Ocampo v. Enriquez PDF

8/18/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 807

G.R. No. 225973. November 8, 2016.*

SATURNINO C. OCAMPO, TRINIDAD H.
REPUNO, BIENVENIDO LUMBERA,
BONIFACIO P. ILAGAN, NERI JAVIER
COLMENARES, MARIA CAROLINA P.
ARAULLO, M.D., SAMAHAN NG EX-
DETAINEES LABAN SA DETENSYON AT
ARESTO (SELDA), represented by DIONITO
CABILLAS, CARMENCITA M. FLORENTINO,
RODOLFO DEL ROSARIO, FELIX C.
DALISAY, and DANILO M. DELA FUENTE,**
petitioners, vs. REAR ADMIRAL ERNESTO C.
ENRIQUEZ (in his capacity as the Deputy Chief
of Staff for Reservist and Retiree Affairs, Armed
Forces of the Philippines), The Grave Services
Unit (Philippine Army), and GENERAL
RICARDO R. VISAYA (in his capacity as the
Chief of Staff, Armed Forces of the Philippines),
DEFENSE SECRETARY DELFIN
LORENZANA, and HEIRS OF FERDINAND E.
MARCOS, represented by his surviving spouse
IMELDA ROMUALDEZ MARCOS, respondents.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001654ab91998b683c8c1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/788
RENE A.V. SAGUISAG, SR., RENE A.Q.

SAGUISAG, JR., RENE A.C. SAGUISAG III,
intervenors.
G.R. No. 225984. November 8, 2016.*

REP. EDCEL C. LAGMAN, in his personal and
official capacities and as a member of Congress
and as the Honorary Chairperson of the
Families of Victims of Involuntary
Disappearance (FIND); FAMILIES OF
VICTIMS OF INVOLUNTARY
DISAPPEARANCE (FIND), represented by its
Cochairperson, NILDA L. SEVILLA; REP.
TEDDY BRAWNER BAGUILAT, JR.; REP.
TOMASITO S. VILLARIN; REP. EDGAR R.
ERICE; and REP. EMMANUEL A. BILLONES,
petitioners, vs. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA; DEFENSE
SECRETARY DELFIN N. LORENZANA; AFP
CHIEF OF STAFF LT. GEN. RICARDO R.
VISAYA; AFP DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF
REAR ADMIRAL ERNESTO C. ENRIQUEZ;
and HEIRS OF FERDINAND E. MARCOS,
represented by his surviving spouse IMELDA
ROMUALDEZ
_______________
* EN BANC.
** Rene A.V. Saguisag, et al. filed a petition for certiorari-
in-intervention.

224
224 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
MARCOS, respondents.
G.R. No. 226097. November 8, 2016.*

LORETTA ANN PARGAS-ROSALES, HILDA B.
NARCISO, AIDA F. SANTOS-MARANAN, JO-
ANN Q. MAGLIPON, ZENAIDA S. MIQUE, FE
B. MANGAHAS, MA. CRISTINA P. BAWAGAN,
MILA D. AGUILAR, MINERVA G. GONZALES,
MA. CRISTINA V. RODRIGUEZ, LOUIE G.
CRISMO, FRANCISCO E. RODRIGO, JR.,
LIWAYWAY D. ARCE, and ABDULMARI DE
LEON IMAO, JR., petitioners, vs. EXECUTIVE
SECRETARY SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA,
LORENZANA, AFP DEPUTY CHIEF OF
STAFF REAR ADMIRAL ERNESTO C.
ENRIQUEZ, AFP CHIEF OF STAFF LT. GEN.
RICARDO R. VISAYA, and PHILIPPINE
VETERANS AFFAIRS OFFICE (PVAO)
ADMINISTRATOR LT. GEN. ERNESTO G.
CAROLINA (RET.), respondents.
G.R. No. 226116. November 8, 2016.*

HEHERSON T. ALVAREZ, JOEL C.
LAMANGAN, FRANCIS X. MANGLAPUS,
EDILBERTO C. DE JESUS, BELINDA O.
CUNANAN, CECILIA GUIDOTE ALVAREZ,
REX DEGRACIA LORES, SR., ARNOLD
MARIE NOEL, CARLOS MANUEL, EDMUND

S. TAYAO, DANILO P. OLIVARES, NOEL F.
TRINIDAD, JESUS DELA FUENTE, REBECCA
M. QUIJANO, FR. BENIGNO BELTRAN, SVD,
ROBERTO S. VERZOLA, AUGUSTO A.
LEGASTO, JR., and JULIA KRISTINA P.
LEGASTO, petitioners, vs. EXECUTIVE
SECRETARY SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA,
LORENZANA, AFP CHIEF OF STAFF LT.
GEN. RICARDO R. VISAYA, AFP DEPUTY
CHIEF OF STAFF REAR ADMIRAL ERNESTO
C. ENRIQUEZ, and PHILIPPINE VETERANS
AFFAIRS OFFICE (PVAO) OF THE DND,
respondents.
G.R. No. 226117. November 8, 2016.*

ZAIRA PATRICIA B. BANIAGA, JOHN ARVIN
BUENAAGUA, JOANNE ROSE SACE LIM,
JUAN ANTONIO RAROGAL MAGALANG,
petitioners, vs. SECRETARY OF NATIONAL
DEFENSE

225
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 225

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
DELFIN N. LORENZANA, AFP CHIEF OF

STAFF RICARDO R. VISAYA,
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE PHILIPPINE
VETERANS AFFAIRS OFFICE ERNESTO G.

CAROLINA, respondents.
G.R. No. 226120. November 8, 2016.*

ALGAMAR A. LATIPH, petitioner, vs.
SECRETARY DELFIN N. LORENZANA, sued
in his capacity as Secretary of National Defense,
LT. GEN. RICARDO R. VISAYA, in his capacity
as Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines and LT. GEN. ERNESTO G.
CAROLINA (ret.), in his capacity as
Administrator, Philippine Veterans Affairs
Office (PVAO), respondents.
G.R. No. 226294. November 8, 2016.*

LEILA M. DE LIMA, in her capacity as
SENATOR OF THE REPUBLIC and as
TAXPAYER, petitioner, vs. HON. SALVADOR
C. MEDIALDEA, DEFENSE SECRETARY
DELFIN LORENZANA, AFP CHIEF OF STAFF
LT. GEN. RICARDO R. VISAYA,
UNDERSECRETARY ERNESTO G.
CAROLINA, in his capacity as Philippine
Veterans Affairs Office (PVAO) Administrator
and B/GEN. RESTITUTO L. AGUILAR, in his
capacity as Shrine Curator and Chief, Veterans
Memorial and Historical Division and HEIRS
OF FERDINAND EDRALIN MARCOS,
respondents.
Constitutional Law; Judicial Department;

Judicial Review; It is well-settled that no question
involving the constitutionality or validity of a law or
governmental act may be heard and decided by the

Court unless the following requisites for judicial
inquiry are present: (a) there must be an actual case or
controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power;
(b) the person challenging the act must have the
standing to question the validity of the subject act or
issuance; (c) the question of constitutionality must be
raised at the earliest opportunity; and (d) the issue of
constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case.
—It is well-settled that no question involving the
constitutionality or validity of a law or governmental
act may be heard and decided by the Court unless the
following requisites for judicial inquiry are present:
(a) there must be an actual case or controversy calling
for the exercise of judicial power; (b) the person
challenging the act must have the standing to
question the validity of the subject act or issuance; (c)
the question of constitutionality must be raised at the
earliest

226

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
opportunity; and (d) the issue of constitutionality

must be the very lis mota of the case. In this case, the
absence of the first two requisites, which are the most
essential, renders the discussion of the last two
superfluous.
Same; Same; Same; 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.—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.
Same; Same; Same; Political Questions; President
Duterte’s decision to have the remains of Marcos
interred at the Libingan ng mga Bayani (LNMB)
involves a political question that is not a justiciable
controversy.—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
exercise of his powers under the Constitution and the
Executive Order (E.O.) No. 292 (otherwise known as
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.
Locus Standi; Locus standi requires that a party
alleges such personal stake in the outcome of the
controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness
which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which
the court depends for illumination of difficult
constitutional questions.—Defined as a right of
appearance in a court of justice on a given question,
locus standi requires that a party alleges such
personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to
assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the

presentation of issues upon which the court depends
for illumination of difficult constitutional questions.
Same; Petitioners, who filed their respective
petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, in
their capacities as citizens, human rights violations
victims, legislators, members of the Bar and taxpayers,
have no legal standing to file such petitions 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 Libingan ng mga Bayani
(LNMB).—Petitioners, who filed their respective
petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, in
their capacities as citizens,

227
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 227

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
human rights violations victims, legislators,

members of the Bar and taxpayers, have no legal
standing to file such petitions 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.
Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative
Remedies; Under the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies, before a party is allowed to
seek the intervention of the court, one should have
availed first of all the means of administrative
processes available.—Under the doctrine of
exhaustion of administrative remedies, before a party
is allowed to seek the intervention of the court, one

should have availed first of all the means of
administrative processes available. If resort to a
remedy within the administrative machinery can still
be made by giving the administrative officer
concerned every opportunity to decide on a matter
that comes within his jurisdiction, then such remedy
should be exhausted first before the court’s judicial
power can be sought.
Hierarchy of Courts; The Regional Trial Court
(RTC) is not just a 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.—While direct resort to the Court through
petitions for the extraordinary writs of certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus are allowed under
exceptional cases, which are lacking in this case,
petitioners cannot simply brush aside the doctrine of
hierarchy of courts that requires such petitions to be
filed first with the proper Regional Trial Court (RTC).
The RTC is not just a 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.
Judicial Review; While the Constitution is a product of
our collective history as a people, its entirety should
not be interpreted as providing guiding principles to
just about anything remotely related to the Martial
Law period such as the proposed Marcos burial at the
Libingan ng mga Bayani (LNMB).—As the Office of
the Solicitor General (OSG) logically reasoned out,
while the Constitution is a product of our collective

history as a people, its entirety should not be
interpreted as providing guiding principles to just
about anything remotely related to the Martial Law
period such as the proposed Marcos burial at the
LNMB.
Republic Act No. 289; National Pantheon; For the
perpetuation of their memory and for the inspiration
and emulation of this generation and of genera-

228

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
tions still unborn, Republic Act (RA) No. 289

authorized the construction of a National Pantheon as
the burial place of the mortal remains of all the
Presidents of the Philippines, national heroes and
patriots.—For the perpetuation of their memory and
for the inspiration and emulation of this generation
and of generations still unborn, R.A. No. 289
authorized the construction of a National Pantheon as
the burial place of the mortal remains of all the
patriots. It also provided for the creation of a Board on
National Pantheon to implement the law.
Same; Same; The National Pantheon does not
exist at present. To date, the Congress has deemed it
wise not to appropriate any funds for its construction
or the creation of the Board on National Pantheon.—
The National Pantheon does not exist at present. To
date, the Congress has deemed it wise not to

appropriate any funds for its construction or the
creation of the Board on National Pantheon. This is
indicative of the legislative will not to pursue, at the
moment, the establishment of a singular interment
place for the mortal remains of all Presidents of the
Philippines, national heroes, and patriots.
Constitutional Law; Judicial Department; The
proposed interment is not equivalent to the
consecration of Marcos’ mortal remains. The act in
itself does not confer upon him the status of a “hero.”—
Also, the Court shares the view of the OSG that the
proposed interment is not equivalent to the
consecration of Marcos’ mortal remains. The act in
itself does not confer upon him the status of a “hero.”
Despite its name, which is actually a misnomer, the
purpose of the LNMB, both from legal and historical
perspectives, has neither been to confer to the people
buried there the title of “hero” nor to require that only
those interred therein should be treated as a “hero.”
Same; Same; Republic Act No. 10368; With its
victim-oriented perspective, our legislators could have
easily inserted a provision specifically proscribing
Marcos’ interment at the Libingan ng mga Bayani
(LNMB) as a “reparation” for the Human Rights
Violations Victims (HRVVs), but they did not.—This
Court cannot subscribe to petitioners’ logic that the
beneficial provisions of R.A. No. 10368 are not
exclusive as it includes the prohibition on Marcos’
burial at the LNMB. It would be undue to extend the
law beyond what it actually contemplates. With its
victim-oriented perspective, our legislators could have
easily inserted a provision specifically proscribing
Marcos’ interment at the LNMB as a “reparation” for
the HRVVs, but they did not. As it is, the law is silent
and should remain to be so. This Court cannot read

into the law what is simply not there.

229
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 229

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Same; Executive Department; Our nation’s history

will not be instantly revised by a single resolve of
President Duterte, acting through the public
respondents, to bury Marcos at the Libingan ng mga
Bayani (LNMB).—Contrary to petitioners’
postulation, our nation’s history will not be instantly
revised by a single resolve of President Duterte,
acting through the public respondents, to bury Marcos
at the LNMB. Whether petitioners 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. 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 endeavor of every
freedom-loving citizen of this country.
Libingan ng mga Bayani; The descriptive words
“sacred and hallowed” refer to the Libingan ng mga
Bayani (LNMB) as a place and not to each and every
mortal remains interred therein. Hence, the burial of
Marcos at the LNMB does not diminish said cemetery
as a revered and respected ground.—Assuming that
P.D. No. 105 is applicable, the descriptive words
“sacred and hallowed” refer to the LNMB as a place
and not to each and every mortal remains interred
therein. Hence, the burial of Marcos at the LNMB

does not diminish said cemetery as a revered and
respected ground. Neither does it negate the
presumed individual or collective “heroism” of the
men and women buried or will be buried therein.
Constitutional Law; Executive Department;
President Duterte is not bound by the alleged 1992
Agreement between former President Ramos and the
Marcos family to have the remains of Marcos interred
in Batac, Ilocos Norte.—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. This is why President Duterte is not
bound by the alleged 1992 Agreement between former
President Ramos and the Marcos family to have the
remains of Marcos interred in Batac, Ilocos Norte.
Libingan ng mga Bayani; The allotment of a
cemetery plot at the Libingan ng mga Bayani (LNMB)
for Marcos as a former President and Commander-in-
Chief, a legislator, a Secretary of National Defense, a
military personnel, a veteran, and a Medal of Valor
awardee, whether recognizing his contributions or
simply his status as such, satisfies the public use
requirement.—At 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. The allotment of a
cemetery plot at the LNMB for Marcos as a former
President and Commander-in-Chief, a legislator, a
Secretary of National Defense, a mili-

230

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
tary personnel, a veteran, and a Medal of Valor

awardee, whether recognizing his contributions or
simply his status as such, satisfies the public use
requirement. The disbursement of public funds to
cover the expenses incidental to the burial is granted
to compensate him for valuable public services
rendered.
President Duterte’s determination to have Marcos’
remains interred at the Libingan ng mga Bayani
(LNMB) was inspired by his desire for national
healing and reconciliation.—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.
Libingan ng mga Bayani; In the absence of any
executive issuance or law to the contrary, the Armed
Forces of the Philippines (AFP) Regulations G 161-375
remains to be the sole authority in determining who
are entitled and disqualified to be interred at the
Libingan ng mga Bayani (LNMB).—In the absence of
any executive issuance or law to the contrary, the
AFP Regulations G 161-375 remains to be the sole
authority in determining who are entitled and
disqualified to be interred at the LNMB.
Interestingly, even if they were empowered to do so,

former Presidents Corazon C. Aquino and Benigno
Simeon C. Aquino III, who were themselves aggrieved
at the Martial Law, did not revise the rules by
expressly prohibiting the burial of Marcos at the
LNMB.
Same; For his alleged human rights abuses and
corrupt practices, we may disregard Marcos as a
President and Commander-in-Chief, but we cannot
deny him the right to be acknowledged based on the
other positions he held or the awards he received.—
Petitioners did not dispute that Marcos was a former
President and Commander-in-Chief, a legislator, a
Secretary of National Defense, a military personnel, a
veteran, and a Medal of Valor awardee. For his
alleged human rights abuses and corrupt practices,
we may disregard Marcos as a President and
Commander-in-Chief, but we cannot deny him the
right to be acknowledged based on the other positions
he held or the awards he received.
Same; The fact remains that Marcos was not
convicted by final judgment of any offense involving
moral turpitude.—Despite all these ostensibly
persuasive arguments, the fact remains that Marcos
was not convicted by final judgment of any offense
involving moral turpitude. No less than the 1987
Constitution man-

231
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 231

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
dates that a person shall not be held to answer for

a criminal offense without due process of law.
Same; Marcos was honorably discharged from
military service. Philippine Veterans Affairs Office
(PVAO) expressly recognized him as a retired veteran
pursuant to Republic Act (RA) No. 6948, as amended.
—Likewise, Marcos was honorably discharged from
military service. PVAO expressly recognized him as a
retired veteran pursuant to R.A. No. 6948, as
amended. Petitioners have not shown that he was
dishonorably discharged from military service under
AFP Circular 17, Series of 1987 (Administrative
Discharge Prior to Expiration of Term of Enlistment)
for violating Articles 94, 95 and 97 of the Articles of
War.
Same; It cannot be conveniently claimed that
Marcos’ ouster from the presidency during the
Epifanio de los Santos Avenue (EDSA) Revolution is
tantamount to his dishonorable separation, reversion
or discharge from the military service.—It cannot be
conveniently claimed that Marcos’ ouster from the
presidency during the EDSA Revolution is
tantamount to his dishonorable separation, reversion
or discharge from the military service. The fact that
the President is the Commander-in-Chief of the AFP
under the 1987 Constitution only enshrines the
principle of supremacy of civilian authority over the
military.
Same; Constitutional Law; Judicial Department;
Notwithstanding the call of human rights advocates,
the Court must uphold what is legal and just. And
that is not to deny Marcos of his rightful place at the
Libingan ng mga Bayani (LNMB).—At bar, President
Duterte, through the public respondents, acted within
the bounds of the law and jurisprudence.
Notwithstanding the call of human rights advocates,
the Court must uphold what is legal and just. And

that is not to deny Marcos of his rightful place at the
LNMB.

SERENO, CJ., Dissenting Opinion:


Judicial Review; View that the Supreme Court (SC)
cannot refuse to review an issue simply because it is
alleged to be a political question.—This Court cannot
refuse to review an issue simply because it is alleged
to be a political question. That train has departed a
long time ago. Prevailing jurisprudence is a
generation apart from the former usefulness of the
political question doctrine as a bar to judicial review.
Same; Same; Same; View that the directive of
President Duterte to allow the burial of Marcos at the
Libingan ng mga Bayani (LNMB) contravenes the
constitution, laws, policies, and jurisprudence.—The
directive of President

232

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Duterte to allow the burial of Marcos at the

LNMB contravenes the constitution, laws, policies,
and jurisprudence. Moreover, the basis for the
directive was an invalid regulation issued by the
Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) in excess of its

statutory authority.
Same; Same; View that there were clear
indictments by both the revolutionary government and
the legislature against the massive plunder and the
countless abuses committed by Marcos and his cronies
during his tenure as President.—The statements in
the above laws were clear indictments by both
the revolutionary government and the
legislature against the massive plunder and the
countless abuses committed by Marcos and his
cronies during his tenure as President. These
laws not only condemn him as a thief; they
equally recognize his criminal liability for the
atrocities inflicted on innumerable victims
while he was in power.
Same; Same; View that the claim that judgment
has not been rendered against Marcos for the plunder
and the atrocities committed under his regime is belied
by the declarations of this very Court.—The claim that
judgment has not been rendered against Marcos for
the plunder and the atrocities committed under his
regime is belied by the declarations of this very Court.
Same; Same; View that Marcos may have evaded
a criminal proceeding by choosing to go on exile after
the Epifanio de los Santos Avenue (EDSA) Revolution,
the atrocities committed against the Filipino people
during his regime must be remembered.—The
pronouncements of the Court on this matter must be
respected and considered conclusive. Hence, while
Marcos may have evaded a criminal proceeding by
choosing to go on exile after the EDSA Revolution, the
atrocities committed against the Filipino people
during his regime must be remembered.
Same; Same; View that statutes and
jurisprudence condemning Marcos and his regime
effectively prohibit the incumbent President from

granting him any form of tribute or honor.—In this
case, the foregoing statutes and jurisprudence
condemning Marcos and his regime effectively
prohibit the incumbent President from granting him
any form of tribute or honor. The President’s
discretion in this matter is not unfettered. Contrary
to the assertions of respondents, the President
cannot arbitrarily and whimsically decide that
the acts attributed to Marcos during Martial
Law are irrelevant, solely because “he possessed
the title to the presidency until his eventual
ouster from office.”

233
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 233

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Libingan ng mga Bayani; View that whether

Marcos is to be buried in the Libingan ng mga Bayani
(LNMB) as a hero, soldier, or former President is of
little difference. The most important fact is that the
burial would accord him honor.—Indeed, it would
be the height of absurdity for the Executive
branch to insist on paying tribute to an
individual who has been condemned by the two
other branches of government as a dictator, a
plunderer, and a human rights violator.
Whether Marcos is to be buried in the LNMB as
a hero, soldier, or former President is of little
difference. The most important fact is that the
burial would accord him honor.
Same; View that the Armed Forces of the

Philippines (AFP) does not have the authority to select
which persons are qualified to be buried in the
Libingan ng mga Bayani (LNMB).—The argument of
respondents that the burial is permitted under AFP
Regulations 161-375 is unavailing, as the AFP does
not have the authority to select which persons are
qualified to be buried in the LNMB. For this reason,
the enumeration contained in AFP Regulations 161-
375 must be deemed invalid.
Same; View that authority of the Philippine
Veterans Affairs Office (PVAO) to administer,
maintain and develop the Libingan ng mga Bayani
(LNMB) pertains purely to the management and care
of the cemetery. Its power does not extend to the
determination of which persons are entitled to be
buried there.—The authority of the PVAO to
administer, maintain and develop the LNMB pertains
purely to the management and care of the cemetery.
Its power does not extend to the determination of
which persons are entitled to be buried there. This
authority pertains to Congress, because the
power to deal with public property, including
the right to specify the purposes for which the
property may be used, is legislative in
character.
Same; View that the purported discretion of the
President to determine the persons who may be
interred in the Libingan ng mga Bayani (LNMB) must
be considered limited by statutes and judicial
decisions.—The AFP Regulations cannot be
considered in isolation. As part of the legal system,
administrative issuances must be interpreted and
implemented in a manner consistent with statutes,
jurisprudence, and other rules. In the same manner,
the purported discretion of the President to determine
the persons who may be interred in the LNMB must

be considered limited by statutes and judicial
decisions.
Same; View that the residual power of the
President cannot be used to justify acts that are
contrary to the Constitution and the laws.—The
residual power of the President cannot be used to
justify acts that are contrary to the Constitu-

234

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
tion and the laws. To allow him to exercise his

powers in disregard of the law would be to grant him
unbridled authority in the guise of inherent power.
Same; View that allowing the proposed burial of
Marcos in the Libingan ng mga Bayani (LNMB)
would be a clear violation of international law
obligations.—Allowing the proposed burial of Marcos
in the LNMB would be a clear violation of the
foregoing international law obligations. Consequently,
the planned interment must be enjoined in light of
Article II, Section 11 of the Constitution, the
established principle of pacta sunt servanda, and the
fact that the state has already acknowledged these
duties and incorporated them in our domestic laws.
Constitutional Law; Judicial Department; View
that the statutes, issuances, and rules enacted by the
different branches of government to promote human
rights cannot suffice for the purpose of fulfilling the

state’s obligation to the human rights victims of former
President Marcos.—Contrary to the implications of
the ponencia, the statutes, issuances, and rules
enacted by the different branches of government to
promote human rights cannot suffice for the purpose
of fulfilling the state’s obligation to the human rights
victims of former President Marcos. These enactments
cannot erase the violations committed against these
victims, or the failure of the state to give them justice;
more important, these enactments cannot negate the
further violation of their rights through the proposed
burial.
Libingan ng mga Bayani; View that the burial of
Marcos would be more than a simple matter of the
interment of his remains, because it would involve his
victims’ right to symbolic reparations.—The burial of
Marcos would be more than a simple matter of the
interment of his remains, because it would involve his
victims’ right to symbolic reparations. Undoubtedly, to
honor the very perpetrator of human rights atrocities
would be the direct opposite of the duty of the state to
respect, promote, and fulfil human rights.
Same; View that for the President to allow the
burial would constitute a clear contravention of
international human rights law and would amount to
grave abuse of discretion.—These opinions must be
given paramount consideration by the state in
compliance with its duty to provide symbolic
reparations to victims of human rights atrocities. For
the President to allow the burial in disregard of these
views would constitute a clear contravention of
international human rights law and would amount to
grave abuse of discretion.

235
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 235

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Same; View that to permit the burial would be to

sanction violations of international obligations and to
allow the state to disregard the latter’s duty to provide
effective remedies to victims of human rights
violations, particularly its duty to provide symbolic
reparations and to combat impunity.—In the process
of mapping through the vast body of international
human rights law, each turn leads to the conclusion
that the burial of Marcos in the LNMB would be
incompatible with the international obligations of the
Philippines. For the Court to permit the burial would
be to sanction these violations and allow the state to
disregard the latter’s duty to provide effective
remedies to victims of human rights violations,
particularly its duty to provide symbolic reparations
and to combat impunity.
Same; View that the burial would perpetuate a
climate of impunity, as it would effectively disregard
the human rights violations perpetrated by Marcos
and permit the state to honor him despite his
transgressions.—The burial would also perpetuate a
climate of impunity, as it would effectively disregard
the human rights violations perpetrated by Marcos
transgressions.
Same; View that the burial in the Libingan ng
mga Bayani (LNMB) would result in a contravention
of the public purpose of the site as it would no longer
be a sacred symbol of honor and valor.—As earlier
discussed, Marcos was an ousted dictator and
disgraced president. Consequently, he is clearly

not worthy of commendation from the state and
no public purpose would be served by his
interment therein. In fact, his burial in the
LNMB would result in a contravention of the
public purpose of the site as it would no longer
be a sacred symbol of honor and valor.
Same; View that respondents fail to explain how
the burial would lead to national unity and healing.—
It is significant to note, however, that respondents fail
to explain how the burial would lead to national unity
and healing. Consequently, their statements remain
meaningless assertions. To emphasize, mere reference
to an avowed public purpose cannot automatically
justify the use of public funds and property.
Same; View that the burial would ultimately
benefit only the Marcos family. No general advantage
is derived by the public from the interment.—It is clear
from the foregoing discussion that the burial would
ultimately benefit only the Marcos family. No general
advantage is derived by the public from the
interment; as it stands, divisiveness instead of unity
has resulted from the plan.

236

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Same; View that the private interest of the Marcos

family and the personal objective of the President to
fulfill a pledge to his political allies will not justify the
proposed public expenditure for the burial.—Needless

to state, the private interest of the Marcos family and
the personal objective of the President to fulfill a
pledge to his political allies will not justify the
proposed public expenditure for the burial.
Same; View that the order of the President to
allow the burial is, at the very least, a declaration that
Marcos is worthy of a grave at a cemetery reserved for
war heroes, despite the objections of countless victims
of human rights violations during the Martial Law
regime.—The order of the President to allow the
burial is, at the very least, a declaration that Marcos
is worthy of a grave at a cemetery reserved for war
heroes, despite the objections of countless victims of
human rights violations during the Martial Law
regime.
Same; View that for the Court to pretend that the
present dispute is a simple question of the entitlement
of a soldier to a military burial is to take a regrettably
myopic view of the controversy.—For the Court to
pretend that the present dispute is a simple question
of the entitlement of a soldier to a military burial is to
take a regrettably myopic view of the controversy. It
would be to disregard historical truths and legal
principles that persist after death.

CARPIO, J., Dissenting Opinion:

Libingan ng mga Bayani; View that Marcos is not

qualified to be interred at the Libingan ng mga Bayani
(LNMB), and thus the Memorandum dated 7 August
2016 of Department of National Defense (DND)
Secretary Lorenzana was issued with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
—I vote to grant the petitions on the ground that
Marcos is not qualified to be interred at the LNMB,

and thus the Memorandum dated 7 August 2016 of
DND Secretary Lorenzana was issued with grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction.
Same; View that assuming Marcos was qualified
to be interred at the Libingan ng mga Bayani (LNMB)
as a Medal of Valor Awardee, and as a former
President of the Philippines and Commander-in-Chief,
he ceased to be qualified when he was ousted from the
Presidency by the nonviolent People Power Revolution
on 25 February 1986.—Assuming that Marcos was
qualified to be interred at the LNMB as a Medal of
Valor Awardee, and as a former President of the
Philippines and Commander-in-Chief, he ceased to be
qualified when he was

237
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 237

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
ousted from the Presidency by the nonviolent

People Power Revolution on 25 February 1986.
Same; Dishonorable Discharge; View that there is
nothing more dishonorable for a President than being
forcibly removed from office by the direct sovereign act
of the people.—The removal of Marcos from the
Presidency, therefore, was a direct exercise of the
sovereign act of the Filipino people that is “beyond
judicial scrutiny.” It cannot be said that this
removal was an “honorable” one. Truly, there is
nothing more dishonorable for a President than being
forcibly removed from office by the direct sovereign

act of the people.
Same; Same; View that Circular No. 17, issued
more than one (1) year after such separation from
office, cannot be made to apply retroactively to Marcos.
—Marcos was separated from service with finality,
having been forcibly ousted by the Filipino people on
25 February 1986. Circular 17, issued more than
one year after such separation from office, cannot be
made to apply retroactively to Marcos. When Circular
17 was issued, Marcos had already been finally
discharged, terminated, and ousted — as President
and Commander-in-Chief — by the Filipino people.
Same; Same; View that even assuming Circular
No. 17 can be given retroactive effect, Marcos was still
dishonorably discharged from service since Circular
No. 17 cannot prevail over the sovereign act of the
Filipino people.—Even assuming that Circular 17 can
be given retroactive effect, Marcos was still
dishonorably discharged from service since Circular
17 cannot prevail over the sovereign act of the Filipino
people. Marcos was ousted by the direct act of the
Filipino people. The sovereign people is the ultimate
source of all government powers.
Same; View that there is no substantial
distinction between the military and civilian
personnel, for purposes of interment at the Libingan
ng mga Bayani (LNMB), that would warrant applying
the disqualifications to military personnel and not to
civilian personnel.—In this case, however, there is no
substantial distinction between the military and
civilian personnel, for purposes of interment at the
LNMB, that would warrant applying the
disqualifications to military personnel and not to
civilian personnel.
Same; View that interring Marcos on the hallowed

grounds of the Libingan ng mga Bayani (LNMB),
which was established to show “the nation’s esteem
and reverence” for those who fought for freedom and
democracy for our country, extols Marcos and
exculpates him from human rights violations.—
Interring Marcos on

238

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
the hallowed grounds of the LNMB, which was

established to show “the nation’s esteem and
reverence” for those who fought for freedom and
democracy for our country, extols Marcos and
exculpates him from human rights violations. This
starkly negates the “moral and legal obligation” of the
State to recognize the sufferings and deprivations of
the human rights victims under the dictatorship of
Marcos.
Same; View that Marcos’ interment at the
Libingan ng mga Bayani (LNMB) will cause undue
injury particularly to human rights victims of the
Marcos regime, as well as the sovereign people who
ousted Marcos during the People Power Revolution.—
Marcos’ interment at the LNMB will cause undue
injury particularly to human rights victims of the
Marcos regime, as well as the sovereign people who
ousted Marcos during the People Power Revolution.
Marcos’ interment at the LNMB is thus contrary to

public policy.
Same; Dishonorable Discharge; View that Marcos’
dishonorable discharge serves to convert his burial
into a private affair of the Marcos family. Hence, no
public purpose is served by interring his remains at
the Libingan ng mga Bayani (LNMB).—Government
funds or property shall be spent or used solely for
public purposes. Since Marcos was ousted by the
sovereign act of the Filipino people, he was
dishonorably discharged from office. Consequently,
Marcos’ dishonorable discharge serves to convert his
burial into a private affair of the Marcos family.
Hence, no public purpose is served by interring his
remains at the LNMB.

BRION, J., Separate Concurring Opinion:


that for the Court to directly exercise its expanded
jurisdiction, the petitioners carry the burden of
proving, prima facie, that the President’s decision to
inter Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani (LNMB)
violates the Constitution.—In the context of the
present case, for the Court to directly exercise its
expanded jurisdiction, the petitioners carry the
burden of proving, prima facie, that the President’s
decision to inter Marcos at the LNMB violates the
Constitution.
Same; Same; Judicial Review; View that
petitioners’ allegations equating President Duterte’s
alleged statutory violations (when he issued his burial
order) to grave abuse of discretion, are not the proper
subject of judicial review under the Court’s direct
exercise of its expanded jurisdiction.—In these lights, I
find that the petitioners’ allegations equating

President Duterte’s alleged statutory violations (when
he issued his burial order) to grave abuse of
discretion, are not

239
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 239

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
the proper subject of judicial review under the

Court’s direct exercise of its expanded jurisdiction.
Same; Judicial Review; View that the faithful
execution clause does not allow litigants to question
the manner by which the President implements a law.
—The petitioners’ insistence that the burial order’s
violation of various laws amounts to a constitutional
violation involving the faithful execution clause, rests
on a very tenuous interpretation of this clause that
stretches it to its breaking point. The faithful
execution clause does not allow litigants to question
— as a constitutional violation — the manner by
which the President implements a law.
Same; Judicial Department; Libingan ng mga
Bayani; View that petitioners failed to point to any
specific treaty obligation prohibiting Marcos’ burial at
the Libingan ng mga Bayani (LNMB) or at any other
public cemetery.—While I agree that these
international agreements (except for the UDHR,
which is a nonbinding document with provisions
attaining the status of customary international law)
had been ratified by the Philippine government and
hence have the force and effect of law in the
Philippines, the petitioners failed to point to any

specific treaty obligation prohibiting Marcos’ burial at
the LNMB or at any other public cemetery.
Same; Republic Act No. 10368; Libingan ng mga
Bayani; View that the burial order does not have the
effect of rewriting jurisprudence and excusing the ills
of the Marcos administration; neither does it amend
Republic Act (RA) No. 10368.—It must be considered
that the burial order does not have the effect of
rewriting jurisprudence and excusing the ills of the
Marcos administration; neither does it amend
Republic Act No. 10368 (“Human Rights Victims
Reparation and Recognition Act of 2013”), a law that
had been enacted as part of the Philippines’
compliance with its obligations in the ICCPR and
CAT.
Same; Judicial Department; View that Article II,
Section 27 and Article XI, Section 1 of the 1987
Constitution cannot be interpreted to prohibit former
President Marcos’ interment at the Libingan ng mga
Bayani (LNMB).—Neither can we interpret Article II,
Section 27 and Article XI, Section 1 to prohibit former
President Marcos’ interment at the LNMB. To be
sure, these are provisions that cannot be faulted as
they enshrine honesty, integrity, and accountability in
the public service, and require government officials to
exercise their functions “with utmost responsibility,
integrity, loyalty, and efficiency; act with patriotism
and justice, and lead modest lives.”

240

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Same; Same; View that the 1987 Constitution’s

enactment after the Marcos regime collapsed does not
suggest and cannot be translated into an implied
command preventing his burial at the Libingan ng
mga Bayani (LNMB) or in a shrine of national
significance.—The Constitution was undeniably
forged out of the ashes of the Marcos regime. Its
enactment after the Marcos regime collapsed,
however, does not suggest and cannot be translated
into an implied command preventing his burial at the
LNMB or in a shrine of national significance. Had
such prohibition been the intent, the Constitution’s
transitory provisions would have specifically so
provided in the manner these provisions incorporated
terms that the framers wanted to implement within
intended and foreseeable time frames.
Libingan ng mga Bayani; View that if we do rule
in favor of the burial of former President Marcos at the
Libingan ng mga Bayani (LNMB), we do not dishonor
those who believe they suffered under his regime.—
Thus, if we do rule in favor of the burial of former
President Marcos at the LNMB, we do not thereby
dishonor those who believe they suffered under his
regime. Nor are we unmindful of the laws crafted in
their favor; we considered these laws but they are
simply not the laws primarily relevant and applicable
to the issue before us — the interment of former
President Marcos at the LNMB.
Judicial Review; View that the wisdom of or need for
the interment of former President Marcos at the
Libingan ng mga Bayani (LNMB) is a policy
determination that is outside the Court’s jurisdiction
to pass upon or interfere with as a matter of law.—
The wisdom of or need for the interment of former

President Marcos at the LNMB is a political question
that our President decided after an assessment of the
thoughts and sentiments of the people from all the
regions in our country; it is a policy determination
that is outside the Court’s jurisdiction to pass upon or
interfere with as a matter of law.
Same; Same; Same; View that the burial of
Marcos had been a campaign promise strengthens the
nature of former President Marcos’ burial at the
Libingan ng mga Bayani (LNMB) as a political
question.—That the burial of Marcos had been a
campaign promise strengthens the nature of former
President Marcos’ burial at the LNMB as a political
question. Voters knew of his plan to bury Marcos at
the LNMB at the time he campaigned, and might
have voted for him because or regardless of this plan.

241
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 241

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
BERSAMIN, J., Concurring Opinion:


Judicial Review; View that the interment of the
remains of President Marcos in the Libingan ng mga
Bayani (LNMB) is a matter that exclusively pertains to
the discretion of President Duterte as the Chief
Executive.—The interment of the remains of President
Marcos in the LNMB is a matter that exclusively
pertains to the discretion of President Duterte as the

Chief Executive. The character of the LNMB as the
resting place for the war dead and other military
personnel under the care and control of the AFP has
placed the LNMB under the control of the President.
Same; Same; Libingan ng mga Bayani; View that
President Marcos — being a former President of the
Philippines, a Medal of Valor awardee, a veteran of
World War II, a former Senator and Senate President,
and a former Congressman — is one of those whose
remains are entitled to be interred in the Libingan ng
mga Bayani (LNMB) under the terms of Armed Forces
of the Philippines (AFP) Regulations G 161-375.—
President Marcos — being a former President of the
Philippines, a Medal of Valor awardee, a veteran of
World War II, a former Senator and Senate President,
and a former Congressman — is one of those whose
remains are entitled to be interred in the LNMB
under the terms of AFP Regulations G 161-375.
President Duterte was far from whimsical or arbitrary
in his exercise of discretion.
Same; Same; Same; View that the Libingan ng
mga Bayani (LNMB) is not the same as the National
Pantheon.—The Republic Memorial Cemetery was
reserved as the final resting place for the war dead of
World War II, but President Magsaysay renamed it to
LNMB on October 27, 1954. The history of the LNMB
refutes the petitioners’ reliance on Republic Act No.
289. Verily, the LNMB is not the same as the
National Pantheon.
Same; Same; Same; View that the petitioners have
not cited any specific provision of either the
Constitution or other existing laws that would
expressly prohibit the interment in the Libingan ng
mga Bayani (LNMB) of the remains of President
Marcos.—The petitioners have not laid out any legal
foundation for directly testing the issuance of the

challenged executive issuances. They have not cited
any specific provision of either the Constitution or
other existing laws that would expressly prohibit the
interment in the LNMB of the remains of one like
President Marcos.
Same; Same; Same; View that none of the
disqualifications listed in Armed Forces of the
Philippines (AFP) Regulations G 161-375 can apply to
the late

242

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
President Marcos.—None of the disqualifications

can apply to the late President Marcos. He had not
been dishonorably separated or discharged from
military service, or convicted by final judgment of any
offense involving moral turpitude.
Same; Same; Same; View that the ouster from the
Presidency by the 1986 People Power revolution is not
the same as being dishonorably discharged because the
discharge must be from the military service.—The
contention that he had been ousted from the
Presidency by the 1986 People Power revolution was
not the same as being dishonorably discharged
because the discharge must be from the military
service. In contrast, and at the risk of being
redundant, I remind that he had been a two-term
President of the Philippines, a Medal of Valor
awardee, a veteran of World War II, a former Senator

and Senate President, and a former Congressman, by
any of which he was qualified to have his remains be
interred in the LNMB.

PEREZ, J., Separate Opinion:


Judicial Review; View that President Rodrigo R.
Duterte did not gravely abuse his discretion, was
neither whimsical nor capricious when upon
assumption of the office to which he was elected he
forthwith proceeded to implement his election promise
to have the remains of the late President Ferdinand E.
Marcos buried in the Libingan ng mga Bayani
(LNMB).—I join the opinion to dismiss the
consolidated petitions for the issuance in their favor
and against the respondents, of the special writ of
certiorari. President Rodrigo R. Duterte did not
gravely abuse his discretion, was neither whimsical
nor capricious when upon assumption of the office to
which he was elected he forthwith proceeded to
implement his election promise to have the remains of
the late President Ferdinand E. Marcos buried in the
Libingan ng mga Bayani.
Same; Same; Same; Libingan ng mga Bayani;
View that the Marcos burial issue was made public
and was resolved through a most political process, a
most appropriate process: the election of the President
of the Republic.—The petitioners objected against the
publicly announced Marcos Libingan burial; they
protested the pronouncement. Indeed the issue was
made public and was resolved through a most political
process, a most appropriate process: the election of the
President of the Republic.
Same; Same; Same; Same; View that 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

243
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 243

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
personification is no longer of national acceptance.

—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
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.

MENDOZA, J., Separate Opinion:

Libingan ng mga Bayani; View that the interment

of President Marcos in the Libingan ng mga Bayani
(LNMB) will not erase the atrocities committed during
his authoritarian rule.—Ferdinand Edralin Marcos
(President Marcos) was not, and will never be, a hero.
His interment in the Libingan ng mga Bayani
(LNMB) will not erase the atrocities committed
during his authoritarian rule. His place in history will

ultimately be judged by the people.
Same; Constitutional Law; Executive Department;
Judicial Review; View that the decision of President
Duterte to allow President Marcos to be interred in the
Libingan ng mga Bayani (LNMB) is beyond the ambit
of judicial review.—Guided by the foregoing, it is my
considered view that the decision of President Duterte
to allow President Marcos to be interred in the LNMB
is beyond the ambit of judicial review.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Political Questions;
View that any act pursuant to the faithful execution
clause should be deemed a political question as the
President is merely executing the law as it is.—The
Executive is given much leeway in ensuring that our
laws are faithfully executed. Thus, any act pursuant
to the faithful execution clause should be deemed a
political question as the President is merely executing
the law as it is. There is no question as to the legality
of the act but on its wisdom or propriety.
Same; Same; Same; Same; View that the authority
of President Duterte to allow the interment of
President Marcos in the Libingan ng mga Bayani
(LNMB) is derived from the residual powers of the
executive.—Moreover, the authority of President
Duterte to allow the interment of President Marcos in
the LNMB is derived from the residual powers of
the executive.
Same; Same; Same; View that the interment of
(LNMB) will not bestow upon him the title of a hero.—
It should be stressed, however, that the interment of
President Marcos in the LNMB will not bestow upon
him the title of a hero. It will not erase from the


244

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
memories of the victims what have been etched in

their minds — that President Marcos was a heartless
dictator and rapacious plunderer of our national
economy and patrimony.
Same; Same; Same; View that the decision to
allow the interment of President Marcos in the
Libingan ng mga Bayani (LNMB) is not contrary to
Republic Act (RA) No. 289 and RA No. 10368.—
Moreover, the decision to allow the interment of
President Marcos in the LNMB is not contrary to R.A.
No. 289 and R.A. No. 10368. As explained by the
public respondents, the National Pantheon mentioned
in R.A. No. 289 was quite different from the LNMB.
As such, the standards claimed by the petitioners in
R.A. No. 289 are not applicable to the LNMB.
Same; Same; Same; View that the interment of
(LNMB) is not repugnant to the avowed policy of
Republic Act (RA) No. 10368, which seeks to recognize
the heroism of human rights violation victims during
martial law.—The interment of President Marcos in
the LNMB is not repugnant to the avowed policy of
R.A. No. 10368, which seeks to recognize the heroism
of human rights violation victims (HRVV) during
martial law.

LEONEN, J., Dissenting Opinion:
Libingan ng mga Bayani; View that President

Duterte’s verbal orders to carry out the interment of
Ferdinand E. Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani
(LNMB) are invalid because they violate Republic Act
(RA) No. 289.—The President’s verbal orders, which
were the basis for the issuance of the questioned
orders of public respondents, are invalid because they
violate Republic Act No. 289. Republic Act No. 289
was never repealed.
Same; View that President Duterte’s verbal orders
do not provide for a definite and complete reason for
transferring the remains of Former President
Ferdinand E. Marcos from its originally intended site
as shown in the agreement signed by Former Secretary
Rafael Alunan III and Imelda Marcos to the Libingan
ng mga Bayani (LNMB).—The President’s verbal
orders do not provide for a definite and complete
reason for transferring the remains of Former
President Ferdinand E. Marcos from its originally
intended site as shown in the agreement signed by
Former Secretary Rafael Alunan III (Former
Secretary Alunan) and Imelda Marcos to the Libingan
ng mga Bayani. It was whimsical, capricious, and an
abuse of discretion, and could have been done only to
accommodate the private interest of the Heirs of
Marcos.

245
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 245

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Same; View that that Republic Act (RA) No. 289

was ignored in the past does not give legal justification
for the present administration to likewise violate the
law.—Presidents who do not follow the law do not
repeal that law. Laws can only be repealed by a
subsequent law. Again, that Republic Act No. 289 was
ignored in the past does not give legal justification for
the present administration to likewise violate the law.
Same; View that Ferdinand E. Marcos does not
meet the standard in Section 1 of Republic Act (RA)
No. 289 that those buried at the Libingan ng mga
Bayani (LNMB) must have led lives worthy of
“inspiration and emulation.”—Under Section 1 of
Republic Act No. 289, those buried at the Libingan ng
mga Bayani must have led lives worthy of “inspiration
and emulation.” Ferdinand E. Marcos does not meet
this standard.
Same; View that jurisprudence, Republic Act (RA)
No. 10368, the findings of the National Historical
Commission, and the actual testimony of petitioners
clearly show that the life of Ferdinand E. Marcos
either as President or as a soldier is bereft of
inspiration.—The Court’s findings in a catena of cases
in its jurisprudence, a legislative determination in
Republic Act No. 10368, the findings of the National
Historical Commission, and the actual testimony of
petitioners during the Oral Arguments clearly show
that the life of Ferdinand E. Marcos either as
President or as a soldier is bereft of inspiration.
Same; View that burying the remains of
Ferdinand E. Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani
(LNMB) violates Republic Act (RA) No. 10368 as the
act may be considered as an effort to conceal abuses
during the Marcos regime or to conceal the effects of
Martial Law.—Burying the remains of Ferdinand E.
Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani violates
Republic Act No. 10368 as the act may be considered

as an effort “to conceal abuses during the Marcos
regime” or to “conceal . . . the effects of Martial Law.”
Its symbolism is unmistakable. It undermines the
recognition of his complicity. Clearly, it is illegal.
Same; View that if there was no intention to
bestow any recognition upon Ferdinand E. Marcos as
a hero, then he should not be buried at the Libingan
ng mga Bayani (LNMB).—If there was no intention to
bestow any recognition upon Ferdinand E. Marcos as
a hero, then he should not be buried at the Libingan
ng mga Bayani. If the President wanted to allot a
portion of public property to bury Ferdinand E.
Marcos without according him the title of a hero, the
President had other options.

246

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Same; View that the transfer of Ferdinand E.

Marcos’ remains is a violation of the fundamental
statutory policy of recognition of the human rights
violations committed during the Marcos regime.—The
transfer of Ferdinand E. Marcos’ remains violates the
policy of full and public disclosure of the truth. It
produces an inaccurate account of the violations
committed. It will fail to educate all sectors of society
and all generations of the human rights violations
committed under his watch. It is a violation of the
fundamental statutory policy of recognition of the
human rights violations committed during the Marcos

regime.
Same; View that if the government buries and
honors Ferdinand E. Marcos’ body as the body of a
former soldier, it will, at the same time, be burying
and honoring the body of a human rights violator,
dictator, and plunderer.—When a person is buried,
the whole person is buried, not just parts of him or
her. Thus, if government buries and honors Ferdinand
E. Marcos’ body as the body of a former soldier, it will,
at the same time, be burying and honoring the body of
a human rights violator, dictator, and plunderer. It is
impossible to isolate the President, soldier, and Medal
of Valor awardee from the human rights violator,
dictator, and plunderer.
Same; View that allowing Ferdinand E. Marcos’
burial under the pretense of the President’s policy of
promotion of national healing and forgiveness lowers
the victims’ dignity and takes away from them their
right to heal in their own time.—Allowing Ferdinand
E. Marcos’ burial under the pretense of the
President’s policy of promotion of national healing and
forgiveness lowers the victims’ dignity and takes away
from them their right to heal in their own time.
Allowing the Marcos burial on the premise of national
healing and forgiveness is a compulsion from the
State for the victims and the Filipino People to forgive
their transgressor without requiring anything to be
done by the transgressor or his successors, and
without even allowing the victims to be provided first
the reparations granted to them by law.
Same; View that to allow the Marcos burial is
diametrically opposed to Republic Act (RA) No. 10368.
—To allow the Marcos burial is diametrically opposed
to Republic Act No. 10368. The stated policies are
clear. These must be applied, and applied in its

entirety — in accordance with its spirit and intent.
Same; View that there is no legitimate public
purpose for setting aside public land at the Libingan
ng mga Bayani (LNMB) for Ferdinand E. Marcos.—
Considering Ferdinand E. Marcos’ disreputable role in
Philippine history, there can be no recognition that
serves the public interest for him. There is no legiti-

247
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 247

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
mate public purpose for setting aside public land

at the Libingan ng mga Bayani — definitely a
national shrine — for him.
Same; Constitutional Law; Judicial Department;
Judicial Review; View that the theory that a campaign
promise becomes policy is an abdication of the
judiciary’s duty to uphold the Constitution and its
laws.—In other words, under our constitutional order,
we elect a President subject to the Constitution and
the current state of the law. We do not, through the
process of elections, anoint a king. Moreover, the
theory that a campaign promise becomes policy is an
abdication of the judiciary’s duty to uphold the
Constitution and its laws.
Same; Same; Same; Same; View that there is an
actual case or controversy in this case as it involves a
conflict of legal rights arising from actual facts, which
have been properly established through evidence or
judicial notice, and which provide the natural

limitations upon judicial interpretation of the statute.
—There is an actual case or controversy in this case
as it involves a conflict of legal rights arising from
actual facts, which have been properly established
through evidence or judicial notice, and which provide
the natural limitations upon judicial interpretation of
the statute.
Same; Same; Same; Same; View that the rule on
locus standi has been relaxed when the matter is of
transcendental importance, of overreaching
significance to society, or of paramount public interest.
—In any case, the rule on standing has been relaxed
“when the matter is of transcendental importance, of
overreaching significance to society, or of paramount
public interest.”
Same; Same; Same; Same; View that the
exceptions to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts and
exhaustion of administrative remedies are present in
this petition.—These exceptions are present in these
consolidated cases. First, these cases involve
reviewing the act of another constitutional organ, that
is, the President’s exercise of discretion in allowing
Ferdinand E. Marcos’ burial at the Libingan ng mga
Bayani. Second, these Petitions raise constitutional
questions that would be better decided by this Court,
as well as issues relating to public policy that may be
beyond the competence of the lower courts. These
cases are likewise of first impression, and no
jurisprudence yet exists on this matter. Thus, the
Petitions cannot be dismissed by invoking the doctrine
of hierarchy of courts and exhaustion of
administrative remedies.
Same; Same; Same; View that to suggest that
Ferdinand E. Marcos was just a human who erred like
us is an affront to those who suffered under the Marcos
regime.—These were not accidents that humans, like

us, commit. These

248

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
were deliberate and conscious acts by one who

abused his power. To suggest that Ferdinand E.
Marcos was “just a human who erred like us” is an
affront to those who suffered under the Marcos
regime.
Same; Same; View that with the transfer of the
Marcos’ remains to the sacred grounds of the Libingan
ng mga Bayani (LNMB) will permanently cause
untold anguish to Martial Law victims.—The reality
is that the retelling of the story of Martial Law is
agonizing to many who went through the ordeal.
Reliving it for eternity, with the transfer of the
remains of he who is responsible for the ordeal to the
sacred grounds of the Libingan ng mga Bayani
(LNMB), will permanently cause untold anguish to
the victims.
Same; Same; View that the burial of Ferdinand E.
Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani (LNMB) is not
an act of national healing.—The burial of Ferdinand
E. Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani (LNMB) is
not an act of national healing. It cannot be an act of
healing when petitioners, and all others who suffered,
are not consulted and do not participate. Rather, it is
an effort to forget our collective shame of having failed
to act as a People as many suffered. It is to contribute

to the impunity for human rights abuses and the
plunder of our public trust.
Same; Same; View that Ferdinand E. Marcos’
remains, by law, cannot be transferred to the Libingan
ng mga Bayani (LNMB).—Ferdinand E. Marcos’
remains, by law, cannot be transferred to the
Libingan ng mga Bayani. Ferdinand E. Marcos is not
a “bayani.”

CAGUIOA, J., Dissenting Opinion:


that President Duterte’s decision to have the remains
of President Marcos interred at the Libingan ng mga
Bayani (LNMB) does not raise a political question.—
The ponencia holds that President Duterte’s decision
to have the remains interred at the LNMB involves a
political question that is not a justiciable controversy.
I disagree.
Same; Same; Locus Standi; Political Questions;
View that victims of human rights violations during
martial law have the legal standing to question the
internment and burial of former President Marcos at
the Libingan ng mga Bayani (LNMB).—Victims of
human rights violations during martial law have the
requisite legal standing to file their respective
petitions. Their personal and direct interest to
question the interment and burial of former President
Marcos at the LNMB rests on their right to a full and
effective remedy and entitlement

249
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 249

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
to monetary and nonmonetary reparations

guaranteed by the State under the Constitution,
domestic and international laws.
Same; Taxation; Taxpayer’s Suit; View that the
public character of the Libingan ng mga Bayani
(LNMB) and the general appropriations for its
maintenance, preservation and development satisfy the
requirements for a taxpayer’s suit.—Petitioners also
have standing as citizens-taxpayers. The public
character of the LNMB and the general
appropriations for its maintenance, preservation and
development satisfy the requirements for a taxpayer’s
suit.
Same; Legislative Department; View that
Members of Congress have no personality to maintain
the suit because they failed to show how the President’s
directives to have the remains of former President
Marcos interred at the Libingan ng mga Bayani
(LNMB) usurps or infringes upon their legislative
functions.—Members of Congress in the Lagman
petition and petitioner De Lima have no personality to
maintain the suit as legislators because they failed to
allege, much less show, how the President’s directive
to have the remains of former President Marcos
interred at the LNMB usurps or infringes upon their
legislative functions.
Libingan ng mga Bayani; Certiorari; Jurisdiction;
Locus Standi; Supreme Court; View that under the
Court’s expanded jurisdiction, the validity of the
President’s directive to have the remains of former
President Marcos interred and buried at the Libingan
ng mga Bayani (LNMB) and the legality of the
assailed Memorandum and Directive issued by public

respondents, are proper subjects of a petition for
certiorari and prohibition.—Therefore, that the
assailed act and/or issuances do not involve the
exercise of judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial
functions is of no moment. Under the Court’s
expanded jurisdiction, the validity of the President’s
directive to have the remains of former President
Marcos interred and buried at the LNMB and the
legality of the assailed Memorandum and Directive
issued by public respondents, are proper subjects of a
petition for certiorari and prohibition.
Supreme Court; Jurisdiction; View that there are
special and compelling reasons attendant in the case
which justify direct resort to this Court.—Contrary to
the ponencia’s holding, there are special and
compelling reasons attendant in the case at bar which
justify direct resort to this Court. Apart from the fact
that the issues presented here are of transcendental
importance, as earlier explained, they are being
brought before the Court for the first time. As no
jurisprudence yet exists on the matter, it is best that
this case be decided by this Court.

250

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative

Remedies; View that the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies is not absolute as there are
numerous exceptions laid down by jurisprudence.—

The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies
is not absolute as there are numerous exceptions laid
down by jurisprudence.
Constitutional Law; Libingan ng mga Bayani;
View that the order to inter the remains of former
(LNMB) is contrary to the Constitution, the law, and
several executive issuances that have the force of law,
as well as the public policy that the Constitution, the
said laws, and executive issuances espouse and
advance.—I believe that the petitions are with merit,
and that the order to inter the remains of former
President Marcos in the LNMB is contrary to the
Constitution, the law, and several executive issuances
that have the force of law, as well as the public policy
that the Constitution, the said laws, and executive
issuances espouse and advance.
Same; Public Purpose; View that any
disbursement of public funds in connection with the
interment will not be for a public purpose, as it is
principally for the advantage of a private party.—This
admission by the Solicitor General indicates to me
that the interment is primarily to favor the Marcos
family, and serves no legitimate public purpose.
Therefore, the first requirement for the legitimate
exercise of the President’s power to reserve has not
been met. Moreover, any disbursement of public funds
in connection with the interment will not be for a
public purpose, as it is principally for the advantage of
a private party — separate from the motivation for
the same.
Libingan ng mga Bayani; Public Purpose; View
that the interment cannot be justified by the power to
reserve because it is not a legitimate public purpose,
and is not consistent with the national shrine purposes
of Libingan ng mga Bayani’s (LNMB’s) reservation.—

Moreover, the interment cannot be justified by the
power to reserve because it is not a legitimate public
purpose, and is not consistent with the national
shrine purposes of LNMB’s reservation. For the
same reasons that the interment serves no
legitimate public purpose, no use of public
property or public funds can be made to
support it.
Same; Presidency; View that while the order to
inter former President Marcos in the Libingan ng mga
Bayani (LNMB) may be considered an exercise of the
President’s power of control, this is necessarily subject
to the limitations found in the Constitution, laws and
executive issuances.—While the order to inter former
President Marcos in the LNMB may be considered an
exercise of the President’s power of control, this is
necessarily subject to the limitations similarly
applica-

251
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 251

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
ble to his subordinate, the Philippine Veterans

Affairs Office (“PVAO”) or the Quartermaster General
— found in the Constitution, laws and executive
issuances.
Same; National Pantheon; View that the land on
which the National Pantheon was to be built refers to
a discrete parcel of land that is different from site of
the Libingan ng mga Bayani (LNMB).—I agree that
RA 289 is not applicable. Reading RA 289 together

with Proclamation No. 431 leads to no other
conclusion than that the land on which the National
Pantheon was to be built refers to a discrete parcel of
land that is different from site of the LNMB.
View that the interment of former President Marcos
constitutes a violation of the physical, historical and
cultural integrity of the Libingan ng mga Bayani
(LNMB) as a national shrine, which the State has the
obligation to conserve.—Verily, the interment of
former President Marcos constitutes a violation
of the physical, historical and cultural integrity
of the LNMB as a national shrine, which the
State has the obligation to conserve.
Same; Dishonorable Discharge; View that when
Marcos was forcibly taken out of office and removed as
a President and a Commander-in-Chief by the
sovereign act of the people expressed in the Epifanio de
los Santos Avenue (EDSA) Revolution, it can
reasonably be said that he was dishonorably separated
as a President and dishonorably discharged as a
Commander-in-Chief.—When Marcos was forcibly
taken out of office and removed as a President and a
Commander-in-Chief by the sovereign act of the
people expressed in the EDSA Revolution — which is
an act higher than an act of a military tribunal or of a
civilian administrative tribunal — then it can
reasonably be said that he was dishonorably
separated as a President and dishonorably discharged
as a Commander-in-Chief.
Same; Libingan ng mga Bayani; Presidency; View
that whether as a soldier or as a President, former
President Marcos does not deserve a resting place
together with the heroes at the Libingan ng mga
Bayani (LNMB).—His soldier persona cannot be
separated from his private citizen cum former

President persona, and vice versa, unless by some
miracle one can be excised from the other. Either the
entire remains of former President Marcos are
allowed to be buried in the LNMB or none of his parts.
Whether as a soldier or as a President, former
President Marcos does not deserve a resting place
together with the heroes at the LNMB.

