SATURNINO C. OCAMPO, et al. v. REAR ADMIRAL ERNESTO C. ENRIQUEZ, et al.

G.R. No. 225973

November 8, 2016

Facts:
At the time of 2016 presidential election, Rodrigo R. Duterte, who was then one of the candidate
publicly announced that he is in favor and would allow the burial former President Ferdinand E. Marcos at the
Libingan ng Mga Bayani ("LNMB"). Duterte won the May 9, 2016 elections.

Public respondent Secretary of National Defense Delfin N. Lorenzana issued a Memorandum to the
public respondent Chief of Staff of the AFP, General Ricardo R. Visaya, regarding the interment of Marcos at the
Libingan Ng Mga Bayani (LNMB) in reference to the Verbal Order of President Duterte.

Respondent AFP Rear Admiral Ernesto C. Enriquez issued directives to the Philippine Army (PA)
Commanding General for the Funeral Honors and Service to former President Marcos.

Dissatisfied with the foregoing issuance, the petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
and Petition for Mandamus and Prohibition with the Court.

Issue:
1) Whether respondents Defense Secretary and AFP Rear Admiral committed grave abuse of discretion
when they issued the assailed memorandum and directive in compliance with the verbal order of President
Duterte to implement his election campaign promise to have the remains of Marcos interred at the LNMB?

2) Whether the issuance and implementation of the assailed memorandum and directive violated the
Constitution, and domestic and international laws.

3) Whether 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 President to interment at the LNMB.

4) Whether the Marcos family is deemed to have waived the burial of the remains of former President
Marcos at the LNMB after they entered into an agreement with the Government of the Republic of the
Philippines as to the conditions and procedures by which his remains shall be brought back to and interred in
the Philippines.

Ruling:
The Court agrees with the OSG that President Duterte's decision to have the remains of Marcos
interred at the LNMB involves a political question that is not a justiciable controversy. In the excercise of his
powers under the Constitution and the Administrative Code of 1987 to allow the interment of Marcos at the
LNMB, which is a land of the public domain devoted for national military cemetery and military shrine
purposes, President Duterte decided a question of policy based on his wisdom that it shall promote national
healing and forgiveness. There being no taint of grave abuse in the exercise of such discretion, as discussed
below, President Duterte's decision on that political question is outside the ambit of judicial review.

Petitioners have no legal standing to file the petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus
because they failed to show that they have suffered or will suffer direct and personal injury as a result of the
interment of Marcos at the LNMB. Petitioners also failed to prove that the case is of transcendental
importance. At this point in time, the interment of Marcos at a cemetery originally established as a national
military cemetery and declared a national shrine would have no profound effect on the political, economic, and
other aspects of our national life considering that more than twenty-seven (27) years since his death and thirty
(30) years after his ouster have already passed. Significantly, petitioners failed to demonstrate a clear and
imminent threat to their fundamental constitutional rights.
 Petitioners violated the exhaustion of administrative remedies. Contrary to their claim of lack of plain,
speedy, adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, petitioners should be faulted for failing to seek
reconsideration of the assailed memorandum and directive before the Secretary of National Defense.

The President's decision to bury Marcos at the LNMB is in accordance with the Constitution, the law
and jurisprudence. The President's decision to bury Marcos at the LNMB is not done whimsically, capriciously
or arbitrarily, out of malice, ill will or personal bias. The LNMB is considered as a national shrine for military
memorials. The PVAO, which is empowered to administer, develop, and maintain military shrines, is under the
supervision and control of the DND. The DND, in tum, 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.

Likewise, President Duterte's determination to have Marcos' remains interred at the LNMB was
inspired by his desire for national healing and reconciliation. 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, the Chief Executive is actually motivated by utang na loob (debt of gratitude) and
bayad utang (payback) to the Marcoses. As the purpose is not self-evident, petitioners have the burden of
proof to establish the factual basis of their claim. They failed. Even so, this Court cannot take cognizance of
factual issues since. We are not a trier of facts.