G.R. No. 225973 - Ocampo vs. Enriquez

Case Summary (G.R. No. 225973)

Applicable Law

1987 Philippine Constitution, particularly Article II (Declaration of Principles and State Policies), Article VII (Executive Department), Article VIII (Judicial Power)
Republic Act No. 289 (Creation of the National Pantheon)
Republic Act No. 10368 (Human Rights Victims Reparation and Recognition Act of 2013)
Administrative Code of 1987 (Executive power and land reservation)
AFP Regulations G 161-375 (Allocation of Cemetery Plots at the Libingan ng mga Bayani)
International human rights law: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Convention Against Torture (CAT), United Nations Basic Principles on Reparation, and others.

Procedural Issues

The Court found that the controversy involves a political question that is not fully justiciable but emphasized its duty under the Constitution to review grave abuse of discretion.
Locus Standi: Petitioners who are human rights victims, taxpayers, and concerned citizens have legal standing due to their substantial interest and the public nature of the controversy. However, some legislators and intervenor lawyers lack sufficient personal injury and thus no standing.
Exhaustion of Remedies and Hierarchy of Courts: Petitioners validly sought direct relief before the Supreme Court given the urgency, transcendental importance, and lack of other adequate remedies.

Core Findings and Legal Analysis

Political Question Doctrine and Judicial Power

While issues of national policy generally involve political questions, the 1987 Constitution expanded judicial review to include determining grave abuse of discretion by any branch of government.
The Court concluded President Duterte’s decision to allow the burial was a political act within the President’s discretion and lacked evidence of grave abuse of discretion warranting judicial intervention.

Nature and Status of Libingan ng mga Bayani

LNMB is a national shrine and active military cemetery, originally established as the Republic Memorial Cemetery and renamed by Proclamation No. 86 in 1954 to honor war heroes.
AFP regulations provide criteria for interment, including Medal of Valor awardees, Presidents, secretaries of National Defense, and others.
LNMB’s character as a “sacred and hallowed place” under PD No. 105 and Republic Acts 10066 and 10086 requires it to be preserved and respected, including through burial policies.

Distinction between National Pantheon and LNMB

RA No. 289 created the National Pantheon for Presidents, heroes, and patriots but the National Pantheon was never constructed.
LNMB is a distinct burial place, not the National Pantheon envisioned by RA No. 289.
The Court held RA No. 289 does not apply to LNMB and that the President has authority over LNMB.

Qualifications for Burial at LNMB and Disqualifications

AFP Regulations G 161-375 set out those qualified and disqualified for burial at the LNMB.
Disqualifications include those dishonorably separated or discharged and those convicted by final judgment of crimes involving moral turpitude.
The Court found no conviction or dishonorable discharge of Marcos that would disqualify him under AFP regulations.
Being a former President, military personnel, Medal of Valor awardee, and veteran qualifies Marcos.

Marcos’ Legacy and Human Rights Violations

The Court recognized the historical facts and numerous rulings holding the Marcos regime responsible for massive human rights violations and plunder.
RA 10368 expresses State policy recognizing victims’ heroism and sacrifices and mandates reparation for gross human rights violations during Marcos’ regime.
The burial does not revise history or legally declare Marcos a hero.
The act of burial is a matter of recognition and the respective honors accorded but does not confer or deny heroism.

International Human Rights Law and State Obligations

The Philippines, as a signatory to ICCPR, CAT, and other instruments, is bound to provide victims of human rights violations effective remedies, including monetary compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction (such as public acknowledgment), and guarantees of non-repetition.
The Court noted the significance of symbolic reparations and the state’s obligation to memorialize victims and preserve historical truth.
The burial of Marcos at LNMB does not negate victims’ reparation rights under RA 10368 or international obligations, which remain valid and ongoing.

Administrative and Constitutional Limits on Executive Discretion

President’s power to reserve land is exercised via proclamation; a verbal order is insufficient for land reservation under the Administrative Code.
Specification of public use and consistency with law must be observed in land reservation for burial grounds.
Public funds and land may be used only for legitimate public purpose; burial at LNMB is within the President’s power, subject to legal standards.
The President’s discretion is not absolute; it must comply with the Constitution, laws, and existing jurisprudence.