252

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Libingan ng mga Bayani; Human Rights Abuses;

View that burial of former President Marcos in the
Libingan ng mga Bayani (LNMB) would blur his real
role in the country’s history and in the human rights
abuses that the human rights victims suffered under
his martial law regime.—The burial of former
President Marcos in the LNMB which, as already
explained, is not a mere cemetery but a memorial for
heroes, will certainly not further or advance the
Philippines’ obligation to accord HRVVs their right to
truth and preserve memory. Indeed, such an act
would blur the real role of former President Marcos in
the country’s history and in the human rights abuses
that the HRVVs suffered under his martial law
regime.
Republic Act No. 10368; View that there is sufficient
basis to rule that the burial of former President
Marcos in the Libingan ng mga Bayani (LNMB) will

violate certain international law principles and
obligations, which the Philippines has adopted and
must abide by, and Republic Act (RA) No. 10368
which transformed the principle and State policy
expressed in Article II, Section 11 of the Constitution.
—There is sufficient basis to rule that the burial of
former President Marcos in the LNMB will violate
certain international law principles and obligations,
which the Philippines has adopted and must abide by,
and RA 10368 which transformed the principle and
State policy expressed in Article II, Section 11 of the
Constitution which states: “The State values the
dignity of every human person and guarantees full
respect for human rights.”
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS in the Supreme

Court. Certiorari, Prohibition, Certiorari-in-
Intervention, and Mandamus.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the
Court.
Edre U. Olalia and Maria Cristina Yambot,
et al. for petitioners in G.R. No. 225973.
John Michael A. Bernardo, et al. for
petitioners in G.R. No. 225984.
Ibarra M. Guttierez III, et al. for petitioners
in G.R. No. 226097.
Reody Anthony M. Balisi, et al. for
petitioners in G.R. No. 226116.
Hyacinth E. Rafael-Antonio for the heirs of
Ferdinand E. Marcos.
Jesus Nicardo M. Falcis III for petitioners
in G.R. No. 226117.
Algamar A. Latiph for petitioner in G.R. No.
226120.

253
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 253

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
PERALTA, J.:

In law, as much as in life, there is need
to find closure. Issues that have lingered
and festered for so long and which
unnecessarily divide the people and slow
the path to the future have to be interred.
To move on is not to forget the past. It is to
focus on the present and the future,
leaving behind what is better left for
history to ultimately decide. The Court
finds guidance from the Constitution and
the applicable laws, and in the absence of
clear prohibition against the exercise of
discretion entrusted to the political
branches of the Government, the Court
must not overextend its readings of what
may only be seen as providing tenuous
connection to the issue before it.

Facts

During the campaign period for the 2016
Presidential Election, then candidate Rodrigo R.
Duterte (Duterte) publicly announced that he
would allow the burial of former President
Ferdinand E. Marcos (Marcos) at the Libingan
ng mga Bayani (LNMB). He won the May 9,
2016 election, garnering 16,601,997 votes. At
noon of June 30, 2016, he formally assumed his
office at the Rizal Hall in the Malacañan Palace.
On August 7, 2016, public respondent

Secretary of National Defense Delfin N.
Lorenzana issued a Memorandum to the public
respondent Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of
the Philippines (AFP), General Ricardo R.
Visaya, regarding the interment of Marcos at the
LNMB, to wit:
Subject: Interment of the late Former President

Ferdinand Marcos at LNMB

Reference: Verbal Order of President Rodrigo Duterte
on July 11, 2016.

In compliance to (sic) the verbal order of the
President to implement his election campaign promise
to have the remains of the late former President
Ferdinand E. Marcos be interred at the Libingan ng
mga Bayani, kindly undertake all the necessary
planning and preparations to facilitate the
coordination of all agencies concerned

254

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
specially the provisions for ceremonial and security

requirements. Coordinate closely with the Marcos
family regarding the date of interment and the
transport of the late former President’s remains from
Ilocos Norte to the LNMB.
The overall OPR for this activity will [be] the

PVAO since the LNMB is under its supervision and
administration. PVAO shall designate the focal person
for this activity who shall be the overall overseer of
the event.
Submit your Implementing Plan to my office as
soon as possible.1

On August 9, 2016, respondent AFP Rear
Admiral Ernesto C. Enriquez issued the
following directives to the Philippine Army (PA)
Commanding General:
SUBJECT: Funeral Honors and Service

TO: Commanding General, Philippine Army
Headquarters, Philippine Army
Fort Bonifacio, Taguig City
Attn: Assistant Chief of Staff for RRA, G9

1. Pursuant to paragraph 2b, SOP Number
8, GHQ, AFP dated 14 July 1992, provide
services, honors and other courtesies for
the late Former President Ferdinand
E. Marcos as indicated:
[x] Vigil -Provide vigil-;
[x] Bugler/Drummer;
[x] Firing Party;
[x] Military Host/Pallbearers;
[x] Escort and Transportation;
[x] Arrival/Departure Honors;

2. His remains lie in state at Ilocos Norte.
3. Interment will take place at the
Libingan ng mga Bayani, Ft.
Bonifacio, Taguig City. Date: TBAL.
4. Provide all necessary military honors

accorded for a President.
_______________
1 See Annex “A” of Petition for Prohibition of Lagman, et

al., G.R. No. 225984.

255
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 255

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
5. POC: Administrator, PVAO BY

COMMAND OF GENERAL VISAYA.2

Dissatisfied with the foregoing issuance, the
following were filed by petitioners:
1. Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition3 filed
by Saturnino Ocampo and several others,4 in
their capacities as human rights advocates or
human rights violations victims as defined
under Section 3(c) of Republic Act (R.A.) No.
10368 (Human Rights Victims Reparation and
Recognition Act of 2013).
2. Petition for Certiorari-in-Intervention5 filed
by Rene A.V. Saguisag, Sr. and his son,6 as
members of the Bar and human rights lawyers,
and his grandchild.7
3. Petition for Prohibition8 filed by
Representative Edcel C. Lagman, in his personal
capacity, as member of the House of
Representatives and as Honorary Chairperson of
Families of Victims of Involuntary

Disappearance (FIND), a duly-registered
corporation and organization of victims and
families of enforced disappearance, mostly
during the martial law regime of the former
President Marcos, and several others,9 in their
official capacities as duly-elected Congressmen
of the House of Representatives of the
Philippines.
_______________
2 See Annex “B,” id. (Emphasis in the original)

3 G.R. No. 225973.
4 TRINIDAD H. REPUNO, BIENVENIDO LUMBERA,
BONIFACIO P. ILAGAN, NERI JAVIER COLMENARES,
MARIA CAROLINA P. ARAULLO, M.D., SAMAHAN NG
EX-DETAINEES LABAN SA DETENSYON AT ARESTO
(SELDA) represented by DIONITO CABILLAS,
CARMENCITA M. FLORENTINO, RODOLFO DEL
ROSARlO, FELIX C. DALISAY and DANILO M. DELA
FUENTE.
5 G.R. No. 225973.
6 RENE A. Q. SAGUISAG, JR.
7 RENE A. C. SAGUISAG, III.
8 G.R. No. 225984.
9 FIND COCHAIRPERSON, NILDA L. SEVILLA, REP.
TEDDY BRAWNER BAGUILAT, JR., REP. TOMASITO S.
VILLARIN, REP. EDGAR R. ERICE and REP. EMMANUEL
A. BILLONES.

256
ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
4. Petition for Prohibition10 filed by Loretta

Ann Pargas-Rosales, former Chairperson of the
Commission on Human Rights, and several
others,11 suing as victims of State-sanctioned
human rights violations during the martial law
regime of Marcos.
5. Petition for Mandamus and Prohibition12
filed by Heherson T. Alvarez, former Senator of
the Republic of the Philippines, who fought to
oust the dictatorship of Marcos, and several
others,13 as concerned Filipino citizens and
taxpayers.
by Zaira Patricia B. Baniaga and several
others,15 as concerned Filipino citizens and
taxpayers.
by Algamar A. Latiph, former Chairperson of the
Regional Human Rights Commission, Auto-
nomous Region in Muslim Mindanao, by himself
and on behalf of the Moro17 who are victims of
human rights during the martial law regime of
Marcos.
_______________
10 G.R. No. 226097.

11 HILDA B. NARCISO, AIDA F. SANTOS-MARANAN,
JO-ANN Q. MAGLIPON, ZENAIDA S. MIQUE, FE B.
MANGAHAS, MA. CRISTINA P. BAWAGAN, MILA D.
AGUILAR, MINERVA G. GONZALES, MA. CRISTINA V.
RODRIGUEZ, LOUUE G. CRISMO, FRANCISCO E.
RODRIGO, JR., LIWAYWAY D. ARCE and ABDULMARI
DE LEON IMAO, JR.
12 G.R. No. 226116.

13 JOEL C. LAMANGAN, FRANCIS X. MAGLAPUS,
EDILBERTO C. DE JESUS, BELINDA O. CUNANAN,
CECILIA GUIDOTE ALVAREZ, REX DEGRACIA LORES,
SR., ARNOLD MARIE NOEL, CARLOS MANUEL,
EDMUND S. TAYAO, DANILO P. OLIVARES, NOEL F.
TRINIDAD, JESUS DELA FUENTE, REBECCA M.
QUIJANO, FR. BENIGNO BELTRAN, SVD, ROBERTO S.
VERZOLA, AUGUSTO A. LEGASTO, JR. and JULIA
KRISTINA P. LEGASTO.
14 G.R. No. 226117.
15 JOHN ARVIN BUENAAGUA, JOANNE ROSE SACE
LIM, and JUAN ANTONIO RAROGAL MAGALANG.
16 G.R. No. 226120.
17 Defined as native peoples who have historically
inhabited Mindanao, Palawan and Sulu, who are largely of
the Islamic Faith, under Sec. 4, par. d.[8], RA 9710 otherwise
known as THE MAGNA CARTA OF WOMEN.

257
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 257

Ocampo vs. Enriquez

by Leila M. De Lima as member of the Senate of
the Republic of the Philippines, public official
and concerned citizen.

Issues
Procedural

1. Whether President Duterte’s determination
to have the remains of Marcos interred at the
LNMB poses a justiciable controversy.

2. Whether petitioners have locus standi to file
the instant petitions.
3. Whether petitioners violated the doctrines of
exhaustion of administrative remedies and
hierarchy of courts.

Substantive

1. Whether the respondents Secretary of
National Defense and AFP Rear Admiral
committed grave abuse of discretion, amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction, 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
violate the Constitution, domestic and inter-
national laws, particularly:
(a) Sections 2, 11, 13, 23, 26, 27 and 28 of
Article II, Section 1 of Article III, Section 17 of
Article VII, Section 1 of Article XI, Section 3(2)
of Article XIV, and Section 26 of Article XVIII of
the 1987 Constitution;
(b) R.A. No. 289;
(c) R.A. No. 10368;
(d) AFP Regulation G 161-375 dated
September 11, 2000;
(e) The International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights;
_______________
18 G.R. No. 226294.

258

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
(f) The “Basic Principles and Guidelines on the

Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of
Gross Violations of International Human Rights
Law and Serious Violations of International
Humanitarian Law” of the United Nations
(U.N.) General Assembly; and
(g) The “Updated Set of Principles for
Protection and Promotion of Human Rights
through Action to Combat Impunity” of the U.N.
Economic and Social Council;
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.

Opinion

The petitions must be dismissed.

Procedural Grounds

Justiciable controversy

It is well-settled that no question involving
the constitutionality or validity of a law or
governmental act may be heard and decided by
the Court unless the following requisites for
judicial inquiry are present: (a) there must be an
actual case or controversy calling for the exercise
of judicial power; (b) the person challenging the
act must have the standing to question the
validity of the subject act or issuance; (c) the
question of constitutionality must be raised at
the earliest opportunity; and (d) the issue of
constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the
case.19
_______________
19 Belgica v. Ochoa, Jr., 721 Phil. 416, 518-519; 710

SCRA 1, 89 (2013).

259
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 259

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
In this case, the absence of the first two

requisites, which are the most essential, renders
the discussion of the last two superfluous.20
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.21 There must
be a contrariety of legal rights that can be
interpreted and enforced on the basis of existing
law and jurisprudence.22 Related to the requisite
of an actual case or controversy is the requisite
of “ripeness,” which means that something had
then been accomplished or performed by either
branch before a court may come into the picture,
and the petitioner must allege the existence of
an immediate or threatened injury to itself as a
result of the challenged action.23 Moreover, the
limitation on 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.24 Those areas pertain to questions
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 the government.25 As they are
concerned with questions of policy and issues
dependent upon the wisdom, not legality of a
particular measure,26 political questions used to
be beyond the ambit of judicial review. However,
the scope of the political question doctrine has
been limited by Section 1 of Article VIII of the
1987 Constitution when it vested in the judiciary
the power to determine whether or not there has
been grave
_______________
20 Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc. v.

Anti-Terrorism Council, 646 Phil. 452, 471; 632 SCRA 146,
167 (2010).
21 Supra note 19 at p. 519; p. 90, citing Province of North
Cotabato v. Government of the Republic of the Philippines
Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain (GRP), 589 Phil. 387, 481;
568 SCRA 402, 450 (2008).
22 Province of North Cotabato v. Government of the
Republic of the Philippines Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain
(GRP), id.
23 Supra note 19 at pp. 519-520; p. 90.
Republic of the Philippines Peace Panel on Acestral Domain
(GRP), supra.
25 Tañada v. Cuenco, 100 Phil. 1101 (1957); Belgica v.
Ochoa, Jr., supra note 19 at p. 526; pp. 286-289.
26 Id.; id.

260

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess

of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government.
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 exercise of his powers under
the Constitution and the Executive Order (E.O.)
No. 292 (otherwise known as 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.

Locus standi

Defined as a right of appearance in a court of
justice on a given question,27 locus standi
requires that a party alleges such personal stake
in the outcome of the controversy as to assure
that concrete adverseness which sharpens the
presentation of issues upon which the court
depends for illumination of difficult
constitutional questions.28 Unless a person has
sustained or is in imminent danger of sustaining
an injury as a result of an act complained of,
such proper party has no standing.29 Petitioners,
who filed their respective petitions for certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus, in their capacities
as citizens, human rights violations victims,
legislators, members of the Bar and taxpayers,
have no legal standing to file such petitions
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.
_______________
27 Black’s Law Dictionary, p. 941, 6th edition, 1991.

28 Supra note 19 at p. 527; p. 99.
29 Id., citing La Bugal-B’Laan Tribal Association, Inc. v.
Ramos, 465 Phil. 860, 890; 421 SCRA 148, 178 (2004).

261
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 261

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Taxpayers have been allowed to sue where

there is a claim that public funds are illegally
disbursed or that public money is being deflected
to any improper purpose, or that public funds
are wasted through the enforcement of an
invalid or unconstitutional law.30 In this case,
what is essentially being assailed is the wisdom
behind the decision of the President to proceed
with the interment of Marcos at the LNMB. As
taxpayers, petitioners merely claim illegal
disbursement of public funds, without showing
that Marcos is disqualified to be interred at the
LNMB by either express or implied provision of
the Constitution, the laws or jurisprudence.
Petitioners Saguisag, et al.,31 as members of
the Bar, are required to allege any direct or
potential injury which the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, as an institution, or its members
may suffer as a consequence of the act
complained of.32 Suffice it to state that the
averments in their petition-in-intervention failed
to disclose such injury, and that their interest in
this case is too general and shared by other
groups, such that their duty to uphold the rule of
law, without more, is inadequate to clothe them

with requisite legal standing.33
As concerned citizens, petitioners are also
required to substantiate that the issues raised
are of transcendental importance, of
overreaching significance to society, or of
paramount public interest.34 In cases involving
such issues, the imminence and clarity of the
threat to fundamental constitutional rights
outweigh the necessity for prudence.35 In Marcos
v. Manglapus,36 the majority opinion observed
that the subject controversy was of grave
national importance, and that the Court’s
decision would
_______________
30 Supra note 19 at p. 528; pp. 99-100.

31 Rene A.V. Saguisag, Sr. and Rene A.Q. Saguisag, Jr.
32 David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, 522 Phil. 705, 762; 489
SCRA 160, 223 (2006).
33 Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Zamora, 392 Phil.
618; 338 SCRA 81 (2000).
34 Kilosbayan, Incorporated v. Guingona, Jr., G.R. No.
113375, May 5, 1994, 232 SCRA 110.
35 The Diocese of Bacolod v. Commission on Elections,
G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015, 747 SCRA 1, 46.
36 258 Phil 479; 177 SCRA 668 (1989).

262

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
have a profound effect on the political, economic,

and other aspects of national life. The ponencia
explained that the case was in a class by itself,
unique and could not create precedent because it
involved a dictator forced out of office and into
exile after causing twenty years of political,
economic and social havoc in the country and
who, within the short space of three years (from
1986), sought to return to the Philippines to die.
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.
As human rights violations victims during the
Martial Law regime, some of petitioners decry
re-traumatization, historical revisionism, and
disregard of their state recognition as heroes.
Petitioners’ argument is founded on the wrong
premise that the LNMB is the National
Pantheon intended by law to perpetuate the
memory of all Presidents, national heroes and
patriots. The history of the LNMB, as will be
discussed further, reveals its nature and purpose
as a national military cemetery and national
shrine, under the administration of the AFP.
Apart from being concerned citizens and
taxpayers, petitioners Senator De Lima, and
Congressman Lagman, et al.37 come before the
Court as legislators suing to defend the
Constitution and to protect appropriated public

funds from being used unlawfully. In the
absence of a clear showing of any direct injury to
their person or the institution to which they
belong, their standing as members of the
Congress cannot be upheld.38 They do not
specifically claim that the official actions
complained of, i.e., the memorandum of the
Secretary of National Defense and the
_______________
37 REP. TEDDY BRAWNER BAGUILAT JR., REP.

TOMASITO S. VILLARIN, REP. EDGAR R. ERICE and
REP. EMMANUEL A. BILLONES.
38 BAYAN (Bagong Alyansang Makabayan) v. Zamora,
396 Phil. 623, 648; 342 SCRA 449, 479 (2000).

263
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 263

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
directive of the AFP Chief of Staff regarding the

interment of Marcos at the LNMB, encroach on
their prerogatives as legislators.39

Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

Petitioners violated the doctrines of
exhaustion of administrative remedies and
hierarchy of courts. Under the doctrine of
exhaustion of administrative remedies, before a
party is allowed to seek the intervention of the
court, one should have availed first of all the

means of administrative processes available.40 If
resort to a remedy within the administrative
machinery can still be made by giving the
administrative officer concerned every
opportunity to decide on a matter that comes
within his jurisdiction, then such remedy should
be exhausted first before the court’s judicial
power can be sought.41 For reasons of comity and
convenience, courts of justice shy away from a
dispute until the system of administrative
redress has been completed and complied with,
so as to give the administrative agency
concerned every opportunity to correct its error
and dispose of the case.42 While there are
exceptions43 to the
_______________
39 Biraogo v. Philippine Truth Commission of 2010, 651

Phil. 374, 439; 637 SCRA 78, 233 (2010).
40 Maglalang v. Philippine Amusement and Gaming
Corporation (PAGCOR), 723 Phil. 546, 556; 712 SCRA 472,
482-483 (2013).
41 Id.
42 Id., at p. 557; p. 482.
43 Nonetheless, the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies and the corollary doctrine of
primary jurisdiction, which are based on sound public policy
and practical considerations, are not inflexible rules. There
are many accepted exceptions, such as: (a) where there is
estoppel on the part of the party invoking the doctrine; (b)
where the challenged administrative act is patently illegal,
amounting to lack of jurisdiction; (c) where there is
unreasonable delay or official inaction that will irretrievably
prejudice the complainant; (d) where the amount involved is
relatively small so as to make the rule impractical and
oppressive; (e) where the question involved is purely legal

and will ultimately have to be decided by the courts of
justice; (f) where judicial intervention is urgent; (g) when its
application may cause great and irreparable damage; (h)
where the controverted acts violate due process; (i) when the
issue of nonexhaustion of administrative remedies has been
rendered moot; (j) when there is no other plain, speedy and
adequate remedy; (k) when strong public interest is

264

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
doctrine of exhaustion of administrative

remedies, petitioners failed to prove the
presence of any of those exceptions.
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 Secretary of National
Defense should be given opportunity to correct
himself, if warranted, considering that AFP
Regulations G 161-375 was issued upon his
order. Questions on the implementation and
interpretation thereof demand the exercise of
sound administrative discretion, requiring the
special knowledge, experience and services of his
office to determine technical and intricate
matters of fact. If petitioners would still be
dissatisfied with the decision of the Secretary,
they could elevate the matter before the Office of

the President which has control and supervision
over the Department of National Defense
(DND).44

Hierarchy of Courts

In the same vein, while direct resort to the
Court through petitions for the extraordinary
writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus
are allowed under exceptional cases,45 which are
lacking in this case, peti-
_______________
involved; and, (l) in quo warranto proceedings. (See Republic

v. Lacap, 546 Phil. 87, 97-98; 517 scra 255, 265-266 [2007]).
44 Book IV, Chapter 1, Section 1 of the Administrative
Code.
45 Direct resort to the Court is allowed as follows (1)
when there are genuine issues of constitutionality that must
be addressed at the most immediate time; (2) when the
issues involved are of transcendental importance; (3) when
cases of first impression are involved; and (4) when
constitutional issues raised are better decided by the Court;
(5) when the time element presented in the case cannot be
ignored; (6) when the filed petition reviews the act of a
constitutional organ; (7) when petitioners rightly claim that
they had no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law that could free them from the
injurious effects of respondents’ acts in violation of their
right to freedom of expression; and (8) when the petition
includes questions that are “dictated by public welfare and
the advancement of public policy, or demanded by the
broader interest of justice, or the orders complained of were
found to be patent

265
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 265

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
tioners cannot simply brush aside the doctrine of

hierarchy of courts that requires such petitions
to be filed first with the proper Regional Trial
Court (RTC). The RTC is not just a 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. Even if
We decide the case based on the merits, the
petitions should still be denied.

