Ocampo vs Enriquez (Marcos Burial Case) [Case Digest]

GR NO 225973
Novemeber 8, 2016

Facts:
● During the 2016 Presidential Elections, candidate Duterte publicly announced that he
would allow the burial of former Pres Marcos at the LNMB.
● Since he won, he is bound to make that happen.
● So Secretary of DND Lorenzana issued a Memorandum to AFP Chief of Staff Visaya
regarding the intent to bury Marcos at the LNMB.
● AFP Rear Admiral Enriquez issued a directive to the PH Army Commanding General to
provide services, honors and other courtesies for Pres Marcos
● Hence, this petition.

Issue:
(1) WON the issuance of the Memorandum and Directive violated the Consti, domestic and
international laws

(2) WON historical facts, laws enacted to recover ill-gotten wealth from the Marcoses and their
cronies and the pronouncements of the Court on the Marcos regime have nullified his entitlement
as a soldier and former Pres to internment at the LNMB

(3) WON the Marcos family is deemed to have waived the burial of Pres Marcos at the LNMB
when they entered into the agreement with the Government when they returned to the PH

Held:
(1) NO.

1987 Constitution
● Petitioners invoked sections of Art II, Sec 17 of Art VII, Sec 3(2) of Art XIV, Sec 1 of Art
XI and Sec 26 of Art XVIII of the Constitution
● While the Constitution is a product of our collective history as a people, its entirely should
not be interpreted as providing guiding principles to just about anything remotely related
to Martial Law such as the proposed burial of Marcos at LNMB.
● Tañada vs Angara held the provisions of Art II are not self-executing (ie. they are just
used as guides in the exercise of power by the judiciary or in the enactment of laws by
the legislature)
o Same goes for Sec 1, Art XI
● Sec 3(2) of Art 14 (human rights) and Sec 26 of Art 18 has no direct or indirect prohibition
to Marcos’ internment at the LNMB
o Meaning: It’s not about the prohibition of Marcos’ internment at the LNMB
● Sec 17 of Art 7: The Court finds no violation that the President must ensure that the laws
be faithfully executed

RA 289: National Pantheon Law

● Petitioners are mistaken in their assumption that the National Pantheon and the LNMB
are the same.
● In fact, the National Pantheon does not exist because it is too expensive for the
government to build (LOL)
● Even if RA 289 is a relevant issue, petitioners’ allegations must fail.
o To apply the standard that the LNMB is reserved only for the “decent and brave”
or “hero” would be violative of public policy
▪ This would put in question the validity of each one buried in the LNMB
o It would also violate the separation of powers – the power to allocate lots in the
LNMB belongs to the President under existing laws and regulations

RA 10368: Human Rights Victims Reparations Act

Prepared by: Benica Ventilacion

2D
 ● Petitioners invoked RA 10368 which they interpreted as implicitly disqualifying Marcos’
burial at the LNMB.
o RA 10368: The law that recognizes the heroism and sacrifices of the Filipinos
who were victims of the gross human rights violations during the Marcos regime.
● The court cannot subscribe to the petitioners’ contention as it would be an undue
extension of the law beyond what it is actually contemplated.
o The legislators could have easily included the specific provision that Marcos is
not allowed to be buried in the LNMB as a reparation for the victims, but they did
not.
o The law is silent and should remains so and the SC cannot supply what is not
there as it would be tantamount to judicial legislation

International Human Rights Laws

● Petitioners’ contend that the burial of Marcos at the LNMB will violate the ICCPR,
UNDHR, etc.
● Our nation’s history will not be instantly revised by a single resolve by Pres Duterte to
bury Marcos at the LNMB
● Whether they admit it or not, the lessons of Martial Law are already engraved 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 effort of every
citizen in this country

(2) NO. Marcos remains to be qualified to be buried in the LNMB.

● In absence of any executive issuance or law to the contrary, the AFP Regulations G-161-
375 remains the sole authority in determining who are entitled and disqualified to be
interred at the LNMB.
o QUALIFIED: Medal of Valor Awardees; Pres or Commanders-in-Chief of the
AFP; Active and retired personnel of the AFP; veterans; Former Presidents,
Secretaries of DND…
o NOT QUALIFIED: Personnel who were dishonorably discharged; personnel who
were convicted by final judgment of an offense involving moral turpitude
● It is not contrary to the well-established custom to argue that the word “bayani” in the
LNMB has become a misnomer since while a symbolism of heroism may attach to the
LNMB, the same does not automatically attach to its feature as a military cemetery who
were already aid or will be laid therein.
o The purpose of LNMB has neither been to confer to the people buried there the
title of a hero nor require that only those interred therein should be treated as a
hero.
● Petitioners do not dispute that Marcos was a former President and Commander-in-Chief,
a legislator, a Secretary of DND, a military personnel, and a Medal of Valor Awardee.
o For his alleged human rights abuses and practices, we may disregard Marcos as
a President and CIC, but we cannot deny him the right to be acknowledged
based on the other positions he held or the awards he received.
● Aside from being eligible for the burial at the LNMB, Marcos possessed none of the
disqualifications stated
o Petitioners: Marcos committed crimes involving moral turpitude (duh). By going
into exile, he evaded liability. And by allowing death to overtake him, he escaped
the prospect of being accountable for his crimes.
▪ The 1986 People Power Revolution is an act dishonorably ousting him as
CIC.
o Despite that, Marcos is not convicted by FINAL JUDGMENT of acts involving
moral turpitude – Innocent until proven guilty
▪ No substantial distinction between Marcos and the other Pres buried in
the LNMB – All of them were not convicted of any crime involving moral
turpitude

Prepared by: Benica Ventilacion

2D
 o Likewise, Marcos was honorably discharged from military service. Petitioners
have not shown that he was indeed dishonorably discharged under AFP Rules.
▪ It cannot be also said that the ouster from the presidency of Marcos
during the People Power Revolution is tantamount to dishonorable
discharge from military service.
● The Pres is the Commander in Chief under the Consti only
enshrines the principle of supremacy of civilian authority over the
military
● Not being a military person, the President cannot be said to have
been dishonorably discharged

(3) NO.
● The presidential power of control over the Exec Branch of Government is a self-executing
provision of the Constitution and does not require any statutory implementation.
o This is why Pres Duterte is not bound by the 1992 Agreement between former
Pres Ramos and the Marcoses to have the remains of Marcos interred in Batac.
● As the incumbent President, he is free to amend, revoke or rescind any political
agreements entered into him by his predecessors.
● At the present, there is no law or executive issuance specifically excluding the land in
which the LNMB is located from the use it was originally intended by the past Presidents.
o The allotment of a cemetery plot at the LNMB for Marcos as a former President
and Commander-in-Chief, a legislator, a Secretary of DND, a military personnel,
a veteran, a Medal of Valor awardee satisfies the public use requirement.
● Aside from that, Pres Duterte’s determination to have Marcos’ remains interred at LNMB
was inspired by his desire of national healing and reconciliation.
o Presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty prevails over
petitioners’ highly disputed factual allegation that in the guise of exercising a
presidential prerogative, Pres Duterte is motivated by utang na loob.
o Petitioners have the burden of proof to prove the factual basis of this claim and
they have failed.

Prepared by: Benica Ventilacion

2D