferdinand
Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani (LNMB), the power of the President's control and
commander-in-chief authority played a significant role.

Firstly, the Court highlighted that President Rodrigo R. Duterte, as the Chief Executive and
Commander-in-Chief, possessed discretionary authority over LNMB. This authority was seen as
stemming from the President's control over military affairs and national security. As the LNMB
is considered an active military cemetery, it falls under the purview of the President's control.

Secondly, the Court emphasized that this discretionary authority extended to the allocation of
burial sites at LNMB. The decision to allow Marcos' burial at LNMB was thus considered within
the President's prerogative.

This discretionary power of the President, particularly in matters concerning military affairs and
national security, is a significant aspect of executive authority. In this case, it was invoked to
justify the decision to allow Marcos' burial at LNMB, despite objections and legal challenges
from petitioners.

The Court's acknowledgment of the President's control and commander-in-chief powers served
as a basis for its decision to dismiss the petitions challenging Marcos' burial at LNMB. It
effectively established that the President's discretionary authority in this matter was beyond the
scope of judicial review, as it fell within the realm of executive prerogative.