Substantive Grounds

There is grave abuse of discretion when an
act is (1) done contrary to the Constitution, the
law or jurisprudence or (2) executed whimsically,
capriciously or arbitrarily, out of malice, ill will
or personal bias.46 None is present in this case.

I
The President’s decision to bury Marcos
at the LNMB is in accordance with the
Constitution, the law or jurisprudence

Petitioners argue that the burial of Marcos at

the LNMB should not be allowed because it has
the effect of not just rewriting history as to the
Filipino people’s act of revolting against an
authoritarian ruler but also condoning the
abuses committed during the Martial Law,
thereby violating the letter and spirit of the 1987
Constitution, which is a “post-dictatorship
charter” and a “human rights constitution.” For
them, the ratification of the Constitution serves
as a clear condemnation of Marcos’ alleged
“heroism.” To support their case, petitioners
invoke Sections
_______________
nullities, or the appeal was considered as clearly an

inappropriate remedy.” (See The Diocese of Bacolod v.
Commission on Elections, supra note 35 at pp. 45-49.
46 National Artist for Literature Virgilio Almario, et al. v.
The Executive Secretary, 714 Phil. 127, 169; 701 SCRA 269,
316 (2013).

266

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
2,47 11,48 13,49 23,50 26,51 2752 and 2853 of Article

II, Sec. 17 of Art. VII,54 Sec. 3(2) of Art. XIV,55
Sec. 1 of Art. XI,56 and Sec. 26 of Art. XVIII57 of
the Constitution.
_______________
47 SECTION 2. The Philippines renounces war as an

instrument of national policy, adopts the generally accepted
principles of international law as part of the law of the land
and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom,
cooperation, and amity with all nations.
48 SECTION 11. The State values the dignity of every
human person and guarantees full respect for human rights.
49 SECTION 13. The State recognizes the vital role of
the youth in nation-building and shall promote and protect
their physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual, and social well-
being. It shall inculcate in the youth atriotism and
nationalism, and encourage their involvement in public and
civic affairs.
50 SECTION 23. The State shall encourage non-
governmental, community-based, or sectoral organizations
that promote the welfare of the nation.
51 SECTION 26. The State shall guarantee equal
access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit
political dynasties as may be defined by law.
52 SECTION 27. The State shall maintain honesty and
integrity in the public service and take positive and effective
measures against graft and corruption.
53 SECTION 28. Subject to reasonable conditions
prescribed by law, the State adopts and implements a policy
of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving
public interest.
54 SECTION 17. The President shall have control of all
the executive departments, bureaus, and offices. He shall
ensure that the laws be faithfully executed.
55 SECTION 3. x x x
(2) They shall inculcate patriotism and nationalism,
foster love of humanity, respect for human rights,
appreciation of the role of national heroes in the historical
development of the country, teach the rights and duties of
citizenship, strengthen ethical and spiritual values, develop
moral character and personal discipline, encourage critical

and creative thinking, broaden scientific and technological
knowledge, and promote vocational efficiency.
56 SECTION 1. Public office is a public trust. Public
officers and employees must at all times be accountable to
the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity,
loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and
lead modest lives.
57 SECTION 26. The authority to issue sequestration
or freeze orders under Proclamation No. 3 dated March 25,
1986 in relation to the recovery of ill-gotten wealth shall
remain operative for not more than eighteen months after

267
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 267

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
There is no merit to the contention.

As the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG)
logically reasoned out, while the Constitution is
a product of our collective history as a people, its
entirety should not be interpreted as providing
guiding principles to just about anything
remotely related to the Martial Law period such
as the proposed Marcos burial at the LNMB.
Tañada v. Angara58 already ruled that the
provisions in Article II of the Constitution are
not self-executing. Thus:
By its very title, Article II of the Constitution is a

“declaration of principles and state policies.” The
counterpart of this article in the 1935 Constitution is
called the “basic political creed of the nation” by Dean
Vicente Sinco. These principles in Article II are not

intended to be self-executing principles ready for
enforcement through the courts. They are used by the
judiciary as aids or as guides in the exercise of its
power of judicial review, and by the legislature in its
enactment of laws. As held in the leading case of
Kilosbayan, Incorporated vs. Morato, the principles
and state policies enumerated in Article II x x x are
not “self-executing provisions, the disregard of which
can give rise to a cause of action in the courts. They do
not embody judicially enforceable constitutional rights
but guidelines for legislation.”
In the same light, we held in Basco vs. Pagcor that
broad constitutional principles need legislative
enactments to implement them x x x.
_______________
the ratification of this Constitution. However, in the national

interest, as certified by the President, the Congress may
extend said period.
A sequestration or freeze order shall be issued only upon
showing of a prima facie case. The order and the list of the
sequestered or frozen properties shall forthwith be registered
with the proper court. For orders issued before the
ratification of this Constitution, the corresponding judicial
action or proceeding shall be filed within six months from its
ratification. For those issued after such ratification, the
judicial action or proceeding shall be commenced within six
months from the issuance thereof.
The sequestration or freeze order is deemed automatically
lifted if no judicial action or proceeding is commenced as
herein provided.
58 338 Phil. 546; 272 SCRA 18 (1997).

268

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
x x x

The reasons for denying a cause of action to an
alleged infringement of broad constitutional principles
are sourced from basic considerations of due process
and the lack of judicial authority to wade “into the
uncharted ocean of social and economic policy
making.”59

In the same vein, Sec. 1 of Art. XI of the
Constitution is not a self-executing provision
considering that a law should be passed by the
Congress to clearly define and effectuate the
principle embodied therein. As a matter of fact,
pursuant thereto, Congress enacted R.A. No.
6713 (“Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards
for Public Officials and Employees”), R.A. No.
6770 (“The Ombudsman Act of 1989”), R.A. No.
7080 (An Act Defining and Penalizing the Crime
of Plunder), and Republic Act No. 9485 (“Anti--
Red Tape Act of 2007”). To complement these
statutes, the Executive Branch has issued
various orders, memoranda, and instructions
relative to the norms of behavior/code of
conduct/ethical standards of officials and
employees; workflow charts/public transactions;
rules and policies on gifts and benefits; whistle
blowing and reporting; and client feedback
program.
Petitioners’ reliance on Sec. 3(2) of Art. XIV

and Sec. 26 of Art. XVIII of the Constitution is
also misplaced. Sec. 3(2) of Art. XIV refers to the
constitutional duty of educational institutions in
teaching the values of patriotism and
nationalism and respect for human rights, while
Sec. 26 of Art. XVIII is a transitory provision on
sequestration or freeze orders in relation to the
recovery of Marcos’ ill-gotten wealth. Clearly,
with respect to these provisions, there is no
direct or indirect prohibition to Marcos’
interment at the LNMB.
_______________
59 Tañada v. Angara, id., at pp. 580-581; p. 55. (Citations

omitted). The case was cited in Tondo Medical Center
Employees Association v. Court of Appeals, 554 Phil. 609,
625-626; 527 SCRA 746, 764-765 (2007); Bases Conversion
and Development Authority v. Court of Appeals, 599 Phil.
455, 465; 580 SCRA 295, 303 (2009); and Espina v. Zamora,
Jr., 645 Phil. 269, 278-279; 631 SCRA 17, 26 (2010). See also
Manila Prince Hotel v. Government Service Insurance
System, 335 Phil. 82, 101-102; 267 SCRA 408, 477 (1997).

269
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 269

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
The second sentence of Sec. 17 of Art. VII

pertaining to the duty of the President to “ensure
that the laws be faithfully executed,” which is
identical to Sec. 1, Title I, Book III of the

Administrative Code of 1987,60 is likewise not
violated by public respondents. Being the Chief
Executive, the President represents the
government as a whole and sees to it that all
laws are enforced by the officials and employees
of his or her department.61 Under the Faithful
Execution Clause, the President has the power
to take “necessary and proper steps” to carry
into execution the law.62 The mandate is self-
executory by virtue of its being inherently
executive in nature and is intimately related to
the other executive functions.63 It is best
construed as an imposed obligation, not a
separate grant of power.64 The provision simply
underscores the rule of law and, corollarily, the
cardinal principle that the President is not above
the laws but is obliged to obey and execute
them.65
Consistent with President Duterte’s mandate
under Sec. 17, Art. VII of the Constitution, the
burial of Marcos at the LNMB does not
contravene R.A. No. 289, R.A. No. 10368, and
the international human rights laws cited by
petitioners.

A. On R.A. No. 28966

For the perpetuation of their memory and for
the inspiration and emulation of this generation
and of generations still unborn, R.A. No. 289
authorized the construction of a National
Pantheon as the burial place of the mortal
remains of all the Presidents of the Philippines,
_______________
60 Executive Order No. 292, S. 1987, Signed on July 25,

1987.
61 Supra note 39 at p. 451; p. 160.
62 Philippine Constitution Association v. Enriquez, G.R.
Nos. 113105, 113174, 113766, and 113888, August 19, 1994,
235 SCRA 506, 552.
63 Saguisag v. Ochoa, Jr., G.R. Nos. 212426 & 212444,
January 12, 2016, 779 SCRA 241, 339.
The Executive Secretary, supra note 46 at p. 164; p. 309, as
cited in Saguisag v. Ochoa, Jr., supra.
65 Id.
66 Entitled “AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
NATIONAL PANTHEON FOR PRESIDENTS OF THE PHILIPPINES,

NATIONAL HEROES AND PATRIOTS OF THE COUNTRY,” approved on
June 16, 1948.

270

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
national heroes and patriots.67 It also provided

for the creation of a Board on National Pantheon
to implement the law.68
On May 12, 1953, President Elpidio R.
Quirino approved the site of the National
Pantheon at East Avenue, Quezon City.69 On
December 23, 1953, he issued Proclamation No.
431 to formally “withdraw from sale or
settlement and reserve as a site for the
construction of the National Pantheon a certain
parcel of land located in Quezon City.” However,

on July 5, 1954, President Magsaysay issued
Proclamation No. 42 revoking Proclamation Nos.
422 and 431, both Series of 1953, and reserving
the parcels of land embraced therein for national
park purposes to be known as Quezon Memorial
Park.
It is asserted that Sec. 1 of R.A. No 289
provides for the legal standard by which a
person’s mortal remains may be interred at the
LNMB, and that AFP Regulations G 161-375
merely implements the law and
_______________
67 Section 1.
68 Sec. 2. There is hereby created a Board on National
Pantheon composed of the Secretary of the Interior, the
Secretary of Public Works and Communications and the
Secretary of Education and two private citizens to be
appointed by the President of the Philippines with the
consent of the Commission on Appointments which shall
have the following duties and functions:
(a) To determine the location of a suitable site for the
construction of the said National Pantheon, and to have such
site acquired, surveyed and fenced for this purpose and to
delimit and set aside a portion thereof wherein shall be
interred the remains of all Presidents of the Philippines and
another portion wherein the remains of heroes, patriots and
other great men of the country shall likewise be interred;
(b) To order and supervise the construction thereon of
uniform monuments, mausoleums, or tombs as the Board
may deem appropriate;
(c) To cause to be interred therein the mortal remains of
all Presidents of the Philippines, the national heroes and
patriots;
(d) To order and supervise the construction of a suitable

road leading to the said National Pantheon from the nearest
national or provincial road; and
(e) To perform such other functions as may be necessary
to carry out the purposes of this Act.
69 Office of the President of the Philippines. (1953).
Official Month in Review. Official Gazette of the Republic of
the Philippines, 49(5), lxv-lxxvi
<http://www.gov.ph/1953/05/01/official-month-in-review-
may-1953/>, (last accessed on October 28, 2016).

271
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 271

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
should not violate its spirit and intent.

Petitioners claim that it is known, both here and
abroad, that Marcos’ acts and deed — the gross
human rights violations, the massive corruption
and plunder of government coffers, and his
military record that is fraught with myths,
factual inconsistencies, and lies — are neither
worthy of perpetuation in our memory nor serve
as a source of inspiration and emulation of the
present and future generations. They maintain
that public respondents are not members of the
Board on National Pantheon, which is
authorized by the law to cause the burial at the
LNMB of the deceased Presidents of the
Petitioners are mistaken. Both in their
pleadings and during the oral arguments, they
miserably failed to provide legal and historical
bases as to their supposition that the LNMB and

the National Pantheon are one and the same.
This is not at all unexpected because the LNMB
is distinct and separate from the burial place
envisioned in R.A. No 289. The parcel of land
subject matter of President Quirino’s
Proclamation No. 431, which was later on
revoked by President Magsaysay’s Proclamation
No. 42, is different from that covered by Marcos’
Proclamation No. 208. The National Pantheon
does not exist at present. To date, the Congress
has deemed it wise not to appropriate any funds
for its construction or the creation of the Board
on National Pantheon. This is indicative of the
legislative will not to pursue, at the moment, the
establishment of a singular interment place for
the mortal remains of all Presidents of the
Perhaps, the Manila North Cemetery, the
Manila South Cemetery, and other equally
distinguished private cemeteries already serve
the noble purpose but without cost to the limited
funds of the government.
Even if the Court treats R.A. No. 289 as
relevant to the issue, still, petitioners’
allegations must fail. To apply the standard that
the LNMB is reserved only for the “decent and
the brave” or “hero” would be violative of public
policy as it will put into question the validity of
the burial of each and every mortal remains
resting therein, and infringe upon the principle
of separation of powers since the allocation of
plots at the LNMB is based on the grant of
authority to the President under existing laws
and regulations. Also, the Court shares the view
of the OSG that the proposed interment is not
equivalent to the consecration of Marcos’ mortal
remains. The act in itself does not confer upon

him the status of

272

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
a “hero.” Despite its name, which is actually a

misnomer, the purpose of the LNMB, both from
legal and historical perspectives, has neither
been to confer to the people buried there the title
of “hero” nor to require that only those interred
therein should be treated as a “hero.” Lastly,
petitioners’ repeated reference to a “hero’s
burial” and “state honors,” without showing
proof as to what kind of burial or honors that
will be accorded to the remains of Marcos, is
speculative until the specifics of the interment
have been finalized by public respondents.

B. On R.A. No. 1036870

For petitioners, R.A. No. 10368 modified AFP
Regulations G 161-375 by implicitly
disqualifying Marcos’ burial at the LNMB
because the
_______________
70 Approved on February 25, 2013, R.A. No. 10368 is the

consolidation of House Bill (H.B.) No. 5990 and Senate Bill
(S.B.) No. 3334. H.B. No. 5990, entitled “An Act Providing
Compensation to Victims of Human Rights Violations During

the Marcos Regime, Documentation of Said Violations,
Appropriating Funds Therefor, and for Other Purposes,” was
cosponsored by Lorenzo R. Tañada III, Edcel C. Lagman,
Rene L. Relampagos, Joseph Emilio A. Abaya, Walden F.
Bello, Kaka J. Bag-ao, Teodoro A. Casiño, Neri Javier
Colmenares, Rafael V. Mariano, Luzviminda C. Ilagan,
Antonio L. Tinio, Emerenciana A. De Jesus, and Raymond V.
Palatino. No member of the House signified an intention to
ask any question during the period of sponsorship and
debate, and no committee or individual amendments were
made during the period of amendments (Congressional
Record, Vol. 2, No. 44, March 14, 2012, p. 3). The bill was
approved on Second Reading (Congressional Record, Vol. 2,
No. 44, March 14, 2012, p. 4). On Third Reading, the bill was
approved with 235 affirmative votes, no negative vote, and
no abstention (Congressional Record, Vol. 2, No. 47, March
21, 2012, p. 15). On the other hand, S.B. No. 3334, entitled
“An Act Providing for Reparation and Recognition of the
Survivors and Relatives of the Victims of Violations of
Human Rights and Other Related Violations During the
Regime of Former President Ferdinand Marcos,
Documentation of Said Violations, Appropriating Funds
Therefor, and for Other Purposes,” was coauthored by Sergio
R. Osmeña III, Teofisto D. Guingona III, Francis G.
Escudero, and Franklin M. Drilon. Senators Drilon and
Panfilo M. Lacson withdrew their reservation to interpellate
on the measure (Senate Journal No. 41, December 10, 2012,
p. 1171). The bill was approved on Second Reading with no
objection (Senate Journal No. 41, December 10, 2012, p.
1172). On Third Reading, the bill was approved with 18
senators voting in favor, none against, and no abstention
(Senate Journal No. 44, December 17, 2012, p. 1281).

273
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 273

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
legislature, which is a co-equal branch of the

government, has statutorily declared his
tyranny as a deposed dictator and has
recognized the heroism and sacrifices of the
Human Rights Violations Victims (HRVVs)71
under his regime. They insist that the intended
act of public respondents damages and makes
mockery of the mandatory teaching of Martial
Law atrocities and of the lives and sacrifices of
its victims. They contend that “reparation”
under R.A. No. 10368 is nonjudicial in nature
but a political action of the State through the
Legislative and Executive branches by providing
administrative relief for the compensation,
recognition, and memorialization of human
rights victims.
We beg to disagree.
Certainly, R.A. No. 10368 recognizes the
heroism and sacrifices of all Filipinos who were
victims of summary execution, torture, enforced
or involuntary disappearance, and other gross
human rights violations committed from
September 21, 1972 to February 25, 1986. To
restore their honor and dignity, the State
acknowledges its moral and legal obligation72 to
provide reparation to said victims and/or their
families for
_______________
71 Human Rights Violations Victim (HRVV) refers to a

person whose human rights were violated by persons acting
in an official capacity and/or agents of the State as defined

herein. In order to qualify for reparation under this Act, the
human rights violation must have been committed during
the period from September 21, 1972 to February 25, 1986:
Provided, however, That victims of human rights violations
that were committed one (1) month before September 21,
1972 and one (1) month after February 25, 1986 shall be
entitled to reparation under this Act if they can establish
that the violation was committed:
(1) By agents of the State and/or persons acting in an
official capacity as defined hereunder;
(2) For the purpose of preserving, maintaining,
supporting or promoting the said regime; or
(3) To conceal abuses during the Marcos regime and/or
the effects of Martial Law. (Sec. 3[c] of R.A. No. 10368).
72 Section 11 Article II and Section 12 Article III of the
1987 Constitution as well as Section 2 of Article II of the
1987 Constitution in relation to the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (ICCPR), the Convention Against Torture
(CAT) and Other

274

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
the deaths, injuries, sufferings, deprivations and

damages they experienced.
In restoring the rights and upholding the
dignity of HRVVs, which is part of the right to
an effective remedy, R.A. No. 10368 entitles
them to monetary and nonmonetary reparation.
Any HRVV qualified under the law73 shall

receive a monetary reparation, which is tax-free
and without prejudice to the receipt of any other
sum from any other person or entity in any case
involving human rights violations.74 Anent the
nonmonetary reparation, the Department of
Health (DOH), the Department of Social Welfare
and Development (DSWD), the Department of
Education (DepEd), the Commission on Higher
Education (CHED), the Technical Education and
Skills Development Authority (TESDA), and
such other government agencies are required to
render the necessary services for the HRVVs
and/or their families, as may be determined by
the Human Rights Victims’ Claims Board
(Board) pursuant to the provisions of the law.75
Additionally, R.A. No. 10368 requires the
recognition of the violations committed against
the HRVVs, regardless of whether they opt to
seek reparation or not. This is manifested by
enshrining their names in the Roll of Human
Rights Violations Victims (Roll) prepared by the
Board.76 The Roll may be displayed in
government agencies designated by the
_______________
Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,

and other international human rights laws and conventions
(See Sec. 2 of R.A. No. 10368).
73 The claimants in the class suit and direct action
plaintiffs in the Human Rights Litigation Against the Estate
of Ferdinand E. Marcos (MDL No. 840, CA No. 86-0390) in
the US Federal District Court of Honolulu, Hawaii wherein a
favorable judgment has been rendered, and the HRVVs
recognized by the Bantayog ng mga Bayani Foundation shall
be extended the conclusive presumption that they are
HRVVs. However, the Human Rights Victims’ Claims Board

is not deprived of its original jurisdiction and its inherent
power to determine the extent of the human rights violations
and the corresponding reparation and/or recognition that
may be granted (See Sec. 17 of R.A. No. 10368).
74 Sec. 4 of R.A. No. 10368.
75 Id., Sec. 5.
76 Id., Sec. 6.

