G.

R No 225973, August 08, 2017

Saturnino C. Ocampo vs. Rear Admiral Ernesto C. Enriquiz
Peral, J.:

Facts:
Petition argue that the main issue of the petition does not deal on the wisdom of the actions of President Duterte and
the public respondent but their violation of the 1987 Constitution, laws, and jurisprudence. The petitions challenging the
intended burial of the mortal remains of Ferdinand E. Marcos, at the Libingan ng mga Bayani (LMNB). Petitioners failed
to show that President Duterte violated the due process and equal protection clauses in issuing verbal order to public
respondents that authorized Marcos’ burial to LNMB. More so, even if subject to review by the Court, President Duterte
did not gravely abuse his discretion when he allowed Marcos’ burial at LNMB because it was already show that the latter
is qualified as a Medal of Valor Awardee, a war veteran, and retired military personnel, and not disqualified due to
dishonorable separation/revertion/discharge from service or conviction by final judgment of an offense involving moral
turpitude.
Petitioner claim to have legal standing to file the petition because they have already sustained direct injury as a result of
the act being question in this case. With respect to petitioners who are human rights violation victims (HRRV’s) during
the martial law they contend that their right to dispute Marcos’ burial at the LNMB rests on their right to full and
effective remedy entitlement to reparation as guaranteed be the State under Constitution as well as domestic and
international law. Essentially, petitioners decry that Marcos’ burial at the LNMB results in illegal use of public funds, re-
traumatization, historical revisionism, disregard of their stage recognition as heroes and their rights to effective
reparation and to satisfaction.
Petitioners cannot also maintain that Marcos’ burial at the LNMG serves no legitimate public purpose and that no valid
emulative recognition should given him in view of his sins as recognized by law and jurisprudence. They have not proven
that Marcos was actually not qualified and in fact disqualified under the provision of Armed Forces of the Philipiines
Regulation G 161-375. As we pointed out, such unwarranted interpretation is tantamount to judicial legislation, hence,
unconstitutional. It is not Marcos’ burial at the LNMB that would result in the “re-traumatization” of HVVR’s but the act
of requiring them to recount their harrowing experiences in the course of legal proceedings instituted by them or
families to seek justice and reparation for the gross human rights. Petitioners claim that the filing of an MR before public
respondent and the Office of the President would have been an exercise in futility, and direct resort to this Court is
justified.
On November 11, 2016, Lagman et al. filed a “Manifestation praying “that the Honorable Supreme Court may consider
reissuing the Status (qou) Ante Order and/or advising the Respondent not to proceed with the said burial pending
resolution of the motion/s for reconsideration to be interposed seasonably. On the same day, Ocampo et al. also filed an
“Extremely Urgent Motion” praying, among others, to (direct) respondent to hold in abeyance or refrain from executing
any plans on the interment of the remains of Marcos for Reconsideration to be filed by petitioners, and the finality of
the Honorable Court’s Decision”.
Petitioners-movants reiterate that AFP Regulations G 161-375 does not have the force and effect of Law and cannot be
valid source of any right, obligation or power for violating the Constitution, international and Municipal laws, and foreign
and local jurisprudence, which, cannot be disregard as they are deemed incorporated in administrative regulation.
Ocampo et al. maintain that Marcos’ burial at the LNMB violates the Constitution, the basic principles of which are
respect for human rights and dignity and public accountability. Rosales et al. hold that the spectate of burying Marcos at
the LNMB undermines the recognition of his crimes and takes away the very historical premises on which so much of our
present constitutional design and order is anchored. And, Latiph expresses that Marcos was an epitome of anti-
democracy, representing oppression and tyranny which the Constitution rejects.

Issue:
1. Whether President Duterte’s determination to have the remains of Marcos interred at the LNMB poses a justiciable
controversy.

2. Whether petitioners have locus standi to file the instant petitions.

3. Whether the Issuance and implementation of the assailed memorandum and directive violate the Constitution,
domestic and international laws.

Ruling:
1.An “actual case or controversy” is one which involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims,
susceptible of judicial resolution as distinguished from a hypothetical or abstract difference or dispute.

Moreover, the limitation on the power of judicial review to actual cases and controversies carries the assurance that the
courts will not intrude into areas committed to the other branches of government. Those areas pertain to questions
which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full
discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the government.cralawred As they
are concerned with questions of policy and issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality of a particular measure,
political questions used to be beyond the ambit of judicial review.

The Court agrees with the OSG that President Duterte’s decision to have the remains of Marcos interred at the LNMB
involves a political question that is not a justiciable controversy.

In the exercise of his powers under the Constitution and E.O. No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987) to allow the
interment of Marcos at the LNMB, which is a land of the public domain devoted for national military cemetery and
military shrine purposes, President Duterte decided a question of policy based on his wisdom that it shall promote
national healing and forgiveness.

2. Locus standi, a right of appearance in a court of justice on a given question, requires that a party alleges such personal
stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of
issues upon which the court depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions.

Petitioners, who filed their respective petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, in their capacities as citizens,
human rights violations victims, legislators, members of the Bar and taxpayers, have no legal standing to file such
petitions because they failed to show that they have suffered or will suffer direct and personal injury as a result of the
interment of Marcos at the LNMB.

3. Constitutionality. The President’s decision to bury Marcos at the LNMB is in accordance with the Constitution, the law
or jurisprudence.
Petitioners argue that the burial of Marcos at the LNMB should not be allowed because it has the effect of not just
rewriting history as to the Filipino people’s act of revolting against an authoritarian ruler but also condoning the abuses
committed during the Martial Law, thereby violating the letter and spirit of the 1987 Constitution, which is a “post-
dictatorship charter” and a “human rights constitution.” For them, the ratification of the Constitution serves as a clear
condemnation of Marcos’ alleged “heroism.” To support their case, petitioners invoke Sections 2, 11, 13, 23, 26, 27 and
28 of Article II, Sec. 17 of Art. VII, Sec. 3(2) of Art. XIV, Sec. 1 of Art. XI, and Sec. 26 of Art. XVII of the Constitution.
There is no merit to the contention.
As the 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.
Tañada v. Angara already ruled that the provisions in Article II of the Constitution are not self-executing. Thus:
By its very title, Article II of the Constitution is a “declaration of principles and state policies.” The counterpart of this
article in the 1935 Constitution is called the “basic political creed of the nation” by Dean Vicente Sinco. These principles
in Article II are not intended to be self-executing principles ready for enforcement through the courts. They are used by
the judiciary as aids or as guides in the exercise of its power of judicial review, and by the legislature in its enactment of
laws. Therefore, the petitions must be dismissed.