OCAMPO vs REAR ADMIRAL ENRIQUEZ

GR NO. 225973 NOVEMBER 8, 2016

(judicial power(Political question Doctrine))

FACTS:
During the 2016 Presidential campaign, President Rodrigo Duterte publicly announced
that bhe would allow the burial of former president Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani.
On August 7, 2016, Secretary of national defense Delfin Lorenzana issued a
Memorandum to Chief of Staff of the AFP general ricardo Visaya regarding the interment of
Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani.
On August 9, 2016 AFP Rear Admiral Ernesto Enriquez issued a directives to the
Philippine army Commanding General for the Funeral Honors and Service.
Dissatisfied with the forgoing issuance, following were filed by the petitioners:

1. Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition filed by Saturnino Ocampo et al in their capacities as
human rights advocates and victims.

2. Petition for certiorari in Intervention filed by Rene Saguisag and his son as member of the Bar
and human rights lawyer and his grandchild.

3. Petrition for Prohibition filed by Congressman Edcel Lagman in his personal capacity as
member of the House of representative and by Loretta Ann Rosales as former Commissioner of
Human Rights.

4. Petition for Mandamus filed by Henerson Alvarez

5. Petition for Certiorari filed by Zaira Patricia Baniaga as taxpayer, Algamar Latiph as former
Chairperson of Human Rights Commission in ARMM.

6. Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition filed by Senator Leila De Lima.

ISSUE: Whether President Duterte’s determination to have the remains of Marcos interred at
the LNMB posses a justiciable controversy?

RULING: NO
It is well settled that no question involving the constitutionality or validity of law or
governmental act may be heard and decided by the court unless the requisites for judicial
inquiry are present. In this case the two most essential requisites ar absent, that is the actual
case or controversy and the legal standing of the petitioner.
An actual case or controversy is one which involves a conflict of legal rights, an
assertion of opposite legal claims, susceptible of judicial resolution as distinguished from a
hypothetical or abstract difference or dispute. There must be a contrariety of legal rights that
can be interpreted and enforced on the basis of existing law and jurisprudence. Related to the
requisite of an actual case or controversy is the requisite of “RIPENESS” which means that
something had been accomplished or performed by either branch before a court may come
into the picture and the petitioners must allege the existence of an immediate or threatened
injury to itself as a result of the challenged action. Moreover, the limitation of the power of
judicial review to actual cases and controversies carries the assurance that the courts will not
intrude into areas committed to the other branches of government. Those areas pertain to
question which under the constitution are to be decided by the people in their sovereign
capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the
legislative or executive branch of government. As they are concerned with questions of policy
and issues depended upon the wisdom not legality of a particular measure, political question
are to be beyond the ambit of judicial review. However the scope of the political question
doctrine has been limited by Section 1 Article 8 of the 1987 constitution when it vested in the
judiciary the power to determine whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of
government.
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 justiciable controversy.

NOTE: Highlighted part is the POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE