#05 Ocampo et al v.

Enriquez et al AUTHOR: ARENAS

[GR 225972; 8 November 2016 ] NOTES: (if applicable)
TOPIC: Supremacy of the Constitution
PONENTE: Peralta, J.
FACTS: (chronological order)
Historical Background: Pres. Magsaysay issued EO 77, which ordered the remains of the war dead interred at he Bulacan
Memorial Cemetery, Bataan Province and at the other places in the Philippines, be transferred tom and reinterred at, the
Republic Memorial Cemetery at Fort Wm Mckinley, Rizal Province. He issued Proc. No. 86 which changed the name to
LNMB to symbolize the cause for which our soldiers have died and to truly express the nationss esteem and reverence
for her war dead. Pres. Garcia issued Proc. No. 423, which reserved for military purposes the land where LNMB is
located. Pres. Marcos issued Proc. 208, which excluded the LNMB from the Fort Bonifacio military reservation and
reserved the LNMB for national shrine purposes under the administration of the National Shrine Commission.

1. During Pres. Dutertes campaign, he publicly announced that he would allow the burial of former Pres. Marcos at
the LNMB.
2. On 7 August 2016, upon compliance with the verbal order of Pres. Duterte, the Secretary of National Defense
Lorenzana issued a MEMORANDUM to Chief of Staff of the AFP Gen. Visaya, regarding the interment of
Marcos at the LNMB, and the latter issued the necessary directives.
3. Petitioners filed for a Certiorari and Prohibition, arguing that the issuance and implementation of the memorandum
and directive violated the letter and spirit of the 1987 Constitution, which is a post-dictatorship charter and a
human rights constitution.
4. Further, petitioners argue (1) 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 Filipinos act of revolting against an authoritarian ruler but also condoning
the abuses committed during the Martial Law; (2) that the interment of Marcos at the LNMB will desecrate it as a
sacred and hallowed place and a revered national shrine where the mortal remains of our countrys great men and
women are interred for the inspiration and emulation of the present generation/s to come; and (3) that the People
Power Revolution was a clear sign of his discharge from the AFP.
ISSUE(S): WON the burial of Marcos at the LNMB is constitutional
HELD: YES
RATIO:
Petitioners invoke Sections 21, 112, 133, 234, 265, 276, and 287 of Article II, Sec. 178 of Art. VII, Sec. 3(2)9 of Art. XIV,
Sec. 110 of Art. XI, and Sec. 2611 of Art. XVIII of the Constitution. These are not self-executing. 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.
Moreover, such provisions have no direct or indirect prohibition to Marcos interment at the LNMB. AS the OSG
explained, while the Constitution is a product of our collective history as a people, its entirety should not be interpreted as
providing guidelines to just about anything remotely related to the Martial period such as the proposed Marcos burial at the
LNMB.

Under the Faithful Execution Clause, the President has the power to take "necessary and proper steps" to carry into
execution the law. The provision simply underscores the rule of law and, corollary, the cardinal principle that the President
is not above the laws but is obliged to obey and execute them.

RA No. 289, which authorized the construction of a National Pantheon as the burial place of the mortal remains of all the
Presidents of the Philippines, national heroes, and patriots. Petitioners maintain that public respondents are not members of
such Board which is authorized by law to cause the burial at the LNMB of the deceased Presidents of the Philippines,

1 Adopts the GAP of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, coopration, and
amity with all nations.
2 Accord full respect for human rights
3 Role of the youth in nation-building and development of youth patriotism and nationalism
4 Encourage non-governmental, community-based or sectoral organizations that promote the welfare of the nation
5 Equal accessed to opportunities for public service and political dynasties
6 Maintenance of honesty and integrity in the public service
7 Full disclosure of all transaction involving public interest
8 Duty of the President to faithfully execute the laws
9 Inculcate patriotism and nationalism, respect for human rights and appreciation of the role of national heroes in the historical development of the

country
10 Public office is a public trust
11 Sequestration of the ill-gotten wealth of Marcos
national heroes and patriots. The Court ruled that the petitioners filed to provide legal and historical bases that LNMB and
the National Pantheon are one and the same. Even the court treats RA 289 as relevant to the issue, the standard that LNMB
is reserved only for the decent and the brave or hero would be violative of public policy as it will put into question the
validity of the burial of each and every mortal remains resting thererin.

Our nation's history will not be instantly revised by a single resolve of President Duterte, acting through the public
respondents Enriquez, et al., to bury Marcos at the LNMB. Whether Ocampo, et al. 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. As to the unborn, it must be said that the preservation and popularization of our history is not the sole
responsibility of the Chief Executive; it is a joint and collective endeavor of every freedom-loving citizen of this
country.

LNMB is considered as a national shrine for military memorials. The Philippine Veratans Affairs Office (PVAO),
which is empowered to administer, develop, and maintain military shrines, is under the supervision and control of
the Department of National Defense. The DND, in turn, is under the Office of the President.

