Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Enriquez
Facts: During 2016 presidential campaign, Duterte publicly announced he would
allow the burial of Marcos in LNMB. After winning the elections, through Sec. of
National Defense Lorenzana, a Memorandum was issued to Chief of Staff of AFP,
Gen. Visaya, for the interment of Marcos, in compliance with the verbal order of the
President to implement his election campaign promise. AFP rear Admiral Enriquez
issued directives to the Philippine Army Commanding General to provide services,
honors, and other courtesies for the late Former President Marcos. Dissatisfied with
the issuances and directives, various petitioners filed petition for Certiorari and
Prohibition.
-
Saturnino Ocampo, et. al., in their capacity as human rights advocates and
human rights violations victims
Rene Saguisag and his son, as members of the Bar and human rights
lawyers
Edcel Lagman, as member of Congress
Loretta Pargas-Rosales, former Chairperson of CHr, as victims of Statesanctioned human rights violations during martial law
Heherson Alvarez, former Senator, as concerned citizens and taxpayers
Zaira Baniaga, as concerned citizens and taxpayers
Algamar Latiph, former chairperson of regional human rights commission
ARMM, on behalf of Moros who are victims during martial law
Leila De Lima, as Senator
Issues
PROCEDURAL
1. Whether Pres. Dutertes determination to have the remains of Marcos interred
at LNMB poses a justiciable controversy
NO. The Court agrees with the OSG that Pres. Dutertes decision to have the
remains of Marcos interred at the LNMB involves a political question that is not a
justiciable controversy. It is also under the Constitution and EO 292 (Admin Code of
1987) to allow the interment in LNMB which is a land of public domain devoted for
national military cemetery and military shrine purposes. It is based on his wisdom
that it shall promote national healing and forgiveness. It is outside the ambit of
judicial review.
2. Whether petitioners have locus standi to file the instant petitions
NO. Petitioners failed to show that they have suffered or will suffer direct or personal
injury as a result of the interment of Marcos at the LNMB. The interment of Marcos
would have no profound effect on the political, economic, and other aspects of our
national life considering that more than 27 years since his death and 30 years after
his ouster have already passed. Petitioners failed to demonstrate a clear and
imminent threat to their fundamental constitutional rights
3. Whether petitioners violated the doctrines of exhaustion of administrative
remedies and hierarchy of courts
YES. Petitioners violated the doctrines of exhaustion of administrative remedies and
hierarchy of courts. They should seek reconsideration of the assailed memorandum
and directive before the Secretary of National Defense and give them the
opportunity to correct themselves, if warranted. If petitioners are still dissatisfied
with the Secretarys decision they could have elevated it before the Office of the
President which has control and supervision of the DND.
Even though there are exceptions that would warrant a direct resort to the Supreme
Court under exceptional cases, the petitioners cannot brush aside the doctrine of
Hierarchy of Courts that requires such petitions to be filed first with the proper RTC
which are not only trier of facts but can also resolve questions of law in the exercise
of its original and concurrent jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari, prohibition and
mandamus, and has the power to issue restraining order and injunction when
proven necessary.
In fine, the petitions at bar should be dismissed on procedural grounds alone.
SUBSTANTIVE
1. Whether the issuance and implementation of the memorandum violates the
Constitution, domestic and international law
NO. The Presidents decision to bury Marcos at the LNMB is in accordance with the
Constitution, the law or jurisprudence.
Laws and Constitutional provisions cited by petitioner:
Art. II: Sec. 2, 11, 13, 23, 26, 27, and 28 not self-executory
Art. VII: Sec. 17 Faithful execution clause, it is consistent with President Dutertes
mandate, the burial does not contravene RA 289, RA 10368, and the international
human rights laws cited by petitioner
Art. XIV: Sec. 3(2) reliance in this provision is misplaced it refers to duty of educ
institutions to teach values of nationalism and patriotism and respect for human
rights
Art. XI: Sec. 1 not self-executory but RA 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for Public Officials and Employees), RA 7080 (Penalizing Plunder), RA
9485 (Anti-red Tape Act) was enacted pursuant to this
Art. XVIII: Sec. 26 transitory provision and freeze order to recover ill-gotten wealth
In sum, there is no clear constitutional or legal basis to hold that there was grave
abuse of discretion which would justify the Court to interpose its authority to check
and override an act entrusted to the judgment of another branch. The President
through respondents acted within the bounds of law and jurisprudence. The Court
must uphold what is legal and just and that is not to deny Marcos of his rightful
place in LNMB
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the petitions
Necessarily, the Status Quo Ante Order is hereby LIFTED.
are
DISMISSED.