Case Summary (G.R. No. 225973)
Political Question Doctrine
Majority held that there are no express constitutional limits on the President’s discretion to execute valid AFP regulations governing national shrines; therefore, the burial directive did not involve a nonjusticiable “truly political question.” Absent a grave abuse of discretion, courts will not substitute their judgment for that of the Executive.
Standing (Locus Standi)
Petitioners failed to show personal, direct injury traceable to the burial directive or redressable by judicial relief. Claims of re-traumatization and illegal use of funds were speculative, lacking proof of disqualification under AFP Regulations G 161-375 or illegal appropriation of public monies.
Administrative Remedies and Hierarchy of Courts
The Court found petitioners should have first sought reconsideration of interment directives from AFP or the President, rather than directly invoking judicial review. Lower courts and administrative remedies were available and not clearly futile.
Mootness
Despite the burial having occurred, the Court ruled the controversy was still live because a reversal of its Decision could void the directive, making exhumation still a practical remedy. Thus, motions for reconsideration were not moot.
Status Quo Ante Order, Contempt and Exhumation Motions
The SQAO, akin to a temporary injunction, ended by its own terms upon dismissal of the petitions. Its lifting did not breach any rule. Indirect contempt petitions against respondents for coordinating the burial were dismissed for lack of fault. The exhumation motion was denied as there was no basis for forensic examination.
Publication with ONAR Requirement
Petitioners argued AFP Regulations G 161-375 were invalid for not being filed with the Office of the National Administrative Register (ONAR) as required by the Administrative Code. The majority held that military regulations on internal matters are exempt from ONAR publication; thus, the regulations were binding and effective.
Compliance with the 1987 Constitution
Petitioners’ claim that the burial violated self-executing constitutional provisions was rejected. The majority found no breach of due process, equal protection, or any constitutional mandate. References to constitutional Commission members’ statements and debates were deemed unnecessary when the text is clear.
Proclamation No. 105 and National Shrines
Proclamation 105 (1973) declared national shrines “sacred” and punishable if desecrated. AFP Regulations G 161-375, issued under presidential rule-making power, prescribe qualifications for interment at LNMB, a national shrine, and remain valid until set aside.
Republic Act No. 289 (National Pantheon)
RA 289 created a National Pantheon separate from LNMB. Majority held it does not apply to LNMB, which serves a distinct purpose. Petitioners’ reliance on RA 289 standards was non sequitur because the National Pantheon site is separate.
Republic Act No. 10368 (HRVVs Reparation Act)
RA 10368 provides monetary and limited non-monetary benefits to martial law rights victims. The majority held it does not prohibit Marcos’s burial at LNMB nor serve as a reparation mechanism that could bar interment.
International Human Rights Law
Non-binding U.N. “soft law” instruments on remedies and anti-impunity (Basic Principles on Reparation, UN Principles on Impunity) were held not to constitute binding law under Art. 2(2) of the Constitution. Petitioners’ invocation of customary international law was rejected.
AFP Regulations G 161-375: Disqualification Criteria
Two disqualification grounds—dishonorable discharge and conviction by final judgment of an offense involving moral turpitude—apply only to those in “active service.” Marcos, a retired military officer, was neither dishonorably discharged under military law nor criminally convicted for a crime involving moral turpitude.
Memorandum of Agreement: Ramos and Marcos Family
A 1992 MOA between President Ramos and the Marcos family permitted Marcos’s remains to lie in government-owned land only with prior clearance. The majority held that the incumbent President’s directive provided proper clearance and that executive acts by one President do not bind his successors.
National Reconciliation Considerations
Whether the burial fosters national healing or closure is a matter of executive wisdom, beyond judicial review. The burial directive was tested by conformity with law, not by its political or social outcomes.
Historical Revisionism Concerns
Petitioners’ fear that burial would alter history was dismissed; the majority stressed that memory and memorialization are the province of the National Historical Commission of the Philippines and civil society, not the judiciary.
Equitable Considerations
Equity does not override valid law or regulations. Courts may not disregard AFP Regulations G 161-375 based on moral pity or retr
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 225973)
Procedural Background and Consolidated Cases
- Original petitions filed in G.R. No. 225973 and intervening petitions in G.R. Nos. 225984, 226097, 226116, 226117, 226120, 226294 challenging the intended burial of former President Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani (LNMB)
- Separate motions for reconsideration filed by Ocampo et al., Lagman et al., Rosales et al., Latiph, and De Lima
- Urgent motion for exhumation by Lagman et al.; petitions to cite respondents in contempt by Ocampo et al. and Rosales et al., docketed as G.R. Nos. 228186 and 228245
- Respondents ordered to file Comments, leading to this En Banc resolution dated August 8, 2017
Status Quo Ante Order (SQAO) and Execution of the Decision
- SQAO issued November 4, 2016, to preserve conditions pending resolution, extended twice until promulgation on November 8, 2016
- Decision dismissing petitions and lifting SQAO issued November 8, 2016
- Marcos was buried at LNMB on November 18, 2016, ten days after Decision but before motions for reconsideration resolved
- Court holds execution of a non-final judgment is generally impermissible absent specific authorization or good reason under Rules of Court
Political Question Doctrine
- Petitioners contend issue is reviewable judicially to determine grave abuse of discretion by President Duterte
- Court reiterates Francisco, Jr. standard: judicial power extends to actions of any branch where constitutional limits are delineated
- Holds petitioners failed to show any constitutional provision limiting President’s discretion to authorize burial under valid AFP Regulation G 161-375
Locus Standi
- Petitioners, many of whom are human rights violation victims (HRVVs), allege direct injury to their right to full remedy and reparation
- Court applies traditional three-part test: actual or threatened injury, traceable to challenged act, redressable by remedy sought
- Finds petitioners did not demonstrate direct injury from Marcos’ burial given valid nature of AFP regulation and presidential authority
Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies and Hierarchy of Courts
- Petitioners argue futility of motions for reconsideration (MR) with Office of the President and public respondents; seek direct certiorari
- Court underscores MR as condition precedent to certiorari to allow subordinates to correct directives under AFP Regulation G 161-375
- Rejects analogy to Drilon v. Lim on judicial modesty, emphasizing Supreme Court’s duty and lower courts’ concurrent jurisdiction on constitutional issues
Mootness and Finality
- Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) argues burial is supervening event rendering MRs moot
- Court holds MRs not moot: non-final judgments may be voided upon reversal, and relief remains of practical value
- Premature execution of Decision cannot deprive petitioners of possibility of reversal and vindication
Provisional Remedies: SQAO, Contempt and Exhumation Motions
- SQAO akin to tempor