Ocampo v.

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

RA 289 authorized the construction of a National Pantheon as a burial place for

Presidents, National Heroes, and Patriots for the perpetuation of the memory and for
the inspiration and emulation of this generation and of generations still unborn.
Petitioners failed to provide legal and historical bases that LNMB and National
Pantheon is one and the same. LNMB is distinct from the burial place envisioned in
rA 289. The National Pantheon does not exist at present. Also to apply the standard
that LNMB is reserved only for the decent and brave or hero, it will put into question
all the mortal remains therein. The name of LNMB is a misnomer, interment of
Marcos remain does not confer upon him the status of a hero.
RA 10368 (compensation for Human rights violations victims during Marcos
regime) recognizes the human rights violations committed and gives them
reparation. However, the court cannot subscribe to petitioners logic that the
reparation includes the prohibition of Marcos interment when it is not provided. It is
undue to extend the law beyond what it contemplates. Legislators could have easily
inserted a provision prohibiting Marcos internment as reparation but they did not.
The law is silent and should remain to be so. We cannot read into law what is simply
not there. That would be tantamount to judicial legislation.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights these are principles that call for
an enactment of legislative measures. The PH is compliant with its international
obligations evident by the various RAs, exec issuances, and even in the Constitution
Our nations history will not be instantly revised by a single resolve of President
Duterte to bury Marcos at the LNMB. Whether petititoners admit it or not, the
lessons of Martial Law are already engraved, albeit in varying degrees, in the hearts
and minds of the present generation of Filipinos.
2. Whether the Sec. of National Defense and AFP rear admiral commited grave
abuse of discretion when they issued the memorandum and directive in
compliance with the verbal order of Pres. Duterte to implement his election
campaign promise of Marcos interment in LNMB
The Presidents decision to bury Marcos at the LNMB is not done whimsically,
capriciously or arbitrarily, out of malice, ill will or personal bias. Presumption of
regularity in the performance of official duty prevails over the petitioners allegation
of Dutertes utang na loob or bayad utang to the Marcoses. Petitioners should
establish such claims but failed to do so. Then again, the court is not a trier of facts.
3. Whether historical facts, laws enacted to recover ill-gotten wealth of Marcos
and his cronies, and pronouncement of SC, nullifies his entitlement as a
soldier and former President to interment at the LNMB
National Shrines are governed by NHCP, military shrines are not. They are governed
by PVAO of DND. LNMB is a military shrine.

Magsaysay issued EO 77 orders remains of war dead interred at Bataan to be

reinterred in McKinley to minimize expenses and accessibility to widows.
Magsaysay issued Proc. 86 changing the name to LNMB
Garcia issued Proc. 423, Marcos issued Proc and General Orders, Cory issued EOs
too. The point is the PVAO manages military shrines which is under DND which is
under the Office of the President
AFP Regulations G 161-375 who may be interred
a.) Medal of Valor awardee
b.) Presidents or Commander-in-Chief, AFP
c.) Sec. of National Defense
d.) Chief of Staff, AFP
e.) General/Flag Officers, AFP
f.) Active and retired military personnel
g.) Gov dignitaries, statesman,national artists and others as long as approved by
the C-i-C, Congress or Sec. of National defense
h.) Widows of former presidents
Petitioners did not dispute that Marcos was a former President and C-i-C, legislator,
Sec. of National Defense, veteran, medal of valor awardee.
Marcos does not have any disqualification. He was not convicted of moral turpitude
nor dishonourably discharged.
Marcos rendered significant active military service and military-related activities.
THOSE WHO Are NOT QUALIFIED:
a.) Personnel who are dishonorably discharged
b.) Convicted of final judgment of an offense involving moral turpitude
Moral Turpitude conduct that is contrary to community standards of justice,
honesty, or good morals.
4. Whether the Marcos family waived the burial of remains of Marcos in LNMB
when they entered into agreement with Gov. of PH as to the condition and
procedures by which his remains shall be brought back to and interred in the
PH.
The presidential power of control over the Executive Branch of Government is a selfexecuting provision of the Constitution nor its exercise be limted by legislature. As
the incumbent President, Duterte is not bound by the 1992 Agreement between
ramos and the Marcos family to have the remains of Marcos interred in Ilocos Norte,
he is free to amend, revoke or rescind political agreements entered into by his
predecessors, and to determine policies which he considers, based on informed
judgment and presumed wisdom, will be most effective in carrying out his mandate.

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.