04

04. OCAMPO v. ENRIQUEZ, G.R. No. 225973

November 8, 2016| PERALTA, J. | Police Power

PETITIONER: Saturnino C. Ocampo, Repuno, Lumbera, Ilagan, Colmenares, Araullo, SELDA, del Rosario, Dalisay,
dela Fuente

RESPONDENTS: Rear Admiral Ernesto C. Enriquez (AFP), The Grave Services (Philippine Army), Gen. Ricardo Visaya
(AFP), Defense Sec. Delfin Lorenzana and heirs of Ferdinand E. Marcos (represented by Imelda
Romualdez Marcos)

SUMMARY:
President Rodrigo Roa Duterte gave a verbal order on July 11, 2016 on the internment of the late former President
Ferdinand E. Marcos in the Libingan ng mga Bayani (LNMB). Lorenzana issued a memorandum to Visaya regarding the
directive of President Duterte. Petitioners question the Memo and the burial of Marcos at the LNMB.

The Court dismissed the case as the decision of President Duterte involves a political question and not a justiciable
controversy. President Duterte did not gravely abuse his discretion when he allowed Marcos' burial at the LNMB
because it was already shown that the latter is qualified

DOCTRINE:
Under the Faithful Execution Clause, the President shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus, and
offices. He shall also ensure that the laws be faithfully executed.

Facts:
1. True to his 2016 Presidential campaign promise of unifying the nation, President Rodrigo Roa Duterte gave a
verbal order on July 11, 2016 to effect the internment of the remains of the late former President Ferdinand E.
Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani (LNMB).
2. Acting on this order, on August 7, 2016, DND Secretary Lorenzana issued a memorandum to the public
respondent Chief of Staff of the AFP, General Visaya, to undertake all the necessary planning and preparations to
facilitate the coordination of all agencies concerned specially the provisions for ceremonial and security
requirements.
3. On August 9, 2016, AFP Rear Admiral Enriquez issued the directives to the Philippine Army Commanding General
to prepare the grave for Marcos.
4. Petitioners question the memorandum order and the burial at the LNMB as they claim that it is against the
Constitution, domestic and international laws.

Issue/s:
Whether or not the issuance and implementation of the assailed memorandum (Internment of the late former President
Ferdinand E. Marcos and directive from President Duterte violate the Constitution – no.

Dispositive Portion:
WHEREFORE, the motions for reconsideration, as well as the motion/petition to exhume Marcos' remains at the Libingan
ng mga Bayani, are DENIED WITH FINALITY. The petitions for indirect contempt in G.R. No. 228186 and G.R. No. 228245
are DISMISSED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.

Ruling:
No, the court dismisses the case as it agrees with the OSG that the decision of President Duterte involves a political
question that is not a justiciable controversy. In the Exercise of his powers given by the constitution and the E.O 292
(Police Power), to allow the interment of Marcos at the LNMB, which is a land of public domain devoted for national
cemetery and military shrine purposes. President Duterte decided a question of policy based on his wisdom that it shall
promote national healing and forgiveness. The memorandum is not violating any laws and the constitution.

Regulations G 161-375 determines the qualifications of the people to be interred in the LNMB which Former President,
being the former president, commander-in-chief, a legislator, secretary of national defense, a military personnel, a
veteran and a Medal of Valor Awardee, has passed. Presidential Power of Control over the executive branch of
Government is a self-executing Provision of the Constitution and does not require statutory implementation, nor may
its exercise be limited, much less withdrawn by the legislature.

President Duterte did not gravely abuse his discretion when he allowed Marcos' burial at the LNMB because it was
already shown that the latter is qualified as a Medal of Valor Awardee, a war veteran, and a retired military personnel,
and not disqualified due to dishonorable separation/revertion/discharge from service or conviction by final judgment
of an offense involving moral turpitude. If grave abuse is not established, the Court will not substitute its judgment for
that of the official concerned and decide a matter which by its nature or by law is for the latter alone to decide.