275
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 275

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
HRVV Memorial Commission (Commission).77

Also, a Memorial/Museum/Library shall be
established and a compendium of their sacrifices
shall be prepared and may be readily viewed and
accessed in the internet.78 The Commission is
created primarily for the establishment,
restoration, preservation and conservation of the
Memorial/Museum/ Library/Compendium.79
To memorialize80 the HRVVs, the
Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No.
10368 further mandates that: (1) the database
prepared by the Board derived from the
processing of claims shall be turned over to the
Commission for archival purposes, and made
accessible for the promotion of human rights to
all government agencies and instrumentalities
in order to prevent recurrence of similar abuses,
encourage continuing reforms and contribute to
ending impunity;81 (2) the lessons learned from
Martial Law atrocities and the lives and
sacrifices of HRVVs shall be included in the

basic and higher education curricula, as well as
in continuing adult learning, prioritizing those
most prone to commit human rights violations;82
and (3) the Commission shall publish only those
stories of HRVVs who have given prior informed
consent.83
This Court cannot subscribe to petitioners’
logic that the beneficial provisions of R.A. No.
10368 are not exclusive as it includes the
prohibition on Marcos’ burial at the LNMB. It
would be undue to extend the law beyond what
it actually contemplates. With its victim-
oriented perspective, our legislators could have
easily inserted a provision specifi-
_______________
77 Id.
78 Id.
79 Id., Sec. 27.
80 “Memorialization” refers to the preservation of the
memory of the human rights violations victims, objects,
events and lessons learned during the Marcos regime. This is
part of the inherent obligation of the State to acknowledge
the wrongs committed in the past, to recognize the heroism
and sacrifices of all Filipinos who were victims of gross
human rights violations during Martial Law, and to prevent
the recurrence of similar abuses (Sec. 1[j], Rule II, IRR of
R.A. No. 10368).
81 Sec. 1, Rule VII, IRR of R.A. No. 10368.
82 Id., Sec. 2.
83 Id., Sec. 3.

276

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
cally proscribing Marcos’ interment at the

LNMB as a “reparation” for the HRVVs, but
they did not. As it is, the law is silent and should
remain to be so. This Court cannot read into the
law what is simply not there. It is irregular, if
not unconstitutional, for Us to presume the
legislative will by supplying material details into
the law. That would be tantamount to judicial
legislation.
Considering the foregoing, the enforcement of
the HRVVs’ rights under R.A. No 10368 will
surely not be impaired by the interment of
Marcos at the LNMB. As opined by the OSG, the
assailed act has no causal connection and legal
relation to the law. The subject memorandum
and directive of public respondents do not and
cannot interfere with the statutory powers and
functions of the Board and the Commission.
More importantly, the HRVVs’ entitlements to
the benefits provided for by R.A. No 10368 and
other domestic laws are not curtailed. It must be
emphasized that R.A. No. 10368 does not amend
or repeal, whether express or implied, the
provisions of the Administrative Code or AFP
Regulations G 161-375:
It is a well-settled rule of statutory construction

that repeals by implication are not favored. In order to
effect a repeal by implication, the later statute must
be so irreconcilably inconsistent and repugnant with
the existing law that they cannot be made to reconcile
and stand together. The clearest case possible must be

made before the inference of implied repeal may be
drawn, for inconsistency is never presumed. There
must be a showing of repugnance clear and convincing
in character. The language used in the later statute
must be such as to render it irreconcilable with what
had been formerly enacted. An inconsistency that falls
short of that standard does not suffice. x x x84

C. On International Human Rights
Laws

Petitioners argue that the burial of Marcos at
the LNMB will violate the rights of the HRVVs
to “full” and “effective” reparation, which is
provided under the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights
_______________
84 Remman Enterprises, Inc. v. Professional Regulatory

Board of Real Estate Service, 726 Phil. 104, 118-119; 715
SCRA 293, 308-309 (2014).

277
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 277

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
(ICCPR),85 the Basic Principles and Guidelines

on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for
Victims of Gross Violations of International
Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of

International Humanitarian Law86
_______________
85 Article 2
1. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes
to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory
and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the
present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as
race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other
opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other
status.
2. Where not already provided for by existing legislative
or other measures, each State Party to the present Covenant
undertakes to take the necessary steps, in accordance with
its constitutional processes and with the provisions of the
present Covenant, to adopt such laws or other measures as
may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in
the present Covenant.
3. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes:
(a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms
as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective
remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been
committed by persons acting in an official capacity;
(b) To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy
shall have his right thereto determined by competent
judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any
other competent authority provided for by the legal system of
the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy;
(c) To ensure that the competent authorities shall
enforce such remedies when granted.
86 IX. Reparation for harm suffered
15. Adequate, effective and prompt reparation is
intended to promote justice by redressing gross violations of
international human rights law or serious violations of
international humanitarian law. Reparation should be
proportional to the gravity of the violations and the harm

suffered. In accordance with its domestic laws and
international legal obligations, a State shall provide
reparation to victims for acts or omissions which can be
attributed to the State and constitute gross violations of
international humanitarian law. In cases where a person, a
legal person, or other entity is found liable for reparation to a
victim, such party should provide reparation to the victim or
compensate the State if the State has already provided
reparation to the victim.
16. States should endeavour to establish national
programmes for reparation and other assistance to victims in
the event that the parties liable for the harm suffered are
unable or unwilling to meet their obligations.

278

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
_______________
17. States shall, with respect to claims by victims,

enforce domestic judgements for reparation against
individuals or entities liable for the harm suffered and
endeavour to enforce valid foreign legal judgements for
reparation in accordance with domestic law and
international legal obligations. To that end, States should
provide under their domestic laws effective mechanisms for
the enforcement of reparation judgements.
18. In accordance with domestic law and international
law, and taking account of individual circumstances, victims
of gross violations of international human rights law and

serious violations of international humanitarian law should,
as appropriate and proportional to the gravity of the
violation and the circumstances of each case, be provided
with full and effective reparation, as laid out in principles 19
to 23, which include the following forms: restitution,
compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of
non-repetition.
19. Restitution should, whenever possible, restore the
victim to the original situation before the gross violations of
international humanitarian law occurred. Restitution
includes, as appropriate: restoration of liberty, enjoyment of
human rights, identity, family life and citizenship, return to
one’s place of residence, restoration of employment and
return of property.
20. Compensation should be provided for any
economically assessable damage, as appropriate and
proportional to the gravity of the violation and the
circumstances of each case, resulting from gross violations of
international human rights law and serious violations of
international humanitarian law, such as:
(a) Physical or mental harm;
(b) Lost opportunities, including employment, education
and social benefits;
(c) Material damages and loss of earnings, including loss
of earning potential;
(d) Moral damage;
(e) Costs required for legal or expert assistance,
medicine and medical services, and psychological and social
services.
21. Rehabilitation should include medical and
psychological care as well as legal and social services.
22. Satisfaction should include, where applicable, any or
all of the following:
(a) Effective measures aimed at the cessation of
continuing violations;
(b) Verification of the facts and full and public disclosure

of the truth to the extent that such disclosure does not cause
further harm or threaten the safety and interests of the
victim, the victim’s relatives, witnesses, or persons

279
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 279

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
adopted by the U.N. General Assembly on

December 16, 2005, and the Updated Set of
Principles for the Protection and Promotion of
Human
_______________
who have intervened to assist the victim or prevent the

occurrence of further violations;
(c) The search for the whereabouts of the disappeared,
for the identities of the children abducted, and for the bodies
of those killed, and assistance in the recovery, identification
and reburial of the bodies in accordance with the expressed
or presumed wish of the victims, or the cultural practices of
the families and communities;
(d) An official declaration or a judicial decision restoring
the dignity, the reputation and the rights of the victim and of
persons closely connected with the victim;
(e) Public apology, including acknowledgment of the
facts and acceptance of responsibility;
(f) Judicial and administrative sanctions against persons
liable for the violations;
(g) Commemorations and tributes to the victims;
(h) Inclusion of an accurate account of the violations that

occurred in international human rights law and
international humanitarian law training and in educational
material at all levels.
23. Guarantees of non-repetition should include, where
applicable, any or all of the following measures, which will
also contribute to prevention:
(a) Ensuring effective civilian control of military and
security forces;
(b) Ensuring that all civilian and military proceedings
abide by international standards of due process, fairness and
impartiality;
(c) Strengthening the independence of the judiciary;
(d) Protecting persons in the legal, medical and health
care professions, the media and other related professions,
and human rights defenders;
(e) Providing, on a priority and continued basis, human
rights and international humanitarian law education to all
sectors of society and training for law enforcement officials
as well as military and security forces;
(f) Promoting the observance of codes of conduct and
ethical norms, in particular international standards, by
public servants, including law enforcement, correctional,
media, medical, psychological, social service and military
personnel, as well as by economic enterprises;
(g) Promoting mechanisms for preventing and
monitoring social conflicts and their resolution;
(h) Reviewing and reforming laws contributing to or
allowing gross violations of international human rights law
and serious violations of international humanitarian law.

280

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Rights Through Action to Combat Impunity87

dated February 8, 2005 by the U.N. Economic
and Social Council.
We do not think so. The ICCPR,88 as well as
the U.N. principles on reparation and to combat
impunity, call for the enactment of legislative
measures, establishment of national
programmes, and provision for administrative
and judicial recourse, in accordance with the
country’s constitutional processes, that are
necessary to give effect to human rights
embodied in treaties, covenants and other
international laws. The U.N. principles on
reparation expressly states:
Emphasizing that the Basic Principles and

Guidelines contained herein do not entail new
international or domestic legal obligations but identify
mechanisms, modalities, procedures and methods for
the implementation of existing legal obligations under
international human rights law and international
humanitarian law which are complementary though
different as to their norms[.] [Emphasis supplied]

The Philippines is more than compliant with
its international obligations. When the Filipinos
regained their democratic institutions after
_______________
87 PRINCIPLE 2. THE INALIENABLE RIGHT TO

THE TRUTH
Every people has the inalienable right to know the truth

about past events concerning the perpetration of heinous
crimes and about the circumstances and reasons that led,
through massive or systematic violations, to the perpetration
of those crimes. Full and effective exercise of the right to the
truth provides a vital safeguard against the recurrence of
violations.
PRINCIPLE 3. THE DUTY TO PRESERVE MEMORY
A people’s knowledge of the history of its oppression is
part of its heritage and, as such, must be ensured by
appropriate measures in fulfillment of the State’s duty to
preserve archives and other evidence concerning violations of
human rights and humanitarian law and to facilitate
knowledge of those violations. Such measures shall be aimed
at preserving the collective memory from extinction and, in
particular, at guarding against the development of
revisionist and negationist arguments.
88 Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and
accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of
December 16, 1966, entry into force March 23, 1976, in
accordance with Article 49
<http.//www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx>,
(last accessed on October 28, 2016).

281
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 281

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
the successful People Power Revolution that

culminated on February 25, 1986, the three
branches of the government have done their fair
share to respect, protect and fulfill the country’s
human rights obligations, to wit:
The 1987 Constitution contains provisions

that promote and protect human rights and
social justice.
As to judicial remedies, aside from the writs
of habeas corpus, amparo,89 and habeas data,90
the Supreme Court promulgated on March 1,
2007 Administrative Order No. 25-2007,91 which
provides rules on cases involving extrajudicial
killings of political ideologists and members of
the media. The provision of the Basic Principles
and Guidelines on the prevention of the victim’s
re-traumatization applies in the course of legal
and administrative procedures designed to
provide justice and reparation.92
On the part of the Executive Branch, it issued
a number of administrative and executive
orders. Notable of which are the following:
1. A.O. No. 370 dated December 10, 1997
(Creating the Inter-Agency Coordinating
Committee on Human Rights);
2. E.O. No. 118 dated July 5, 1999 (Providing
for the Creation of a National Committee on
the Culture of Peace);
_______________
89 A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC, Effective on October 24, 2007.

90 A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC, Effective on February 2, 2008.
91 Reiterated in OCA Circular No. 103-07 dated October
16, 2007 and OCA Circular No. 46-09 dated April 20, 2009.
92 VI. Treatment of victims
10. Victims should be treated with humanity and respect
for their dignity and human rights, and appropriate
measures should be taken to ensure their safety, physical
and psychological well-being and privacy, as well as those of
their families. The State should ensure that its domestic
laws, to the extent possible, provide that a victim who has
suffered violence or trauma should benefit from special

consideration and care to avoid his or her re-traumatization
in the course of legal and administrative procedures
designed to provide justice and reparation.

282

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
3. E.O. No. 134 dated July 31, 1999 (Declaring

August 12, 1999 and Every 12th Day of
August Thereafter as International
Humanitarian Law Day);
4. E.O. No. 404 dated January 24, 2005
(Creating the Government of the Republic
of the Philippines Monitoring Committee
[GRPMC] on Human Rights and
International Humanitarian Law);
5. A.O. No. 157 dated August 21, 2006
(Creating an Independent Commission to
Address Media and Activist Killings);
(Strengthening and Increasing the
Membership of the Presidential Human
Rights Committee, and Expanding Further
the Functions of Said Committee);93
7. A.O. No. 181 dated July 3, 2007 (Directing
the Cooperation and Coordination Between
the National Prosecution Service and Other
Concerned Agencies of Government for the
Successful Investigation and Prosecution of
Political and Media Killings);
8. A.O. No. 197 dated September 25, 2007

(DND and AFP Coordination with PHRC
Sub-committee on Killings and
Disappearances);
9. A.O. No. 211 dated November 26, 2007
(Creating a Task Force Against Political
Violence);
(Further Strengthening Government
Policies, Plans, and Programs for the
Effective Promotion and Protection of
Human Rights on the Occasion of the 60th
Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights);
11. E.O. No. 847 dated November 23, 2009
(Creating the Church-Police-Military-
Liaison Committee to Formulate and
Implement a Comprehensive Program to
Establish Strong Partner-
_______________
93 Originated from A.O. No. 101 dated Docember 13,

1988 and A.O. No. 29 dated January 27, 2002.

283
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 283

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
ship Between the State and the Church on

Matters Concerning Peace and Order and
Human Rights);
12. A.O. No. 35 dated November 22, 2012

(Creating the Inter-Agency Committee on
Extra-Legal Killings, Enforced
Disappearances, Torture and Other Grave
Violations of the Right to Life, Liberty and
Security of Persons);
13. A.O. No. 1 dated October 11, 2016
(Creating the Presidential Task Force on
Violations of the Right to Life, Liberty and
Security of the Members of the Media).

Finally, the Congress passed the following
laws affecting human rights:
1. Republic Act No. 7438 (An Act Defining
Certain Rights of Person Arrested, Detained
or Under Custodial Investigation as well as
the Duties of the Arresting, Detaining and
Investigating Officers and Providing
Penalties for Violations Thereof);
2. Republic Act No. 8371 (The Indigenous
Peoples’ Rights Act of 1997);
3. Republic Act No. 9201 (National Human
Rights Consciousness Week Act of 2002);
4. Republic Act No. 9208 (Anti-Trafficking in
Persons Act of 2003);
5. Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence
Against Women and Their Children Act of
2004);
6. Republic Act No. 9344 (Juvenile Justice and
Welfare Act of 2006);
7. Republic Act No. 9372 (Human Security Act
of 2007);
8. Republic Act No. 9710 (The Magna Carta of
Women);
9. Republic Act No. 9745 (Anti-Torture Act of
2009);
10. Republic Act No. 9851 (Philippine Act on

Crimes Against International
Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other
Crimes Against Humanity);
11. Republic Act No. 10121 (Philippine
Disaster Risk Reduction and Management
Act of 2010);

284

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
12. Republic Act No. 10168 (The Terrorism

Financing Prevention and Suppression Act
of 2012);
13. Republic Act No. 10353 (Anti-Enforced or
Involuntary Disappearance Act of 2012);
14. Republic Act No. 10364 (Expanded Anti-
Trafficking In Persons Act of 2012);
15. Republic Act No. 10368 (Human Rights
Victims Reparation and Recognition Act of
2013);
16. Republic Act No. 10530 (The Red Cross
and Other Emblems Act of 2013).

Contrary to petitioners’ postulation, our
nation’s history will not be instantly revised by a
single resolve of President Duterte, acting
through the public respondents, to bury Marcos
at the LNMB. Whether petitioners 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. 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 endeavor of
every freedom-loving citizen of this country.
Notably, complementing the statutory powers
and functions of the Human Rights Victims’
Claims Board and the HRVV Memorial
Commission in the memorialization of HRVVs,
the National Historical Commission of the
Philippines (NHCP), formerly known as the
National Historical Institute (NHI),94 is
mandated to act as the primary government
agency responsible for history and is authorized
to determine all factual matters relating to
official Philippine history.95 Among others, it is
tasked to: (a) conduct and support all kinds of
research relating to Philippine national and
local history; (b) develop educational materials
in various media, implement historical
educational activities for the popularization of
Philippine history, and disseminate, information
regarding Philippine historical events, dates,
places and personages; and (c) actively engage in
the settlement or resolution of controversies or
_______________
94 Sec. 4 of R.A. No. 10086.

95 Id., Sec. 5.

285
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 285

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
issues relative to historical personages, places,

dates and events.96 Under R.A. Nos. 10066
(National Cultural Heritage Act of 2009)97 and
10086 (Strengthening Peoples’ Nationalism
Through Philippine History Act),98 the declared
State policy is to conserve, develop, promote, and
popularize the nation’s historical and cultural
heritage and resources.99 Towards this end,
means shall be provided to strengthen people’s
nationalism, love of country, respect for its
heroes and pride for the people’s
accomplishments by reinforcing the importance
of Philippine national and local history in daily
life with the end in view of raising social
consciousness.100 Utmost priority shall be given
not only with the research on history but also its
popularization.101

II.
The President’s decision to bury
Marcos at
the LNMB is not done whimsically,
capri-
ciously or arbitrarily, out of malice, ill
will
or personal bias

Petitioners contend that the interment of
Marcos at the LNMB will desecrate it as a
sacred and hallowed place and a revered
national shrine where the mortal remains of our
country’s great men and women are interred for
the inspiration and emulation of the present
generation and generations to come. They erred.

A. National Shrines

As one of the cultural properties of the
Philippines, national historical shrines (or
historical shrines) refer to sites or structures
hallowed and
_______________
96 Id.
97 Approved on March 26, 2010.
98 Approved on May 12, 2010 and took effect on June 13,
2010.
99 Sec. 2 of R.A. 10066 and Sec. 2 of R.A. 10086.
100 Id.
101 Id.

