Besario, Kenny Anne R.

1T

Saturnino Ocampo v. Executive Secretary Medialdea, G.R. No. 225973,

November 8, 2016

FACTS:

During the campaign period for the 2016 Presidential Election, then candidate Rodrigo R.
Duterte (Duterte) publicly announced that he would allow the burial of former President
Ferdinand E. Marcos (Marcos) at the Libingan Ng Mga Bayani (LNMB).
On August 7, 2016, Secretary of National Defense Delfin N. Lorenzana issued a Memorandum
to the public respondent Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), General
Ricardo R. Visaya, regarding the interment of Marcos at the LNMB.
On August 9, 2016, respondent AFP Rear Admiral Ernesto C. Enriquez issued the directives to
the Philippine Army (PA) Commanding General regarding the Funeral Honors and Service for
the late Marcos. Dissatisfied with the foregoing issuance, the petitioners filed a Petition for
Certiorari and Prohibition (Satumino Ocampo, et al.), Petition for Certiorari-in-Intervention
(Rene A.V. Saguisag, et al.), Petition for Mandamus and Prohibition (Heherson T. Alvarez) and
several others.

Issues:
1. Whether the issuance memorandum and directive international laws, particularly and
implementation of the assailed violate the Constitution, domestic and international laws.
2. Whether historical facts, laws enacted to recover ill-gotten wealth from the Marcoses and
their cronies, and the pronouncements of the Court on the Marcos regime have nullified
his entitlement as a soldier and former President to interment at the LNMB.

HELD:

1. No. As the Office of the Solicitor General ( OSG) logically reasoned out, while the
Constitution is a product of our collective history as a people, its entirety should not be
interpreted as providing guiding principles to just about anything remotely related to the
Martial Law period such as the proposed Marcos burial at the LNMB. In addition, Sec. 1
of Art. XI of the Constitution is not a self executing provision considering that a law
should be passed by the Congress to clearly define and effectuate the principle embodied
therein. Consistent with President Duterte's mandate under Sec. 1 7, Art. VII of the
Constitution, the burial of Marcos at the LNMB does not contravene R.A. No. 289, R.A.
No. 10368, and the international human rights laws cited by petitioners. The nation's
history will not be instantly revised by a single resolve of President Duterte, acting
 through the public respondents, to bury Marcos at the LNMB. Petitioners did not dispute
that Marcos was a former President and Commander-in-Chief, a legislator, a Secretary of
National Defense, a military personnel, a veteran, and a Medal of Valor awardee. For his
alleged human rights abuses and corrupt practices, we may disregard Marcos as a
President and Commander-in-Chief, but we cannot deny him the right to be
acknowledged based on the other positions he held or the awards he received. In this
sense, we agree with the proposition that Marcos should be viewed and judged in his
totality as a person. While he was not all good, he was not pure evil either. Certainly, just
a human who erred like us.
2. No. Under AFP Regulations G 161-375, the following are eligible for interment at the
LNMB: (a) Medal of Valor Awardees; (b) Presidents or Commanders-in-Chief, AFP; ( c)
Secretaries of National Defense; ( d) Chiefs of Staff, AFP; ( e) General/Flag Officers of
the AFP; (f) Active and retired military personnel of the AFP to include active draftees
and trainees who died in line of duty, active reservists and CAFGU Active Auxiliary
(CAA) who died in combat operations or combat related activities; (g) Former members
of the AFP who laterally entered or joined the PCG and the PNP; h) Veterans of
Philippine Revolution of 1890, WWI, WWII and recognized guerillas; (i) Government
Dignitaries, Statesmen, National Artists and other deceased persons whose interment or
reinterment has been approved by the Commander-in-Chief, Congress or the Secretary of
National Defense; and G) Former Presidents, Secretaries of Defense, Dignitaries,
Statesmen,National Artists, widows of Former Presidents, Secretaries of National
Defense and Chief of Staff.
It is not contrary to the "well-established custom," as the dissent described it, to argue
that the word "bayani" in the LNMB has become a misnomer since while a symbolism of
heroism may attach to the LNMB as a national shrine for military memorial, the same
does not automatically attach to its feature as a military cemetery and to those who were
already laid or will be laid therein. As stated, the purpose of the LNMB, both from the
legal and historical perspectives, has neither been to confer to the people buried there the
title of "hero" nor to require that only those interred therein should be treated as a "hero."