Saturnino C. Ocampo, et al. v. Rear Admiral Ernesto C.

Enriquez, LNMB is located from the use it was originally intended by the past
et al. Presidents. The allotment of a cemetery plot at the LNMB for Marcos
as a former President and Commander-in-Chief, a legislator, a
DOCTRINE OF THE CASE: Secretary of National Defense, military personnel, a veteran, and a
Medal of Valor awardee, whether recognizing his contributions or
While the Constitution is a product of our collective history as a
simply his status as such, satisfies the public use requirement.
people, its entirety should not be interpreted as providing guiding
principles to just about anything remotely related to the Martial Law Facts: During 2016 presidential campaign, Duterte publicly
period such as the proposed Marcos burial at the LNMB. announced he would allow the burial of Marcos in LNMB. After
winning the elections, through Sec. of National Defense Lorenzana, a
To apply the standard that the LNMB is reserved only for the "decent
Memorandum was issued to Chief of Staff of AFP, Gen. Visaya, for the
and the brave" or "hero" would be violative of public policy as it will
interment of Marcos, in compliance with the verbal order of the
put into question the validity of the burial of each and every mortal
President to implement his election campaign promise. AFP rear
remains resting therein, and infringe upon the principle of separation
Admiral Enriquez issued directives to the Philippine Army
of powers since the allocation of plots at the LNMB is based on the
Commanding General to provide services, honors, and other
grant of authority to the President under existing laws and
courtesies for the late Former President Marcos. Dissatisfied with the
regulations.
issuances and directives, various petitioners filed petition for
Dishonorable discharge through a successful revolution is an extra- Certiorari and Prohibition.
constitutional and direct sovereign act of the people which is beyond
- Saturnino Ocampo, et. al., in their capacity as human rights
the ambit of judicial review, let alone a mere administrative
advocates and human rights violations victims
regulation. It is undeniable that former President Marcos was forced
- Rene Saguisag and his son, as members of the Bar and
out of office by the people through the so-called EDSA Revolution.
human rights lawyers
Said political act of the people should not be automatically given a
- Edcel Lagman, as member of Congress
particular legal meaning other than its obvious consequence - that of
- Loretta Pargas-Rosales, former Chairperson of CHr, as
ousting him as president. To do otherwise would lead the Court to
victims of State-sanctioned human rights violations during
the treacherous and perilous path of having to make choices from
martial law
multifarious inferences or theories arising from the various acts of
- Heherson Alvarez, former Senator, as concerned citizens and
the people.
taxpayers
- Zaira Baniaga, as concerned citizens and taxpayers
Moreover, under the Administrative Code, the President has the
- Algamar Latiph, former chairperson of regional human rights
power to reserve for public use and for specific public purposes any of
commission ARMM, on behalf of Moros who are victims
the lands of the public domain and that the reserved land shall
during martial law
remain subject to the specific public purpose indicated until
- Leila De Lima, as Senator
otherwise provided by law or proclamation. At present, there is no law
or executive issuance specifically excluding the land in which the Issues:
PROCEDURAL
1. Whether Pres. Dutertes determination to have the
remains of Marcos interred at LNMB poses a justiciable
controversy
NO. The Court agrees with the OSG that Pres. Dutertes decision to
have the remains of Marcos interred at the LNMB involves a political
question that is not a justiciable controversy. It is also under the
Constitution and EO 292 (Admin Code of 1987) to allow the
interment in LNMB which is a land of public domain devoted for
national military cemetery and military shrine purposes. It is based
on his wisdom that it shall promote national healing and forgiveness.
It is outside the ambit of judicial review.
2. Whether petitioners have locus standi to file the instant
petitions
NO. Petitioners failed to show that they have suffered or will suffer
direct or personal injury as a result of the interment of Marcos at the
LNMB. The interment of Marcos would have no profound effect on the
political, economic, and other aspects of our national life considering
that more than 27 years since his death and 30 years after his ouster
have already passed. Petitioners failed to demonstrate a clear and
imminent threat to their fundamental constitutional rights
3. Whether petitioners violated the doctrines of exhaustion
of administrative remedies and hierarchy of courts
YES. Petitioners violated the doctrines of exhaustion of administrative
remedies and hierarchy of courts. They should seek reconsideration
of the assailed memorandum and directive before the Secretary of
National Defense and give them the opportunity to correct
themselves, if warranted. If petitioners are still dissatisfied with the
Secretarys decision they could have elevated it before the Office of
the President which has control and supervision of the DND.
Even though there are exceptions that would warrant a direct resort
to the Supreme Court under exceptional cases, the petitioners cannot
brush aside the doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts that requires such
petitions to be filed first with the proper RTC which are not only trier
of facts but can also resolve questions of law in the exercise of its
original and concurrent jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus, and has the power to issue restraining
order and injunction when proven necessary.
In fine, the petitions at bar should be dismissed on procedural
grounds alone.
SUBSTANTIVE
1. Whether the issuance and implementation of the
memorandum violates the Constitution, domestic and
international law
NO. The Presidents decision to bury Marcos at the LNMB is in
accordance with the Constitution, the law or jurisprudence.
Laws and Constitutional provisions cited by petitioner:
Art. II: Sec. 2, 11, 13, 23, 26, 27, and 28 not self-executory
Art. VII: Sec. 17 Faithful execution clause, it is consistent with
President Dutertes mandate, the burial does not contravene RA 289,
RA 10368, and the international human rights laws cited by
petitioner
Art. XIV: Sec. 3(2) reliance in this provision is misplaced it refers to
duty of educ institutions to teach values of nationalism and
patriotism and respect for human rights
Art. XI: Sec. 1 not self-executory but RA 6713 (Code of Conduct and
Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees), RA 7080
(Penalizing Plunder), RA 9485 (Anti-red Tape Act) was enacted
pursuant to this
Art. XVIII: Sec. 26 transitory provision and freeze order to recover ill-
gotten wealth
RA 289 authorized the construction of a National Pantheon as a
burial place for Presidents, National Heroes, and Patriots for the
perpetuation of the memory and for the inspiration and emulation of
this generation and of generations still unborn.
Petitioners failed to provide legal and historical bases that LNMB and
National Pantheon is one and the same. LNMB is distinct from the
burial place envisioned in rA 289. The National Pantheon does not
exist at present. Also to apply the standard that LNMB is reserved
only for the decent and brave or hero, it will put into question all the
mortal remains therein. The name of LNMB is a misnomer, interment
of Marcos remain does not confer upon him the status of a hero.
RA 10368 (compensation for Human rights violations victims
during Marcos regime) recognizes the human rights violations
committed and gives them reparation. However, the court cannot
subscribe to petitioners logic that the reparation includes the
prohibition of Marcos interment when it is not provided. It is undue
to extend the law beyond what it contemplates. Legislators could have
easily inserted a provision prohibiting Marcos internment as
reparation but they did not. The law is silent and should remain to be
so. We cannot read into law what is simply not there. That would be
tantamount to judicial legislation.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights these are
principles that call for an enactment of legislative measures. The PH
is compliant with its international obligations evident by the various
RAs, exec issuances, and even in the Constitution
Our nations history will not be instantly revised by a single resolve of
President Duterte to bury Marcos at the LNMB. Whether petititoners
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.
2. Whether the Sec. of National Defense and AFP rear
admiral commited grave abuse of discretion when they
issued the memorandum and directive in compliance with
the verbal order of Pres. Duterte to implement his
election campaign promise of Marcos interment in LNMB
The Presidents decision to bury Marcos at the LNMB is not done
whimsically, capriciously or arbitrarily, out of malice, ill will or
personal bias. Presumption of regularity in the performance of official
duty prevails over the petitioners allegation of Dutertes utang na loob
or bayad utang to the Marcoses. Petitioners should establish such
claims but failed to do so. Then again, the court is not a trier of facts.
3. Whether historical facts, laws enacted to recover ill-gotten
wealth of Marcos and his cronies, and pronouncement of
SC, nullifies his entitlement as a soldier and former
President to interment at the LNMB
National Shrines are governed by NHCP, military shrines are not.
They are governed by PVAO of DND. LNMB is a military shrine.
Magsaysay issued EO 77 orders remains of war dead interred at
Bataan to be reinterred in McKinley to minimize expenses and
accessibility to widows.
Magsaysay issued Proc. 86 changing the name to LNMB
Garcia issued Proc. 423, Marcos issued Proc and General Orders,
Cory issued EOs too. The point is the PVAO manages military shrines
which is under DND which is under the Office of the President
AFP Regulations G 161-375 who may be interred
 a.) Medal of Valor awardee is not bound by the 1992 Agreement between ramos and the Marcos
b.) Presidents or Commander-in-Chief, AFP family to have the remains of Marcos interred in Ilocos Norte, he is
c.) Sec. of National Defense free to amend, revoke or rescind political agreements entered into by
d.) Chief of Staff, AFP
his predecessors, and to determine policies which he considers,
e.) General/Flag Officers, AFP
based on informed judgment and presumed wisdom, will be most
f.) Active and retired military personnel
g.) Gov dignitaries, statesman,national artists and others as long effective in carrying out his mandate.
as approved by the C-i-C, Congress or Sec. of National defense
In sum, there is no clear constitutional or legal basis to hold that
h.) Widows of former presidents
there was grave abuse of discretion which would justify the Court to
Petitioners did not dispute that Marcos was a former President and interpose its authority to check and override an act entrusted to the
C-i-C, legislator, Sec. of National Defense, veteran, medal of valor judgment of another branch. The President through respondents
awardee. acted within the bounds of law and jurisprudence. The Court must
uphold what is legal and just and that is not to deny Marcos of his
Marcos does not have any disqualification. He was not convicted of rightful place in LNMB.
moral turpitude nor dishonourably discharged.
There are certain things that are better left for history - not this
Marcos rendered significant active military service and military- Court - to adjudge. The Court could only do so much in accordance
related activities. with the clearly established rules and principles. Beyond that, it is
ultimately for the people themselves, as the sovereign, to decide, a
THOSE WHO Are NOT QUALIFIED:
task that may require the better perspective that the passage of time
a.) Personnel who are dishonorably discharged provides. In the meantime, the country must move on and let this
b.) Convicted of final judgment of an offense involving moral issue rest.
turpitude
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the petitions are
Moral Turpitude conduct that is contrary to community standards DISMISSED. Necessarily, the Status Quo Ante Order is hereby
of justice, honesty, or good morals. LIFTED.

4. Whether the Marcos family waived the burial of remains

of Marcos in LNMB when they entered into agreement
with Gov. of PH as to the condition and procedures by
which his remains shall be brought back to and interred in
the PH.

The presidential power of control over the Executive Branch of

Government is a self-executing provision of the Constitution nor its
exercise be limted by legislature. As the incumbent President, Duterte

POE-LLAMANZARES v. COMELEC
Facts:
Petitioner, Mary Grace Natividad S. Poe-Llamanzares(Grace Poe) was
found as a newborn infant in the Parish Church of Jaro, Iloilo in
1968. She was found by one Edgardo Militar and transfers the babys
custody and care to his relative Emiliano Militar. The latter registered
the baby as a foundling and subsequently was issued a Foundling
Certificate and Certificate of Live Birth which contained petitioners
given name and Militar as her surname. When petitioner was five (5)
years old, she was adopted by the Spouses Ronald Poe and Jesusa
Poe and changes her surname to Poe. When petitioner reached the
age of eighteen (18) in 1986, she registered as a voter in San Juan
City, two years after she was issued a Philippine Passport. In 1988
she went to the United States to continue her studies, and graduated
in the year 1991. At that same year she married Teodoro
Llamanzares, who is both an American and a Filipino citizen.
Petitioner stayed in the United States with her husband. In the year
1991, she was naturalized as an American citizen and subsequently
was issued a U.S. Passport. However, petitioner returns to the
Philippines in 2004 to support her fathers candidacy. After the
election, it was not long when she eventually returned to the
Philippine because of the health condition of her father. In 2005,
petitioner and her husband decided to permanently reside in the
Philippines in order to help her grieving mother. May 24, 2005
petitioner came home to the Philippines. On July 7, 2006, petitioner
took her Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines
pursuant to Republic Act 9225. Eleven (11) days after she takes her
oath, the Bureau of Immigration declared that she reacquired her
Philippine Citizenship. Year 2010, she was appointed by President
Aquino as Chairperson of the Movie and Television Review and
Classification Board. Because of that, petitioner executed an
Affidavit of Renunciation of Allegiance to the United States of
America and Renunciation of American Citizenship before a notary
public. On July 12, 2011, petitioner executed before the Vice-Consul
of the U.S. Embassy in Manila an Oath/Affirmation of Renunciation
of Nationality of the United States. Months later, she was issued a
Certificate of Loss of Nationality of the United States. Petitioner ran
and was voted as a Senator in 2012. And on October 15, 2015 she
files her Certificate of Candidacy as President of the Republic of the
Philippines, which is the subject of the petition.

