MANILA, Philippines Nine justices of the Supreme Court voted to dismiss the

consolidated petitions against the order of President Rodrigo Duterte to bury former
President Ferdinand Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani.
Majority of the SC magistrates ruled that Duterte did not commit grave abuse of
discretion in ordering a hero's burial for the ousted dictator.
Associate Justices Estela Perlas-Bernabe, Lucas Bersamin, Arturo Brion, Leonardo-De
Castro, Mariano Del Castillo, Jose Mendoza, Diosdado Peralta, Jose Perez, and
Presbitero Velasco Jr. voted to dismiss the petitions.
The SC Public Information Office released the concurring opinions of Bersamin, Brion,
Perez and Mendoza on the Marcos burial cases.

Here's a summary of their main points.

Associate Justice Lucas Bersamin

The foregoing antecedents render it quite evident to me that the interment of the
remains of President Marcos in the LNMB is a matter that exclusively pertains to the
discretion of President Duterte as the Chief Executive.

The several laws the petitioner have invoked to prevent the interment are not
relevant to the LNMB.

AFP regulations list those who are disqualified to have their remains interred in
the LNMB:

Personnel who were dishonorably separated/reverted/discharged from the service.

Authorized personnel who were convicted by final judgment of an offense involving

moral turpitude.

Associate Justice Arturo Brion

Judicial review, even under our Court's expanded jurisdiction, does not empower the

Court to directly pass upon allegations involving violations of statutes.

The Constitution's "faithful execution" clause cannot be made the basis to question
the Executive's manner of implementing our laws.

The petitioners failed to specify any treaty obligation prohibiting Marcos' burial at the
LNMB.

The Constitution, while built on the ashes of the Marcos regime, should not be
interpreted in a way that would prevent reconciliation and the country's move
towards national unity.

The necessity of Marcos' burial at the LNMB is a political question that the President
has decided, and is not without support from the Filipino electorate.

Associate Justice Jose Perez

Whether the policy of healing and reconciliation "over and above the pain and
suffering of the human rights victims" is in grave abuse of executive discretion or not
is answered by the evidently substantial Marcos vote during the fresh and
immediately preceding national elections of 2016.

A Marcos vote came out of the elections, substantial enough to be a legitimate

consideration in the executive policy formulation.

The redemption of an election pledge and the policy which has basis in the result of
the election, cannot be tainted with grave abuse of discretion.

Associate Justice Jose Mendoza

Joined by: Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo
Associate Justice Teresita J. Leonardo- De Castro
Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr.
Associate Estela M. Perlas- Bernabe

Issues involved are truly political questions which are non-justiciable.

Interment of President Marcos in the LNMB is a discretionary act of President

Duterte.

No grave abuse of discretion

The Court is not passing in whether President Marcos truly deserves to be buried in
the LNMB. It is merely exercising judicial restraint as the issues at hand are truly
political in nature and are best left to the discretion of the President.