Court’s Decision Summary

The petitions were dismissed for lack of grave abuse of discretion in the President’s decision to allow interment of Marcos at LNMB.
The decision was motivated by the President’s discretion exercised in good faith and grounded on his campaign promise and desire to promote national healing.
The Court underscored respect for separation of powers and judicial restraint in matters involving political questions and broad executive discretion.
No explicit constitutional or legal provision denies Marcos burial at LNMB.
The decision does not erase or whitewash the historical record of abuses during Marcos’ regime.
Rights and reparations of victims under RA 10368 and international law are preserved and unaffected by the burial.
Order for burial and related directives by public respondents were valid exercises of authority, within law.

Separate Opinions Highlights

Chief Justice Sereno’s Dissent (Joined by Justices Leonen and Caguioa)

The Court should actively protect human rights and enforce provisions reflecting historical reality and moral obligation.
Marcos was dishonorably removed by the sovereign people; he committed crimes of moral turpitude and grave human rights violations.
The burial at LNMB contradicts legislative and judicial findings, RA 10368, and international obligations.
The Court has a duty to prevent impunity; interring Marcos at LNMB effectively honors a perpetrator and disregards victims.
The presumed “discretion” of the President is not unfettered; it must be exercised within constitutional and legal limits.
The LNMB is a sacred memorial; burying Marcos there desecrates its purpose and public trust.
The case involves a justiciable controversy, and the Court must act to uphold justice and constitutional values.

Justice Carpio’s Dissent

Marcos ceased to be qualified for burial due to being dishonorably separated by the People Power Revolution, which is a sovereign act beyond judicial review.
AFP Regulations disqualify dishonorably discharged personnel; this must apply to Marcos.
Allowing the burial contradicts RA 10368 and the Constitution’s human rights guarantees.
The burial fails public purpose test and promotes private interests, thus public funds and property should not be used.
The interment contradicts the State’s obligations under domestic and international human rights law.
The decision is a political question improperly resolved without judicial scrutiny of grave abuse.

Justice Mendoza’s Dissent

The President’s decision involves a political question but is reviewable for grave abuse of discretion.
The interment violates RA 10368 and international human rights instruments.
Marcos’ military record is dubious; he is legally and historically unworthy of burial at LNMB.
LNMB is a national shrine; the interment violates its sacred character

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 225973)

Background and Facts of the Case

During his campaign for the 2016 presidential election, candidate Rodrigo Duterte publicly pledged to bury former President Ferdinand E. Marcos (Marcos) at the Libingan ng mga Bayani (LNMB).
Duterte won the election and assumed office on June 30, 2016.
On August 7, 2016, Secretary of National Defense Delfin Lorenzana issued a memorandum directing preparations for Marcos’s burial at LNMB, pursuant to Duterte’s verbal order.
Rear Admiral Ernesto Enriquez issued directives for military honors and logistical preparations for the burial.
Several parties, including human rights victims, human rights organizations, legislators, and concerned citizens, filed petitions challenging the order to bury Marcos at the LNMB on grounds of legality and constitutionality.

Procedural Issues and Court’s Jurisdiction

The Court needed to determine whether the burial constitutes a justiciable controversy or falls under the political question doctrine.
Petitioners’ locus standi was questioned; the Court required petitioners to demonstrate personal and substantial interest or direct injury.
The doctrines of exhaustion of administrative remedies and hierarchy of courts were considered, including exceptions to their strict application.
The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Article VIII, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution was engaged, which empowers it to determine grave abuse of discretion by any government branch or instrumentality.

Justiciability and Political Question Doctrine

Political questions are matters expressly committed by the Constitution to other branches or lack judicially manageable standards.
The expanded judicial power under the 1987 Constitution limits the traditional reach of the political question doctrine.
Matters involving grave abuse of discretion or overstepping of jurisdiction by the Executive are subject to judicial review.
The decision to allow Marcos’s burial intertwined political discretion with rights affected, thus engaging justiciability concerns.

Locus Standi (Legal Standing)

Petitioners generally consist of human rights victims, their relatives, concerned citizens, taxpayers, and legislators.
Human rights victims have direct interest due to their rights to reparation and recognition.
Citizens and taxpayers can maintain suits where public funds or property are allegedly misused.
Legislators must demonstrate that their legislative functions are directly affected to have standing.
The Court generally relaxed standing requirements due to the transcendental importance of the issue.

Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies and Hierarchy of Courts

Petitioners did not first seek administrative recourse to reconsider the burial orders.
Exceptions to these doctrines apply in cases involving legal questions, urgency, and where remedies are inadequate.
Due to the urgency of the planned burial and the constitutional nature of the issues, direct judicial intervention was deemed proper.