G.R. No. 221697
Estrella Elampara argued that petitioner cannot be considered
as a natural-born citizen Filipino on account of the fact that she was
a foundling. And because of this she cannot be qualified under
reacquisition of citizenship under R.A. 9225 since it is only reserved
to natural-born citizens. And even assuming that petitioner was a
natural-born Filipino she is deemed to have lost that when she was
naturalized as an American citizen. She argued that natural-born
citizen must be continuous from birth.
G.R. Nos. 221698-700
Tatad et.al theorized that since the Philippines follows the
principle of jus sanguinis, persons of unknown parentage cannot be
considered natural-born Filipino citizens since blood relationship is
determinative of natural-born status. He also argues that as a rule in
statutory construction, what is not included is excluded, a foundling
cannot be considered as natural-born since it was not expressly
included in the 1935 Constitution. He also argues that petitioner
cannot rely on international laws since these are not self-executory
and that legislation is needed for it to take effect. No such legislation
exists in the Philippines. And just the same as Elampara, he argues
that Grace Poe cannot avail of R.A. 9225 and that assuming she can,
it only bestowed her Philippine citizenship but did not revert her
original status as a natural-born citizen.
Issue:
1 Whether or not a foundling is considered a natural-born
citizen.
2 Whether or not repatriation under Republic Act 9225 will
result in reacquisition of natural-born citizenship.
Held:
1 A FOUNDLING IS A NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN.
Before discussing the grounds that the Court considered, the
Supreme Court ruled that the burden of proof is on the private
respondent. Petitioners admission that she is a foundling did not
shift the burden to her because such status did not exclude the
possibility that her parents were Filipinos.
A
As shown by the official statistics from the Philippine Statistics
Authority, there is more than ninety-nine percent (99%) chance that
petitioners parents are Filipino. The official statistics as offered by
the Solicitor General shows the total number of Filipinos born in the
year petitioner was born, as compared to the total number of
foreigners born on that same year bracket. The figures show the ratio
that as compared to Filipino born, a foreigner is likely deficit. It also
shows that in the year petitioner was born, majority of population in
Iloilo, where petitioner was left, was Filipino.
The court also accepted as circumstantial evidence the fact that
petitioner was left in a Catholic Church and her typical Filipino
features, her height, flat nasal bridge, straight black hair, almond
shaped eyes and an oval face.
Additionally, the court observed that Filipinos abandon their children
out of poverty or perhaps, shame. It is absurd to imagine that
foreigners will come to the Philippines, just to get pregnant and leave
their newborn babies behind thinking that the infants would have a
better economic opportunities or believing that this country is a
tropical paradise suitable for raising abandoned children.
The rejection of the fact that a foundling is a natural-born based on a
theoretical chance that one among thousands of these foundlings
might be the child of not just one, but two foreigners is downright
discriminatory, irrational and unjust.
Accordingly, recent legislation such as Republic Act 8043 entitled An
Act Establishing the Rules to Govern the Inter-Country Adoption of
Filipino Children and for Other Purposes and Republic Act 8552
entitled An Act Establishing the Rules and Policies on the Adoption
of Filipino Children and For Other Purposes, expressly refer to
Filipino Children and foundlings are those included as Filipino
children who may be adopted.