The presidential power of control over the Executive Branch of Government is a self-executing provision of the
Constitution and does not require statutory implementation, nor may its exercise be limited, much less withdrawn, by the
legislature. This is why President Duterte is not bound by the alleged 1992 Agreement148 between former President
Ramos and the Marcos family to have the remains of Marcos interred in Batac, Ilocos Norte. As the incumbent President,
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.

The allotment of a cemetery plot at the LNMB for Marcos as a former President and Commander-in-Chief, a legislator, a
Sec. of National Defense, military personnel, a veteran, and a Medal of Valor awardee, whether recognizing his
contributions or simply his status as such, satisfies the public use requirement.

Marcos is eligible under the list for burial at the LNMB and possess none of the disqualifications
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." In fact, the privilege of internment at the LNMB has been loosen up through the
years. Since 1986, the list of eligible includes not only those who rendered active military service or military-related
activities but also non-military personnel who were recognized for their significant contributions to the Philippine society
(such as government dignitaries, statesmen, national artists, and other deceased persons whose interment or reinterment has
been approved by the Commander-in-Chief, Congress or Secretary of National Defense). In 1998, the widows of former
Presidents, Secretaries of National Defense and Chief of Staff were added to the list. Whether or not the extension of burial
privilege to civilians is unwarranted and should be restricted in order to be consistent with the original purpose of the
LNMB is immaterial and irrelevant to the issue at bar since it is indubitable that Marcos had rendered significant active
military service and military-related activities.

Marcos ouster from the presidency during the EDSA Revolution is tantamount to his dishonorable separation, reversion or
discharge from the military service. Dishonorable discharge thorough a successful revolution is an extra-constitutional and
direct sovereign of the people which is beyond the ambit of judicial review, let alone a mere administrative regulation. It is
undeniable that former Pres. Marcos was forced out of office by the people through the so-called EDSA Revolution. Said
political act of the people should not automatically given a particular legal meaning other than its obvious consequences
that of ousting him as president. To do otherwise would lead the Court to the treacherous and perilous path of having to
make choices from multifarious inferences or theories arising from the various acts of the people.

CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE: While the Constitution is a product of our collective history as people, its entirety should
not be interpreted as providing principles to just about anything remotely related to the Martial Law period such as the
proposed Marcos burial at the LNMB.
DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):
Dissenting Opinion, Sereno, CJ: It is the Courts bounden duty not only to preserve the Constitution, but also itself. The
Court must, perforce, painstakingly go through the process of examining whether any claim put forth herein by the parties
genuinely undermines the intellectual and moral fiber of the Constitution. And, by instinct, the Court must defend the
Constitution and itself. The Court has, in countless times, said that the 1987 Constitution embodies the Filipinos enduring
values, and that the protection of those values has become the duty of the Court. There is no question that the importance
given to human rights is encoded in the very building blocks of the Philippine Constitution.

The duty of the President to faithfully execute the law is not limited to the enforcement of the express terms of acts of
Congress or of treaties, that duly extends to all rights, duties and obligations growing out of the Constitution itself, our
international relations, and all the protection implied by the nature of the government under the Constitution.

The AFP does not have the power to determine which persons are qualified for interment in the LNMB. This authority
pertains to Congress because the power to deal the public property, including the right to specify the purpose for which the
property may be used, is legislative in character. Accordingly, the provisions in the AFP Regulations enumerating the
persons qualified to be interred in the LNMB cannot bind the Court.

The burial of Marcos in the LNMB would be tantamount to a disregard of human rights violations perpetrated by his
regime. To allow it to proceed would sanction an egregious act of impunity and allow the government to bestow an honor
that is clearly not due upon the government to bestow an honor that is clearly not due upon a perpetrator of human rights
violations. To allow it would be a rampant violation of the rights of victims under international law.

Marcos was an ousted dictator and disgraced president. Consequently, he is clearly not worthy of commendation from the
state and no public purpose would be served by his interment therein. In fact, his burial in the LNMB would result in a
contravention of the public purpose of the site as it would no longer be a sacred symbol of honor and valor.

Dissenting Opinion, Carpio, J.: Marcos is disqualified from being interred at the LNMB. AFP Regulation 161-475
specifically provides that personnel who were dishonorably separated/reverted/discharged from the service are not
qualified to be interred at the LNMB. Marcos, who was forcibly ousted from Presidency by the sovereign act of the
Filipino people, falls under this disqualification. This is the strongest form of dishonorable discharge from the office since
it is meted out by the direct act of the sovereign people.

Dissenting Opinion, Leonen, J.: The Filipino people do not deserve the symbolism that the interment of Marcos at the
LNMB shows. If we are true to the text and spirit of our Constitution and our laws as well as our history, Marcos cannot be
buried at the LNMB, because according him public honor is contrary to the law and a betrayal of the Filipino spirit.

Dissenting Opinion, Caguioa, J: The applicable treaties and international law principles stand to be violated with the
burial of Marcos in the LNMB. RA 10368 recognizes its obligation to give effect to the rights recognized in the UDHR,
ICCPR and the CAT, to provide reparation to the victims and/or families who suffered under the Marcos regime, and to
acknowleged the sufferings and damages inflicted upon the people.