Ocampo vs Enriquez G.R.

225973 November 8 2016

Alon, J:

_____________________________________________________________________________________
AFPR G 161-375: Personnel who were dishonorably separated/reverted/discharged from the
service;
 Ousted by the sovereign people
 Through a people power revolution (revolt or mass movement, which is considerable as a
manifestation of the sovereign’s will.
 It must be noted that such ouster meant that he was discharaged as President, and
Commander-In-Chief. And that Circular 17, which prescribes the guidelines and administrative
procedures in the discharge of incumbent or serving military personnel, does not contain any
provisions that would entail retroactivity.
 The ouster of Marcos, through the sovereign people, is beyond judicial review for the right of
the people to decide on their fates is an extra-constitutional act. Moreover, the act itself by the
people is also beyond judicial review, for the Court has no authority over the sovereign.
 It is the same concept as with any other revolution in any part of the world. The old political
system, which also includes its legal system, would be replaced by the new one ushered in by
revolutionaries. No judicial contention can impede the introduction of a new charter,
constitution, legal system, etc introduced thereunder, and only a greater force will be able to
contend it.
 Article II, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution states that: “The Philippines is a democratic and
republican state. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates
from them.” Such government authority would include the Court.

Article II, Section 11: “The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect
for human rights.”

Republic Act No. 10368 or “The Human Rights Victims Reparation and Recognition Act of 2013”

 Established as “Policy of State” to recognize the heroism and victims of Martial Law during the
Marcos regime
 Section 2: “it is hereby declared the “Policy of the state” to recognize the heroism and
sacrifices of all Filipinos who were victims of summary execution, torture, enforced or
involuntary disappearance and other gross human rights violations committed during the
regime of former President Ferdinand E. Marcos covering the period from September 21, 1972
to February 25, 1986 and restore the victims' honor and dignity. The State hereby
acknowledges its moral and legal obligation to recognize and/or provide reparation to said
victims and/or their families for the deaths, injuries, sufferings, deprivations and damages they
suffered under the Marcos regime. It is then contrary as “policy of the state”
 Considering that the LNMB may not be exactly as what the name thereof implies, the law that
which created it did emphasize that the area is to show “The nation’s esteem and reverence” for
those who fought for freedom and democracy for our country, which makes Marcos an exact
anti-thesis of the purpose thereof
 o Proclamation No. 86, which renamed the Republic Memorial Cemetery to LNMB to
make it more “symbolic of the cause fo which Filipino soldiers have died”

Public Funds must be spend for public purposes. There is no public purpose to inter his remains in
LNMB due to the nature of his ouster.

C,j Sereno Notes:

The duty of the court is not only of constitutional obligation but also of moral obligation

 The Philippine Judiciary will be measured not by the accuracy and tenacity in interpreting the
law but rather its duty in exercising its power if it would be akin have “right and justice to
prevail”
 During Martial Law of President Marcos had this court hid under the latin doctrine “lex dura sed
lex”, that the law may be harsh, but it is the law, and evaded constitutional and moral
responsibilities for the long period of suppression of basic rights which ran rampant during the
stark years of President Marcos
o The court then cannot be discernable to the Courts of Nazi Germany wherein the
permissiveness thereof allowed the persecution of Jews, groups, and communities
whom the Nazi regime considered enemies of “justice and order”. It is not an excuse for
the courts to justify their acts as being merely “following the laws of the land”, where
there is blatant disregard to what is right and just.
 The Court must learn from the righted evil of days past.
 It must be known that the constitution of the Philippines, as the supreme law of the land, is built
upon the very fundamentals of basic human rights and the evils it seeks to remedy. It is the
duty of the Court to reject government actions that are contrary to this basic building blocks.
o The Bill of Rights exists to leash the government so as not to tamper the people’s rights.
This very leash, from which its material are the words of the constitution, should never
snap as to separate the government from its constituents it was made to serve.
 For if we dislodge ourselves of this very value, then we have no right to be called “Justices”.
On the matter of the interment of the late Dictator in the Libingan ng mga Bayani (LNMB) is not merely
an issue of technicality and legal obstacles, but more importantly, it is an issue of our sovereignty and
morality. Dictator Ferdinand Marcos was ousted through a non-violent people’s revolt. He has been
ousted extra-constitutionally by the sovereign will of the people. It must be considered that such ouster
meant that he was discharged as President, and as Commander-In-Chief. Considering that AFPR G161-
375 laid down the disqualification characteristics which in particular states that: “… Personnel who were
dishonorably separated/reverted/discharged from the service”, the ouster of the Dictator through a
sovereign act is not only valid, but also the most dishonorable discharge anyone could ever be meted
with. Furthermore, such sovereign act is beyond judicial review, for the right of the people to decide their
fates is an extra-constitutional act that of which the Court has no authority over. It is the same concept
as with any other revolution in any part of the world; the old political system, which also includes its legal
system, would be replaced by the new one ushered in by revolutionaries. No judicial contention can
impede the introduction of a new charter, constitution, legal system, etc introduced thereunder, and only
a greater force will be able to contend against it.

In relation to this case, we have Republic Act No. 10368 or “The Human Rights Victims Reparation and
Recognition Act of 2013” which in particular establishes that as “Policy of the state” to recognize the
heroism of those who fought against and victims of Martial Law. In addition, Section 2 thereof mentioned
in particular to “…restore the victims' honor and dignity. The State hereby acknowledges its moral and
legal obligation to recognize and/or provide reparation to said victims and/or their families for the deaths,
injuries, sufferings, deprivations and damages they suffered under the Marcos regime”. Furthermore,
considering that the LNMB may not be exactly as what the name implies, the law that which created it did
emphasize that the area is to show “The nation’s esteem and reverence” for those who fought for
freedom and democracy for our country, and that which makes Marcos an exact anti-thesis of the
purpose thereof, and the internment of his remains within it is not in accordance to the policy of state of
restoring the victims’ honor and dignity. Public Funds must be spent for public purposes. There is no
public purpose to inter his remains in LNMB due to the nature of his ouster that of the will of the sovereign.

The duty of the court is not only of constitutional obligation but also of moral obligation. Our courts will
be measured not by the accuracy and tenacity in interpreting the law but rather in its exercise of duty that
would allow “right and justice to prevail”. During Martial Law of President Marcos this Court hid under
the latin doctrine “lex dura sed lex”, that the law may be harsh, but it is the law, and evaded constitutional
and moral responsibilities for the long period of suppression of basic rights which ran rampant during the
stark years of President Marcos. The court then cannot be discernable to the Courts of Nazi Germany
wherein the permissiveness of its courts allowed the immoral persecution of Jews, groups, and
communities whom the Nazi regime considered enemies of “justice and order”. It is not an excuse of the
courts to justify their acts as being merely “following the laws of the land”, when there is blatant disregard
to what is right and just.

This Court must learn from the rectified evils of days past.
It must be known that the constitution of the Philippines, as the supreme law of the land, is built upon
the very fundamentals of basic human rights and the evils it seeks to remedy. It is the duty of the Court
to reject government actions that are contrary to this basic building blocks. The Bill of Rights exists to
leash the government so as not to tamper the people’s rights. This very leash, from which its material are
the words of the constitution, should never snap as to separate the government from its constituents it
was made to serve.

For if we dislodge ourselves from what is just and fair, then we have no right to be called “Justice”.

In conclusion, the remains of the late Dictator must be extracted from the LNMB in respect to those heroes
and victims of the stark years of the dictatorship, and to allow the finality of our people’s history to close
in a high moral standard.