Case Digest (G.R. No. 225973) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In 815 Phil. 1175 EN BANC [G.R. No. 225973, August 08, 2017], a group of Martial Law victims and civil‐society representatives led by Saturnino C. Ocampo, et al. sought injunctive and certiorari relief to prevent the burial of the late President Ferdinand E. Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani (LNMB). They named as respondents the Deputy Chief of Staff for Reservist and Retiree Affairs of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), the AFP’s Grave Services Unit, the AFP Chief of Staff, the Department of National Defense Secretary, and the heirs of Marcos represented by Imelda Marcos; intervenors included members of the Saguisag family and congressmen. Petitioners argued that the President’s verbal order and the Defense Department’s issuance of AFP Regulations G 161-375 unlawfully authorized a hero’s burial for Marcos, a dictator convicted in civil proceedings of plunder and implicated in gross human rights violations. The Supreme Court issued a Status Quo Ante Order (SQAO) on Au Case Digest (G.R. No. 225973) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Petitions
- Petitioners comprised multiple groups and individuals (Ocampo et al., Lagman et al., Rosales et al., Latiph, De Lima, among others) challenging the planned and later actual interment of Ferdinand E. Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani (LNMB).
- Respondents included the President (Duterte), Executive Secretary, Defense Secretary, AFP Chief of Staff, AFP Deputy Chief of Staff, PVAO Administrator, AFP units, and heirs of Marcos.
- Procedural History
- On August 23, 2016, the Court issued a Status Quo Ante Order (SQAO) to preserve the pre‐burial state pending resolution of consolidated petitions.
- Oral arguments were conducted; the Decision dismissing the petitions was promulgated on November 8, 2016.
- Despite pending motions for reconsideration, Marcos was interred at the LNMB on November 18, 2016—ten days after the Decision but before finality.
- Petitioners filed Motions for Reconsideration, an exhumation petition, and contempt petitions, which were consolidated under multiple GR Numbers.
Issues:
- Justiciability
- Whether the burial directive is a non‐justiciable political question.
- Scope of judicial power to review executive discretion in national shrines.
- Standing (Locus Standi)
- Petitioners’ status as human rights victims and concerned citizens.
- Requirements: personal injury, causation, redressability.
- Procedural Issues
- Exhaustion of administrative remedies and hierarchy of courts.
- Mootness of motions in light of the burial.
- Effect and expiry of the SQAO; viability of contempt and exhumation actions.
- Validity of AFP Regulations G 161-375
- Publication requirement under the Administrative Code (ONAR filing).
- Exemption for “matters relating exclusively to AFP personnel.”
- Constitutional and Statutory Compliance
- 1987 Constitution, PD No. 105, RA Nos. 289, 10066, 10086, 10368.
- Self-executing nature and need (or lack) of implementing legislation.
- International Law
- Binding force of U.N. “soft law” on reparation and anti‐impunity.
- Obligations under the ICCPR, CAT, universal human rights standards.
- Eligibility Criteria under AFP Regulations
- Dishonorable discharge/reversion/reversion.
- Conviction by final judgment of an offense involving moral turpitude.
- Other Considerations
- Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between Ramos and the Marcos family.
- Concepts of national reconciliation, historical revisionism, equitable relief.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)