286

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
revered for their history or association as

declared by the NHCP.102 The national shrines
created by law and presidential issuance
include, among others: Fort Santiago (Dambana
ng Kalayaan) in Manila;103 all battlefield areas
in Corregidor and Bataan;104 the site of First
Mass in the Philippines in Magallanes,
Limasawa, Leyte;105 Aguinaldo Shrine or
Freedom Shrine in Kawit, Cavite;106 Fort San
Antonio Abad National Shrine in Malate,
Manila;107 Tirad Pass National Shrine in Ilocos

Sur;108 Ricarte Shrine109 and Aglipay Shrine110
in Batac, Ilocos Norte; Liberty Shrine in Lapu-
Lapu, Cebu;111 “Red Beach” or the landing point
of General Douglas MacArthur and the
liberating forces in Baras, Palo, Leyte;112
Dapitan City as a National Shrine City in
Zamboanga Del Norte;113 General Leandro
Locsin Fullon National Shrine in Hamtic,
Antique;114 and Mabini Shrine in Polytechnic
University of the Philippines-Mabini Campus,
Sta. Mesa, Manila.115 As sites of the birth, exile,
imprisonment, detention or death of great and
eminent leaders of the nation, it is the policy of
the Government to hold and keep the national
shrines as sacred and hallowed place.116 P.D. No.
105117 strictly prohibits
_______________
102 See Sec. 4(d) of R.A. 10066 in relation to Sec. 3(u) of

R.A. No. 10066 and Sec. 3(n) of R.A. No. 10086. The
Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 10086
specifically defines National Historical Shrine as “a site or
structure hallowed and revered for its association to national
heroes or historical events declared by the Commission.”
(Art. 6[q], Rule 5, Title I)
103 R.A. No. 597, as amended by R.A. Nos. 1569 and
1607.
104 E.O. No. 58 issued on August 16, 1954 (See Arula v.
Espino, 138 Phil. 570, 589-591; 28 SCRA 540, 555-557
[1969]).
105 R.A. No. 2733.
106 R.A. No. 4039.
107 Proclamation No. 207 dated May 27, 1967.
108 Proclamation No. 433 dated July 23, 1968.
109 R.A. No. 5648.
110 R.A. No. 5649.

111 R.A. No. 5695.
112 Proclamation No. 618 dated October 13, 1969, as
amended by Proclamation No. 1272 dated June 4, 1974.
113 R.A. No. 6468.
114 Batas Pambansa Bilang 309 dated November 14,
1982.
115 Proclamation No. 1992 dated February 8, 2010.
116 P.D. No. 105 dated January 24, 1973.

287
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 287

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
and punishes by imprisonment and/or fine the

desecration of national shrines by disturbing
their peace and serenity through digging,
excavating, defacing, causing unnecessary noise,
and committing unbecoming acts within their
premises. R.A. No. 10066 also makes it
punishable to intentionally modify, alter, or
destroy the original features of, or undertake
construction or real estate development in any
national shrine, monument, landmark and other
historic edifices and structures, declared,
classified, and marked by the NHCP as such,
without the prior written permission from the
National Commission for Culture and the Arts
(NCAA).118
As one of the cultural agencies attached to the
NCAA,119 the NHCP manages, maintains and
administers national shrines, monuments,
historical sites, edifices and landmarks of
significant historico-cultural value.120 In

particular, the NHCP Board has the power to
approve the declaration of historic structures
and sites, such as national shrines, monuments,
landmarks and heritage houses and to
determine the manner of their identification,
maintenance, restoration, conservation,
121
preservation and protection.
Excluded, however, from the jurisdiction of
the NHCP are the military memorials and battle
monuments declared as national shrines, which
have been under the administration,
maintenance and development of the Philippine
Veterans Affairs Office (PVAO) of the DND.
Among the military shrines are: Mt. Samat
National Shrine in Pilar, Bataan;122 Kiangan
War Memorial Shrine in Linda, Kiangan,
Ifugao;123 Capas National Shrine in Capas,
Tarlac;124 Ricarte National Shrine in
_______________
117 Entitled “DECLARING NATIONAL SHRINES AS SACRED

(HALLOWED) PLACES AND PROHIBITING DESECRATION THEREOF”
(Signed on January 24, 1973).
118 Sec. 48(b).
119 Sec. 31(d) of R.A. No. 10066.
120 Sec. 5(d) of R.A. No. 10086.
121 Article 12(e) and (f), Rule 8, Title III of the
Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 10086.
122 Proclamation No. 25 dated April 18, 1966.
123 Proclamation No. 1682 dated October 17, 1977.
124 Proclamation No. 842 dated December 7, 1991 and
R.A. No. 8221.

288

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Malasin, Batac, Ilocos Norte;125 Balantang

Memorial Cemetery National Shrine in Jaro,
Iloilo;126 Balete Pass National Shrine in Sta. Fe,
Nueva Vizcaya;127 USAFIP, NL Military Shrine
and Park in Bessang Pass, Cervantes, Ilocos
Sur;128 and the LNMB in Taguig City, Metro
Manila.129

B. The Libingan ng mga Bayani

At the end of World War II, the entire nation
was left mourning for the death of thousands of
Filipinos. Several places served as grounds for
the war dead, such as the Republic Memorial
Cemetery, the Bataan Memorial Cemetery, and
other places throughout the country. The
Republic Memorial Cemetery, in particular, was
established in May 1947 as a fitting tribute and
final resting place of Filipino military personnel
who died in World War II.
On October 23, 1954, President Ramon D.
Magsaysay, Sr. issued E.O. No. 77, which
ordered “the remains of the war dead interred at
the Bataan Memorial Cemetery, Bataan
Province, and at other places in the Philippines,
be transferred to, and reinterred at, the Republic
Memorial Cemetery at Fort Wm Mckinley, Rizal
Province” so as to minimize the expenses for the
maintenance and upkeep, and to make the
remains accessible to the widows, parents,

children, relatives, and friends.
On October 27, 1954, President Magsaysay
issued Proclamation No. 86, which changed the
name of Republic Memorial Cemetery to
Libingan ng mga Bayani to symbolize “the cause
for which our soldiers have died” and to “truly
express the nation’s esteem and reverence for her
war dead.”130
On July 12, 1957, President Carlos P. Garcia
issued Proclamation No. 423, which reserved for
military purposes, under the administration of
_______________
125 Proclamation No. 228 dated August 12, 1993.

126 Proclamation No. 425 dated July 13, 1994.
127 R.A. No. 10796.
128 <http://server.pvao.mil.ph/PDF/shrines/usafipnl.pdf>,
(last accessed on September 19, 2016).
129 Proclamation No. 208 dated May 28, 1967.
130 See Whereas Clause of Proclamation No. 86.

289
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 289

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
the AFP Chief of Staff, the land where LNMB is

located. The LNMB was part of a military
reservation site then known as Fort Wm
McKinley (now known as Fort Andres Bonifacio).
On May 28, 1967, Marcos issued
Proclamation No. 208, which excluded the
LNMB from the Fort Bonifacio military

reservation and reserved the LNMB for national
shrine purposes under the administration of the
National Shrines Commission (NSC) under the
DND.
On September 24, 1972, Marcos, in the
exercise of his powers as the AFP Commander-
in-Chief, and pursuant to Proclamation No. 1081
dated September 21, 1972, and General Order
No. 1 dated September 22, 1972, as amended,
issued Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1 which
reorganized the Executive Branch of the
National Government through the adoption of
the Integrated Reorganization Plan (IRP).
Section 7, Article XV, Chapter I, Part XII thereof
abolished the NSC and its functions together
with applicable appropriations, records,
equipment, property and such personnel as may
be necessary were transferred to the NHI under
the Department of Education (DEC). The NHI
was responsible for promoting and preserving
the Philippine cultural heritage by undertaking,
inter alia, studies on Philippine history and
national heroes and maintaining national
shrines and monuments.131
Pending the organization of the DEC, the
functions relative to the administration,
maintenance and development of national
shrines tentatively integrated into the PVAO in
July 1973.
On January 26, 1977, President Marcos
issued P.D. No. 1076. Section 7, Article XV,
Chapter I, Part XII of the IRP was repealed on
the grounds that “the administration,
shrines consisting of military memorials or battle
monuments can be more effectively accomplished
if they are removed from the [DEC] and

transferred to the [DND] by reason of the latter’s
greater capabilities and resources” and that “the
functions of the [DND] are more closely related
and relevant to the charter or significance of said
national shrines.” Henceforth, the PVAO —
through the Military Shrines Service (MSS),
which was created to perform the functions of
the abolished NSC —
_______________
131 Section 1, Article XV, Chapter I, Part XII of the IRP.

290

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
would administer, maintain and develop

military memorials and battle monuments
proclaimed as national shrines.
On July 25, 1987, President Corazon C.
Aquino issued the Administrative Code. The
Code retains PVAO under the supervision and
control of the Secretary of National Defense.132
Among others, PVAO shall administer, develop
and maintain military shrines.133 With the
approval of PVAO Rationalization Plan on June
29, 2010, pursuant to E.O. No. 366 dated
October 4, 2004, MSS was renamed to Veterans
Memorial and Historical Division, under the
supervision and control of PVAO, which is
presently tasked with the management and

development of military shrines and the
perpetuation of the heroic deeds of our nation’s
veterans.
As a national military shrine, the main
features, structures, and facilities of the LNMB
are as follows:
1. Tomb of the Unknown Soldiers – The main

structure constructed at the center of the cemetery
where wreath laying ceremonies are held when
Philippine government officials and foreign
dignitaries visit the LNMB. The following
inscription is found on the tomb: “Here lies a
Filipino soldier whose name is known only to God.”
Behind the tomb are three marble pillars
representing the three main island groups of the
Philippines — Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao.
Buried here were the remains of 39,000 Filipino
soldiers who were originally buried in Camp
O’Donnell Concentration Camp and Fort Santiago,
Intramuros, Manila.
2. Heroes Memorial Gate – A structure shaped in
the form of a large concrete tripod with a stairway
leading to an upper view deck and a metal
sculpture at the center. This is the first imposing
structure one sees upon entering the grounds of the
cemetery complex.
3. Black Stone Walls – Erected on opposite sides of
the main entrance road leading to the Tomb of the
Unknown Soldiers and just near the Heroes
Memorial are two 12-foot high black
_______________
132 Book IV, Title VIII, Subtitle II, Chapter 1, Sec. 18.
133 Id., Chapter 5, Sec. 32(4).

291
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 291

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
stone walls which bear the words, “I do not know

the dignity of his birth, but I do know the glory of
his death.” that General Douglas MacArthur made
during his sentimental journey to the Philippines
in 1961.
4. Defenders of Bataan and Corregidor
Memorial Pylon – Inaugurated on April 5, 1977
by Secretary Renato S. De Villa in memory of the
defenders of Bataan and Corregidor during World
War II. This monument is dedicated as an eternal
acknowledgment of their valor and sacrifice in
defense of the Philippines.
5. Korean Memorial Pylon – A towering monument
honoring the 112 Filipino officers and men who, as
members of the Philippine Expeditionary Forces to
Korea (PEFTOK), perished during the Korean War.
6. Vietnam Veterans Memorial Pylon – Dedicated
to the members of the Philippine Contingents and
Philippine Civic Action Groups to Vietnam
(PHILCON-V and PHILCAG-V) who served as
medical, dental, engineering construction,
community and psychological workers, and security
complement. They offered tremendous sacrifices as
they alleviated human suffering in war-ravaged
Vietnam from 1964-1971. Inscribed on the
memorial pylon are the words: “To build and not to
destroy, to bring the Vietnamese people happiness
and not sorrow, to develop goodwill and not

hatred.”
7. Philippine World War II Guerillas Pylon –
Erected by the Veterans Federation of the
Philippines as a testimony to the indomitable spirit
and bravery of the Filipino guerillas of World War
II who refused to be cowed into submission and
carried on the fight for freedom against an enemy
with vastly superior arms and under almost
insurmountable odds. Their hardship and
sufferings, as well as their defeats and victories,
are enshrined in this memorial.134
_______________
134 See Annex to the Manifestation of the AFP Adjutant

General and
<http://server.pvao.mil.ph/PDF/shrines/libingan.pdf> (last
accessed on October 25, 2016).

292

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Contrary to the dissent, P.D. No. 105135 does

not apply to the LNMB. Despite the fact that
P.D. No. 208 predated P.D. No. 105,136 the
LNMB was not expressly included in the
national shrines enumerated in the latter.137
The proposition that the LNMB is implicitly
covered in the catchall phrase “and others which
may be proclaimed in the future as National

Shrines” is erroneous because:
(1) As stated, Marcos issued P.D. No. 208 prior
to P.D. No. 105.
(2) Following the canon of statutory
construction known as ejusdem generis,138 the
LNMB is not a site “of the birth, exile,
imprisonment, de-
_______________
135 P.D. No. 105 is an issuance of Marcos, acting as the

AFP Commander-in-Chief and by virtue of his powers under
the Martial Law. It was not a law that was enacted by the
Congress.
136 P.D. No. 208 was signed on May 28, 1967 while P.D.
No. 105 was signed on January 24, 1973.
137 Among those named were the birthplace of Dr. Jose
Rizal in Calamba, Laguna, Talisay, Dapitan City, where the
hero was exiled for four years, Fort Santiago, Manila, where
he was imprisoned in 1896 prior to his execution; Talaga,
Tanauan, Batangas where Apolinario Mabini was born,
Pandacan, Manila, where Mabini’s house in which he died, is
located; Aguinaldo Mansion in Kawit, Cavite, where General
Emilio Aguinaldo, first President of the Philippines, was
born, and where Philippine Independence was solemnly
proclaimed on June 12, 1898; and Batan, Aklan, where the
“Code of Kalantiyaw” was promulgated in 1433.
138 Under the principle of ejusdem generis, “where a
general word or phrase follows an enumeration of particular
and specific words of the same class or where the latter
follow the former, the general word or phrase is to be
construed to include, or to be restricted to persons, things or
cases akin to, resembling, or of the same kind or class as
those specifically mentioned.”
The purpose and rationale of the principle was explained
by the Court in National Power Corporation v. Angas as
follows:
The purpose of the rule on ejusdem generis is to give effect to

both the particular and general words, by treating the particular
words as indicating the class and the general words as including all
that is embraced in said class, although not specifically named by
the particular words. This is justified on the ground that if the
lawmaking body intended the general terms to be used in their
unrestricted sense, it would have not made an enumeration of
particular subjects but would have used only general terms. [2
Sutherland, Statutory

293
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 293

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
tention or death of great and eminent leaders of

the nation.” What P.D. No. 105 contemplates are
the following national shrines: Fort Santiago
(“Dambana ng Kalayaan”), all battlefield areas
in Corregidor and Bataan, the site of First Mass
in the Philippines, Aguinaldo Shrine or Freedom
Shrine, Fort San Antonio Abad National Shrine,
Tirad Pass National Shrine, Ricarte Shrine,
Aglipay Shrine, Liberty Shrine, “Red Beach” or
the landing point of General Douglas MacArthur
and the liberating forces, Dapitan City, General
Leandro Locsin Fullon National Shrine, and
Mabini Shrine. Excluded are the military
memorials and battle monuments declared as
national shrines under the PVAO, such as: Mt.
Samat National Shrine, Kiangan War Memorial
Shrine, Capas National Shrine, Ricarte National
Shrine, Balantang Memorial Cemetery National

Shrine, Balete Pass National Shrine; USAFIP,
NL Military Shrine and Park, and the LNMB.
(3) Since its establishment, the LNMB has
been a military shrine under the jurisdiction of
the PVAO. While P.D. No. 1 dated September
24, 1972 transferred the administration,
shrines to the NHI under the DEC, it never
actually materialized. Pending the organization
of the DEC, its functions relative to national
shrines were tentatively integrated into the
PVAO in July 1973. Eventually, on January 26,
1977, Marcos issued P.D. No. 1076. The PVAO,
through the MSS, was tasked to administer,
maintain, and develop military memorials and
battle monuments proclaimed as national
shrines. The reasons being that “the
administration, maintenance and development of
national shrines consisting of military memorials
or battle monuments can be more effectively
accomplished if they are removed from the [DEC]
and transferred to the [DND] by reason of the
latter’s greater capabilities and resources” and
that “the functions of the [DND] are more closely
related and relevant to the charter or significance
of said national shrines.”
_______________
Construction, 3rd ed., pp. 395-400]. (See Pelizloy Realty Corp. v.

Province of Benguet, 708 Phil. 466, 480-481; 695 SCRA 491, 505-506
[2013], as cited in Alta Vista Golf and Country Club v. City of Cebu,
G.R. No. 180235, January 20, 2016, 781 SCRA 335, 357-360)

294

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
The foregoing interpretation is neither

narrow and myopic nor downright error.
Instead, it is consistent with the letter and
intent of P.D. No. 105.
Assuming that P.D. No. 105 is applicable, the
descriptive words “sacred and hallowed” refer to
the LNMB as a place and not to each and every
mortal remains interred therein. Hence, the
burial of Marcos at the LNMB does not diminish
said cemetery as a revered and respected
ground. Neither does it negate the presumed
individual or collective “heroism” of the men and
women buried or will be buried therein. The
“nations esteem and reverence for her war dead,”
as originally contemplated by President
Magsaysay in issuing Proclamation No. 86, still
stands unaffected. That being said, the
interment of Marcos, therefore, does not
constitute a violation of the physical, historical,
and cultural integrity of the LNMB as a national
military shrine.
At this juncture, reference should be made to
Arlington National Cemetery (Arlington), which
is identical to the LNMB in terms of its
prominence in the U.S. It is not amiss to point
that our armed forces have been patterned after
the U.S. and that its military code produced a
salutary effect in the Philippines’ military
justice system.139 Hence, relevant military rules,
regulations, and practices of the U.S. have
persuasive, if not the same, effect in this

jurisdiction.
As one of the U.S. Army national military
cemeteries,140 the Arlington is under the
jurisdiction of the Department of the Army.141
The Secretary of the U.S. Army has the
responsibility to develop, operate, manage,
administer, oversee, and fund the Army national
military cemeteries in a manner and to
standards that fully honor the service and
sacrifices of the deceased members of the armed
forces buried or inurned therein, and shall
prescribe such regulations and policies as may
be necessary to administer the cemeteries.142 In
addition, the Secretary of the U.S. Army
_______________
139 See Cudia v. The Superintendent of the Philippine

Military Academy (PMA), G.R. No. 211362, February 24,
2015, 751 SCRA 469, 542.
140 Also includes the United States Soldiers’ and
Airmen’s National Cemetery in the District of Columbia.
141 See 32 C.F.R. § 553.3 and 10 U.S.C.A. § 4721.
142 Id.

295
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 295

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
is empowered to appoint an advisory committee,

which shall make periodic reports and
recommendations as well as advise the Secretary
with respect to the administration of the

cemetery, the erection of memorials at the
cemetery, and master planning for the
cemetery.143
Similar to the Philippines, the U.S. national
cemeteries are established as national shrines in
tribute to the gallant dead who have served in
the U.S. Armed Forces.144 The areas are
protected, managed and administered as
suitable and dignified burial grounds and as
significant cultural resources.145 As such, the
authorization of activities that take place
therein is limited to those that are consistent
with applicable legislation and that are
compatible with maintaining their solemn
commemorative and historic character.146
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 turn, 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.147 This is why President Duterte
is not bound by the alleged 1992 Agreement148
between former President
_______________
143 10 U.S.C.A. § 4723.

144 36 C.F.R. § 12.2.
145 Id.
146 Id.
147 See National Electrification Administration v.