B
D

The deliberations of the 1934 Constitutional Convention reveal the

Foundlings are likewise citizens under international laws. The
intent of the framers to include foundlings as those enumerated as
contention of private respondent that international laws in order to
natural-born citizen under the 1935 Constitution. The framers intend
take effect must have a local legislation is untenable. International
to include all kinds of illegitimate children, including children with
law can become part of the sphere of domestic law either by
unknown parentage, to be a natural-born citizen. This was copied
transformation or incorporation. The Philippines follow the principle
from the Spanish Code wherein all children of unknown parentage
of incorporation, because as embodied in the Constitution, generally
born in Spanish territory are considered Spaniards because it is
accepted principles of international law forms part of the laws of the
presumed that the child is a daughter or son of a Spaniard.
land even if they do not derive from treaty obligations.

However, such intention was not expressly included in the 1935

That being said, international laws are sufficient to form the
Constitution because the framers deem it not necessary due to a few
conclusion that foundlings are natural-born citizen. The principle
number of cases involving this situation. What was declined was the
embodied under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR),
proposal for a textual and explicit recognition of foundlings as
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) and
Filipinos in order to have linguistic efficiency and avoid redundancy.
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR),
Hence, foundlings as natural-born citizen, is impliedly recognized.
clearly emphasize on the right of every child to acquire a nationality.
It even imposes a duty to register and grant such nationality
C
immediately after birth and ensure that no child is stateless.
The Court also finds support in the domestic laws on adoption to
Additionally there are two international conventions, with the same
establish that foundlings are Filipinos. Under these laws, for an
principle on citizenship of foundlings. The first is the Hague
adoption to be valid, the adoptee must in the first place be a Filipino.
Convention on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of
In the case of Ellis and Ellis v. Republic, where alien adopters sought
Nationality Laws, which provides that a child whose parents are
to adopt a child left by an unidentified mother, adoption was granted
unknown shall have the nationality of the country of birth. xxx A
since Court has acquired jurisdiction over the status of the baby, she
foundling is, until the contrary is proved, presumed to have been
being a citizen of the Philippines.
born on the territory of the State in which it was found. And second
is the United Nations Convention on the Reduction of Stateless,
which provides that a foundling is presumed born of citizens of the
country where he is found. These conventions even though not yet
ratified by the Philippines are generally accepted principles of
international law. And even though the Philippines is not a party to
both of these conventions, it does not mean that their principles are
not binding. These two convections effectively affirm the provisions
under the UDHR regarding nationality. The Philippines is a signatory
to the UDHR.
The Court also note that at least sixty (60) countries in Asia, North
and South America, and Europe have passed legislation recognizing
foundlings as citizen and forty-two (42) of these countries follow the
jus sanguinis regime just like the Philippines. And of the sixty (60),
only twenty-six (26) are signatories to the Convention on Stateless.
This shows that it is a generally accepted principle of international
law to presume foundlings as having been born of nationals of the
country in which the foundling is found.
And lastly, it is undeniable that the Department of Foreign Affairs
(DFA) issue passports to foundlings. Passports are by law, issued only
to citizens. This shows that even the executive department through
the DFA considers foundlings as Philippine citizens.
2 REPATRIATION UNDER REPUBLIC ACT 9225 RESULTS IN
THE REACQUISITION OF THE NATURAL-BORN STATUS.
Respondents argue that only Philippines citizenship and not the
natural-born status is deemed reacquired under RA 9225. Such
contention is contrary to established jurisprudence. In Bengson III v.
HRET, the Supreme Court held that repatriation results in the
recovery of the original nationality. This means that a naturalized
Filipino who lost his citizenship will be restored to his prior status as
a naturalized Filipino citizen and on the other hand a natural-born
citizen will be restored to his former status as a natural-born Filipino.
R.A. 9225 is a repatriation statute and has been described as such in
several cases.
Additionally respondents contention that natural-born citizenship
must begin at birth and remain uninterrupted and continuous from
birth is also rejected by the Court. In the Bengson Case, the Court
has ruled that there are only two types of citizens, natural-born or
naturalized; there is no third category for repatriated ones. The
determination of citizenship depends on the reasons for the loss and
the mode prescribed by the applicable law. Since in repatriation, a
person need not go through the process of naturalization to reacquire
his citizenship, he is perforce a natural-born citizen.
Salvacion vs. Central Bank of the Philippines, China Banking
Corporation and Greg Bartelli y Northcott
Facts:
On February 4-7, 1989, Greg Bartelli y Northcott, an
American tourist, detained and repeatedly raped Karen Salvacion, a
12-year old the victim, in the apartment of the accused in Makati
City. That, on the 4th day of detention, Karen was finally found by the
policemen after a neighbor heard her crying and screaming for help.
The accused was immediately arrested within the premises of the
building, and eventually brought to Makati Municipal Jail.
 After thorough investigation and medical examination, the
victim, as represented by her parents, together with the Fiscal filed
criminal cases against Greg Bartelli y Northcott for Serious Illegal
Detention and for Four (4) counts of Rape. The petitioners also filed a
separate civil action for damages with preliminary attachment against
the accused that had several dollar accounts in COCOBANK and
China Banking Corporation. On February 24, 1989, the day there
was a hearing for Bartellis petition for bail the latter escaped from
jail.
The deputy sheriff served Notice of Garnishment on China
Banking Corporation but the latter declined to furnish a copy as it
invoked R.A. No. 1405. The sheriff again sent a letter stating that the
garnishment did not violate the bank secrecy law as it was legally
made by virtue of a court order but China Banking Corporation
invoked Section 113 of Central Bank Circular No. 960, that dollar
accounts are exempt from attachment, garnishment, or any other order
or process of any court, legislative body, government agency or any
administrative body, whatsoever. The Central Bank sent a reply after
a demand from the court asking if the Section 113 of Central Bank
Circular No.960 is absolute in nature of which it replied in
affirmative.
After the accused was declared in default, the court rendered
a judgment in favor of the petitioners based on the heinous acts of
the accused and the grave effects on social, moral and psychological
aspects on the part of the petitioners. China Banking Corporation
refused the Writ of Execution of the court. Thus;
Petitioners filed a Petition for Relief in the Supreme Court.
Issues:
Whether the dollar accounts of the Accused is absolutely
exempt from attachment, garnishment or any other order or process
of any court?
Held:
While it is true that the protective cloak of confidentiality over foreign
deposit accounts would better encourage the inflow of foreign
currency deposits, lending capacity of the government and would
help financial stability and the national development, what would be
the relief of someone claiming damages against a person with foreign
deposit accounts? More so against a person who heinously and
feloniously committed an offense in the territory of the Philippines?
As in this case, the accused deemed liable for the damages based of
the heinous acts according to the testimonies of the victim and the
witnesses.
It is the duty of the government to encourage foreign currency
deposits and to comply by giving confidentiality but in the correct
argument of the Solicitor General, foreign currency deposits of a
tourist or transient is not the one encouraged by PD Nos. 1034 and
1305 on the ground that said accounts is temporary and only for a
short period of time.
The application of the law depends on the extent of its justice. If we
rule Section 113 of Central Bank Circular No.960 which exempts
from attachment, garnishment, or any other order or process of any
court, legislative body, government agency or any administrative body
whatsoever, is applicable to foreign transient , injustice would result
especially to a citizen aggrieved by a foreign guest like accused Greg
Bartelli.
Article 10 of the New Civil Code provides that in case of doubt in the
interpretation or application of laws, it is presumed that the lawmaking
body intended right and justice to prevail. Simply stated, when the
statute is ambiguous, this is one of those fundamental solutions
that would respond to vehement urge of conscience.
It would be unthinkable that Section 113 of CB circular 960 would be
used as a device by the accused for wrongdoing, and in so doing,
acquitting the guilty as the expense of the innocent. The situation
calls for fairness against legal tyranny.
We definitely cannot have both ways and rest in the belief that we
have served the ends of justice.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the provisions of Section 113 of CB Circular
No.960 and PD No.1246, insofar as it amends Section 8 of RA 6426
are hereby held to be INAPPLICABLE to this case because of its
peculiar circumstances. Respondents are hereby REQUIRED to
COMPLY with the writ of execution issued in Civil Case No. 89-3214
RTC Makati, and to RELEASE to petitioners the dollar deposit of
respondent Greg Bartelli y Nothcott in such amount as would satisfy
the judgment.