Legal Issues on Merits

Whether the burial order violates constitutional provisions, domestic laws, including Republic Act (RA) No. 289, RA No. 10368 (Human Rights Victims Reparation and Recognition Act of 2013), the Administrative Code of 1987, and pertinent AFP regulations.
Whether the burial in the LNMB is appropriate given Marcos’s status, including his military awards, political office, and historical legacy.
Whether the intended burial at LNMB conflicts with international human rights obligations and reparations to human rights victims.
Whether the use of public funds and land for the burial serves a legitimate public purpose.
Whether the President acted with grave abuse of discretion or exceeded his jurisdiction in ordering the burial.

The Nature and History of the Libingan ng mga Bayani (LNMB)

Originally the Republic Memorial Cemetery established in 1947 for the war dead, renamed in 1954 to Libingan ng mga Bayani to symbolize honor and reverence for Filipino soldiers.
Reserved as a military national shrine under Presidential Proclamation No. 208 in 1967.
Administered by the Philippine Veterans Affairs Office (PVAO), under the Department of National Defense (DND).
The AFP issued regulations (G 161-375) listing eligible persons for interment, including military veterans, Medal of Valor awardees, former Presidents, and other dignitaries.
Certain persons, e.g., dishonorably discharged personnel or those convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude, are excluded.

Republic Act No. 289 and the National Pantheon

RA No. 289 created the National Pantheon as the burial place of former Presidents, national heroes, and patriots “for the inspiration and emulation of this generation and generations still unborn.”
The National Pantheon was originally planned for a site in Quezon City, later revoked; construction never happened.
LNMB and National Pantheon are separate, distinct entities by location and purpose.
The Court held that RA 289 remains valid law and intended to perpetuate national memory despite lack of appropriation or construction of the Pantheon.

On Human Rights Victims Reparation and Recognition Act (RA No. 10368)

Enacted to recognize the heroism and sacrifices of victims of human rights atrocities committed during Marcos's regime (September 21, 1972 to February 25, 1986).
Declares the State’s moral and legal obligation to provide reparations and restore victims’ honor and dignity.
Provides monetary and non-monetary benefits, memorialization, and legal recognition.
The burial of Marcos was found to have no causal connection to these reparations; it does not diminish victims’ entitlement or rights thereunder.
RA 10368 does not expressly prohibit Marcos's burial at LNMB.

On Philippine Military Regulations (AFP Regulations)

The AFP has exclusive authority over the LNMB burial regulations.
AFP Regulations G 161-375 list persons entitled and disqualified for burial at LNMB.
Marcos qualifies based on military rank, former Presidency, veteran status, and Medal of Valor award.
No conviction of crime involving moral turpitude or dishonorable discharge applies to Marcos.
Petitioners argue that a termination of Marcos’s presidency through the People Power Revolution is a form of dishonorable discharge, contrary to the AFP regulation exclusion.
The Court recognized the President’s power to amend or revoke prior agreements on burial policy.

On Constitutional and Legal Analysis of Presidential Discretion and Judicial Review

The Constitution grants the President executive power and duty to faithfully execute laws.
The President has residual powers but they must be exercised within constitutional limitations and law.
Judicial power includes authority to review for grave abuse of discretion.
The Court must balance respect for Executive discretion with safeguarding constitutional rights and legal limits.
Grave abuse of discretion exists where the Executive acts in an arbitrary, capricious or legally prohibited manner.
The Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the President's exercise of discretion to allow Marcos's burial but recognized the limits to such discretion.

On International Human Rights Law Obligations

The Philippines is bound by international treaties including ICCPR and CAT.
These treaties impose the duty to provide effective remedies and reparations to victims of human rights violations.
UN principles emphasize symbolic reparation: memorials, public acknowledgement, and guarantees of non-repetition.
The burial of Marcos in LNMB is argued to violate these obligations by honoring a known perpetrator of human rights abuses, undermining victims' rights and memory.
The Court acknowledged the importance of historical memory and social justice but found no legal basis to deny the burial.

On Use of Public Funds and Property

Public funds and property may only be used for legitimate public purposes.
LNMB, as a national shrine, serves to honor legitimate military heroes and patriots.
Expenditure for burial and military honors is generally allowed to compensate public service.
Petitioners argued that Marcos's burial does not serve a legitimate public purpose but rather benefits private interests and contradicts national healing.
The Court upheld the presumption of regularity in public expenditures for burial within