Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
4.
5.
6.
MENDOZA
1. Issues involved are truly political questions which are non-justiciable
a. Truly-political questions are still recognized despite expanded
judicial power
i. lies in the answer to the question of whether there are
constitutionally imposed limits on powers or
functions conferred upon political bodies (Francisco v
HRET) a.k.a if with limit on powers, court review ok; if
none, no court review
b.
2.
3.
PEREZ
1. NO GAD. A Libingan Burial for Marcos was a promise made by
President Duterte, which promise was opposed by petitioners, in spite of
which opposition, candidate Duterte was elected President.
a. As judicial admissions in their petition, petitioners state as fact
that the burial of Marcos at LNMB is a matter about which the
Filipino public was consulted as a campaign promise of Duterte
b. Issue was made public and resolved upon Dutertes election as
President juxtaposition of two concepts: people and suffrage.
Sovereign political power in a democratic state remains with
the people. (aka it is the people who will decide and here the
majority of the people decided to vote for Duterte)
c. By word and deed, petitioners have accepted that the issue they
now, losing the vote, present before the Court is a political
issue.
i. This gives the Court right away to dismiss the petition
because clearly the petitioners did not prevail in the
political exercise that was the National Elections 2016
ii. Their prayers are no different from those publicly
debated proceeding to a conclusion unacceptable to
them; just that now their cause has legal clothing (???)
d. Argument regarding this view:
i. Not all of those who voted for Duterte did so because
they favored Marcos burial at LNBM!: that may be
plausible, but what cannot be questions is that Duterte
did not lose because of his burial pronouncement.
2. RA10368 is a complete law. The definition of what their rights are in this
law limits any further inclusions except perhaps through the same
legislative action. The Court cannot allow the collected petitions at bar to
interfere with that wisdom.
a. SolGen during oral argument did not agree that Marcos burial in
LNMB will retraumatize HRVVs. He defended the Presidents
policy of reconciliation and national healing and assumed that
the President, in taking every matter into consideration,
considered the pain and sufferings of HRVs too.
Whether the policy of healing and reconciliation over and above the pain and
suffering of HRV 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. The election result is a showing that, while there may
have once been, there is no longer a national damnation of President Ferdinand
E. Marcos; that the constitutionalization of the sin and its personification is no
longer of national acceptance. A Marcos vote came out of the elections,
substantial enough to be a legitimate consideration in the executive policy
formulation. (!!!!!!!!!!!!!)