Commission on Audit, 427 Phil. 464, 485; 377 SCRA 223, 240
(2002).
148 On August 19, 1992, the Government of the Republic
of the Philippines, represented by Department of Interior
and Local Government (DILG) Secretary Rafael M. Alunan
III, and the family of the late President Marcos, represented
by his widow, Mrs. Imelda R. Marcos, agreed on the
following conditions and procedures by which the remains of
the former President shall be brought back to and interred in
the Philippines:

296

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
_______________
I
It is hereby agreed that the remains of former President
Ferdinand E. Marcos shall be allowed to be brought back to the
Philippines from Hawaii, USA on 1 September 1992.
II
That the remains shall be brought directly from Hawaii, USA to
Laoag, Ilocos Norte by means of an aircraft which shall fly directly
to its port of destination at Laoag International Airport, Laoag,
Ilocos Norte. It shall be understood that once the aircraft enters the
Philippine area of responsibility, stopover for whatever reason in
any airport other than the airport of destination shall be allowed
only upon prior clearance from the Philippine Government.
III
That the family of the late President Marcos undertakes to fix a

wake period of nine (9) days beginning 1 September 1992 to allow
friends, relatives and supporters to pay their courtesy, last respect
and homage to the former President at the Marcos family home at
Batac, Ilocos Norte. It shall undertake further to maintain peaceful
and orderly wake and/or help and cooperate with the local
government authorities ensure that the same will not be used to
foment and promote civil disorder.
IV
That the remains shall be buried [temporarily interred] on the
9th of September 1992 at the family burial grounds at Batac, Ilocos
Norte, provided that any transfer of burial grounds shall be with
prior clearance from the Philippine Government taking into account
the prevailing socio-political climate.
V
The government shall provide appropriate military honors
during the wake and interment, the details of which shall be
arranged and finalized by and between the parties thereto.
VI
The Government shall ensure that the facilities at Laoag
International Airport will allow for a safe landing as well as
processing of incoming passengers, their cargoes and/or existing
laws and regulations.

297
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 297

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Ramos and the Marcos family to have the

remains of Marcos interred in Batac, Ilocos
Norte. As the incumbent President, he is free to
amend,
_______________
On August 26, 1992, DILG Secretary Alunan informed

Mrs. Marcos of the government’s decision that former
President Marcos be accorded honors befitting a war veteran,
and a former member of the AFP which, in general terms,
includes the following: Flag Draped Coffin, Vigil Guards
during the wake, Honor Guard, Firing Detail, Taps, and
Pallbearers composed of retired generals under his
command.
On August 25, 1993, Roque R. Ablan, Jr. wrote DILG
Secretary Alunan, confirming the previous arrangements
between him and Mrs. Marcos, and also the arrangements
made by Ablan before President Fidel V. Ramos on the
following matters:
1. Direct flight of the remains of the late Pres.
Marcos from Honolulu to Laoag.
2. That there will be an interim burial of the late
Pres. Marcos in Batac, Ilocos Norte until such time
when President Ramos will feel that the healing
period would have been attain[ed] and that he shall be
transferred to Manila for final burial.
3. That the remains will not be paraded to the
other provinces.
4. That [Ablan] discussed this with Mrs. Marcos
this morning and that she had given me full authority
to assure the government that everything will be in
accordance with the memo of understanding, and the
pronouncement made by President Ramos that the
remains can stay at the Don Mariano Marcos State
University provided no government expenditures will
be incurred and that the place will not be disturbed.
Ablan also informed DILG Secretary Alunan of the
following details: (1) the remains of former President Marcos
would arrive in Laoag City, Ilocos Norte on September 7,
1993; (2) from the airport, the remains would be brought to
the Laoag City Cathedral, and after the mass, it would be
brought to the Capitol for public viewing; (3) on the next day,
the remains would be brought to Batac where it should be
placed side by side with the late Doña Josefa Edralin
Marcos; (4) that on September 9, Doña Josefa Marcos would
be buried in the cemetery besides Governor Elizabeth
Marcos Roca; and (5) on September 10, the late President
Marcos would be buried in the mausoleum.
On September 10, 1993, the coffin of former President
Marcos was opened inside the mausoleum and was
subsequently placed inside a transparent glass for viewing.

298

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
revoke or rescind political agreements entered

into by his predecessors, and to determine
policies which he considers, based on informed
judgment and presumed wisdom, will be most
effective in carrying out his mandate.
Moreover, under the Administrative Code, the
President has the power to reserve for public use
and for specific public purposes any of the lands
of the public domain and that the reserved land
shall remain subject to the specific public
purpose indicated until otherwise provided by
law or proclamation.149 At 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. The allotment of a cemetery plot at
the LNMB for Marcos as a former President and
Commander-in-Chief,150 a legislator,151 a
152
Secretary of National Defense, a military
153 154
personnel, a veteran, and a Medal of Valor
awardee,155
_______________
149 Book III, Title I, Chapter 4, Section 14 of the

Administrative Code.
150 From December 30, 1965 until February 25, 1986
when he and his immediate family members were forcibly
exiled in the USA because of the EDSA People Power
Revolution.
151 He was an Assemblyman (1949 to 1959) and a
Senator (1959-1965), serving as Senate President during his
last three (3) years.
152 From December 31, 1965 to January 20, 1967.
153 On November 15, 1941, Marcos was called and
inducted to the United States Armed Forces in the Far East
(USAFFE) as Third Lieutenant. From November 16, 1941 to
April 8, 1942, he was assigned as assistant G-2 of the 21st
(Lightning) Division of the USAFFE, where he attained the
rank of First Lieutenant. He was then promoted to the rank
of Colonel under Special Orders No. 68 dated September 25,
1962. In Special Orders No. 264 dated June 11, 1963 and
General Orders No. 265 dated May 19, 1964, he remained
listed as Colonel. (See Annex “13” of the Consolidated
Comment filed by the OSG).
154 The PVAO recognized Marcos as a member of the
retired army personnel. Based on a Certification dated
August 18, 2016 issued by PVAO’s Records Management
Division Chief, respondent Imelda Romualdez Marcos is
receiving P5,000.00 as Old Age Pension, being the surviving
spouse of a retired veteran under R.A. No. 6948, as amended.
(See Annex “12” of the Consolidated Comment filed by the
OSG).
155 During his military career, Marcos was awarded a

Medal of Valor through General Orders No. 167 dated
October 16, 1968 “for extraordinary gallantry and intrepidity
at the risk of life, above and beyond the call of duty in a

299
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 299

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
whether recognizing his contributions or simply

his status as such, satisfies the public use
requirement. The disbursement of public funds
to cover the expenses incidental to the burial is
granted to compensate him for valuable public
services rendered.156 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.

C. AFP Regulations on the LNMB

A review of the regulations issued by the AFP

Chief of Staff as to who may and may not be
interred at the LNMB underscores the nature
and purpose of the LNMB as an active military
cemetery/grave site.
On May 13, 1947, the Chief of Staff of the
Philippine Army, by the direction of the
President and by order of the Secretary of
National Defense, issued General Orders No.
111, which constituted and activated, as of said
date, the Graves Registration Platoon as a unit
of the Philippine Army.
On February 2, 1960, the AFP Chief of Staff,
by order of the Secretary of National Defense,
issued AFP Regulations G 161-371
(Administrative and Special Staff Services,
Grave Registration Service), which provided that
the following may be interred in the LNMB: (a)
World War II dead of the AFP and recognized
guerillas; (b) Current dead of the AFP; (c)
Retired military personnel of the AFP; (d)
Remains of former members of the AFP
_______________
suicidal action against overwhelming enemy forces at the

junction of Salian River and Abo-Abo River, Bataan, on or
about 22 January 1942.” (See Annex “14” of Consolidated
Comment filed by the OSG).
156 See Yap v. Commission on Audit, 633 Phil. 174, 188;
619 SCRA 154, 166-167 (2010).

300

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
who died while in the active service and in the

Retired List of the AFP now interred at different
cemeteries and other places throughout the
Philippines or the Secretary of National Defense;
and (e) Others upon approval of the Congress of
the Philippines, the President of the Philippines
or the Secretary of National Defense. The
regulation also stated that the AFP
Quartermaster General will be responsible for,
among other matters, the efficient operation of
the Graves Registration Service; the interment,
disinterment and reinterment of the dead
mentioned above; and preservation of military
cemeteries, national cemeteries, and memorials.
On July 31, 1973, the AFP Chief of Staff, by
order of the Secretary of National Defense,
issued AFP Regulations G 161-372
(Administration and Operation of AFP Graves
Registration Installations), which superseded
AFP Regulations G 161-371. It provided that the
following may be interred in the LNMB: (a)
Deceased Veterans of the Philippine Revolution
of 1896/World War I; (b) Deceased World War II
members of the AFP and recognized guerillas; (c)
Deceased military personnel of the AFP who
died while in the active duty; (d) Deceased
retired military personnel of the AFP; (e)
Deceased military personnel of the AFP interred
at different cemeteries and other places outside
the LNMB; and (f) Such remains of persons as
the Commander-in-Chief of the AFP may direct.
The remains of the following were not allowed to
be interred in the LNMB: (a) The spouse of an
active, or retired, deceased military personnel,

recognized guerillas who himself/herself is not a
military personnel; and (b) AFP personnel who
were retireable but
separated/reverted/discharged for cause, or
joined and aided the enemy of the Republic of
the Philippines, or were convicted of capital or
other criminal offenses, involving moral
turpitude. The regulation also stated that the
Quartermaster General shall be responsible for,
among other matters, the efficient operation of
the AFP graves registration installations; the
interment, disinterment and reinterment of
deceased military personnel mentioned above;
and the preservation of military cemeteries,
proper marking and official recording of graves
therein.
On April 9, 1986, AFP Chief of Staff Fidel V.
Ramos, by order of National Defense Minister,
issued AFP Regulations G 161-373 (Allocation of
Cemetery Plots at the Libingan ng mga Bayani),
which superseded

301
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 301

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
AFP Regulations G 161-372. It enumerated a list

of deceased person who may be interred at the
LNMB, namely: (a) Medal of Valor Awardees; (b)
Presidents or Commanders-in-Chief, AFP; (c)
Ministers of National Defense; (d) Chiefs of
Staff, AFP; (e) General/Flag Officers of the AFP;
(f) Active and retired military personnel of the

AFP; (g) Veterans of Philippine Revolution of
1896, WWI, WWII and recognized guerillas; and
(h) Government Dignitaries, Statesmen,
National Artist and other deceased persons
whose interment or reinterment has been
approved by the Commander-in-Chief, Batasang
Pambansa or the Minister of National Defense.
The regulation also stated that the
Quartermaster General shall be responsible for
the allocation of specific section/areas for the
said deceased persons, while the Commanding
Officer of the Quartermaster Graves
Registration Company shall be charged with the
preparation of grave sites, supervision of burials
at LNMB and the registration of graves.
On March 27, 1998, the AFP Chief of Staff, by
order of the Secretary of National Defense,
issued AFP Regulations G 161-374 (Allocation of
Cemetery Plots at the Libingan ng mga Bayani),
which superseded AFP Regulations G 161-373.
It provided that the following may be interred in
the LNMB: (a) Medal of Valor Awardees; (b)
Secretaries of National Defense; (d) Chiefs of
AFP; (g) Veterans of Philippine Revolution of
1890, WWI, WWII and recognized guerillas; (h)
Government Dignitaries, Statesmen, National
Artists and other deceased persons whose
interment or reinterment has been approved by
the Commander-in-Chief, Congress or Secretary
of National Defense; and (i) Former Presidents,
Secretaries of Defense, CSAFP, Generals/Flag
Officers, Dignitaries, Statesmen, National
Artists, widows of former Presidents, Secretaries
of National Defense and Chief of Staff. The

remains of the following were not allowed to be
interred in the LNMB: (a) Personnel who were
dishonorably separated/reverted/discharged
from the service; and (b) Authorized personnel
who were convicted by final judgment of an
offense involving moral turpitude. Like AFP
Regulations G 161-373, it stated that the
Quartermaster General shall be responsible for
the allocation of specific section/areas for the
deceased persons, whereas the Commanding
Officer of the Quartermaster Graves
Registration Unit shall be

302

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
charged with the preparation of grave sites,

supervision of burials, and the registration of
graves.
Finally, on September 11, 2000, the AFP
Chief of Staff, by the order of the Secretary of
National Defense, issued AFP Regulations G
161-375 (Allocation of Cemetery Plots at the
Libingan ng mga Bayani), which superseded
AFP Regulations G 161-374. The regulation
stated that the Chief of Staff shall be responsible
for the issuance of interment directive for all
active military personnel for interment,
authorized personnel (such as those former
members of the AFP who laterally entered or
joined the Philippine Coast Guard [PCG] and

the Philippine National Police [PNP]), and
retirees, veterans and reservists enumerated
therein. The Quartermaster General is tasked to
exercise overall supervision in the
implementation of the regulation and the
Commander ASCOM, PA through the
Commanding Officer of Grave Services Unit is
charged with the registration of the
deceased/graves, the allocation of specific
section/area at the LNMB for interment of
deceased, the preparation of grave sites, and the
supervision of burials.
Under AFP Regulations G 161-375, the
following are eligible for interment at the
LNMB: (a) Medal of Valor Awardees; (b)
Secretaries of National Defense; (d) Chiefs of
AFP to include active draftees and trainees who
died in line of duty, active reservists and
CAFGU Active Auxiliary (CAA) who died in
combat operations or combat related activities;
(g) Former members of the AFP who laterally
entered or joined the PCG and the PNP; (h)
Veterans of Philippine Revolution of 1890, WWI,
WWII and recognized guerillas; (i) Government
Dignitaries, Statesmen, National Artists and
other deceased persons whose interment or
reinterment has been approved by the
Commander-in-Chief, Congress or the Secretary
of National Defense; and (j) Former Presidents,
Secretaries of Defense, Dignitaries, Statesmen,
National Artists, widows of Former Presidents,
Secretaries of National Defense and Chief of
Staff. Similar to AFP Regulations G 161-374, the
following are not qualified to be interred in the

LNMB: (a) Personnel who were dishonorably
separated/reverted/discharged from the service;
and (b) Authorized personnel who were
convicted by final judgment of an offense
involving moral turpitude.

303
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 303

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
In the absence of any executive issuance or

law to the contrary, the AFP Regulations G 161-
375 remains to be the sole authority in
determining who are entitled and disqualified to
be interred at the LNMB. Interestingly, even if
they were empowered to do so, former
Presidents Corazon C. Aquino and Benigno
Simeon C. Aquino III, who were themselves
aggrieved at the Martial Law, did not revise the
rules by expressly prohibiting the burial of
Marcos at the LNMB. The validity of AFP
Regulations G 161-375 must, therefor, be
sustained for having been issued by the AFP
Chief of Staff acting under the direction of the
Secretary of National Defense, who is the alter
ego of the President.
x x x In Joson v. Torres, we explained the concept

of the alter ego principle or the doctrine of qualified
political agency and its limit in this wise:
Under this doctrine, which recognizes the
establishment of a single executive, all executive and
administrative organizations are adjuncts of the
Executive Department, the heads of the various

executive departments are assistants and agents of
the Chief Executive, and, except in cases where
the Chief Executive is required by the
Constitution or law to act in person or the
exigencies of the situation demand that he act
personally, the multifarious executive and
administrative functions of the Chief Executive are
performed by and through the executive departments,
and the acts of the Secretaries of such departments,
performed and promulgated in the regular course of
business, are, unless disapproved or reprobated by the
Chief Executive presumptively the acts of the Chief
Executive. (Emphasis ours, citation omitted)157

It has been held that an administrative
regulation adopted pursuant to law has the force
and effect of law and, until set aside, is binding
upon executive and administrative agencies,
including the President as the chief executor of
laws.158
_______________
157 Resident Marine Mammals of the Protected Seascape

Tañon Strait v. Reyes, G.R. Nos. 180771 & 181527, April 21,
2015, 756 SCRA 513, 560-561.
158 National Artist for Literature Virgilio Almario, et al.
v. The Executive Secretary, supra note 46 at p. 166; pp. 312-
313.

304

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
1. Qualification under the AFP

Regulations

AFP Regulations G 161-375 should not be
stricken down in the absence of clear and
unmistakable showing that it has been issued
with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction. Neither could it be
considered ultra vires for purportedly providing
incomplete, whimsical, and capricious standards
for qualification for burial at the LNMB.
To compare, We again refer to the U.S. Army
regulations on Arlington. In the U.S., the
Secretary of the Army, with the approval of the
Secretary of Defense, determines eligibility for
interment or inurnment in the Army national
military cemeteries.159 Effective October 26,
2016, the rule160 is as follows:
Only those who qualify as a primarily eligible person

or a derivatively eligible person are eligible for
interment in Arlington National Cemetery, unless
otherwise prohibited as provided for in §§ 553.19161-
553.20,162 provided that the last period of active duty
of the service member or veteran ended with an
honorable discharge.
_______________
159 10 U.S.C.A. § 4722.

160 32 C.F.R. § 553.12.
161 The following persons are not eligible for interment,
inurnment, or memorialization in an Army National Military
Cemetery:
(a) A father, mother, brother, sister, or in-law solely on

the basis of his or her relationship to a primarily eligible
person, even though the individual is:
(1) Dependent on the primarily eligible person for
support; or
(2) A member of the primarily eligible person’s
household.
(b) A person whose last period of service was not
characterized as an honorable discharge (e.g., a separation or
discharge under general but honorable conditions, other than
honorable conditions, a conduct discharge, a dishonorable
discharge, or a dismissal), regardless of whether the person:
(1) Received any other veterans’ benefits; or
(2) Was treated at a Department of Veterans Affairs
hospital or died in such a hospital.
(c) A person who has volunteered for service with the
U.S. Armed Forces, but has not yet entered on active duty.
(d) A former spouse whose marriage to the primarily
eligible person ended in divorce.

305
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 305

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
_______________
(e) A spouse who predeceases the primarily eligible

person and is interred or inurned in a location other than
Arlington National Cemetery, and the primarily eligible
person remarries.
(f) A divorced spouse of a primarily eligible person.
(g) Otherwise derivatively eligible persons, such as a
spouse or minor child, if the primarily eligible person was
not or will not be interred or inurned at Arlington National

Cemetery.
(h) A service member who dies while on active duty, if
the first General Courts Martial Convening Authority in the
service member’s chain of command determines that there is
clear and convincing evidence that the service member
engaged in conduct that would have resulted in a separation
or discharge not characterized as an honorable discharge
(e.g., a separation or discharge under general but honorable
conditions, other than honorable conditions, a bad conduct
discharge, a dishonorable discharge, or a dismissal) being
imposed, but for the death of the service member.
(i) Animal remains. If animal remains are
unintentionally commingled with human remains due to a
natural disaster, unforeseen accident, act of war or
terrorism, violent explosion, or similar incident, and such
remains cannot be separated from the remains of an eligible
person, then the remains may be interred or inurned with
the eligible person, but the identity of the animal remains
shall not be inscribed or identified on a niche, marker,
headstone, or otherwise. (See 32 C.F.R. § 553.19)
162 (a) Prohibition. Notwithstanding §§ 553.12-553.16,
553.18, and 553.22, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 985 and 38 U.S.C.
2411, the interment, inurnment, or memorialization in an
Army National Military Cemetery of any of the following
persons is prohibited:
(1) Any person identified in writing to the Executive
Director by the Attorney General of the United States, prior
to his or her interment, inurnment, or memorialization, as a
person who has been convicted of a Federal capital crime and
whose conviction is final (other than a person whose
sentence was commuted by the President).
Director by an appropriate State official, prior to his or her
interment, inurnment, or memorialization, as a person who
has been convicted of a State capital crime and whose
conviction is final (other than a person whose sentence was

commuted by the Governor of the State).
(3) Any person found under procedures specified in §
553.21 to have committed a Federal or State capital crime
but who has not been convicted of such crime by reason of
such person not being available for trial due to death or
flight
306

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
(a) Primarily eligible persons. The following are

primarily eligible persons for purposes of interment:
(1) Any service member who dies on active duty in
the U.S. Armed Forces (except those service members
serving on active duty for training only), if the
General Courts Martial Convening Authority grants a
certificate of honorable service.
(2) Any veteran retired from a Reserve component
who served a period of active duty (other than for
training), is carried on the official retired list, and is
entitled to receive military retired pay.
(3) Any veteran retired from active military service
and entitled to receive military retired pay.
(4) Any veteran who received an honorable discharge
from the Armed Forces prior to October 1, 1949, who
was discharged for a permanent physical disability,
who served on active duty (other than
_______________
to avoid prosecution. Notice from officials is not required for

this prohibition to apply.
Director by the Attorney General of the United States or by
an appropriate State official, prior to his or her interment,
inurnment, or memorialization, as a person who has been
convicted of a Federal or State crime causing the person to
be a Tier III sex offender for purposes of the Sex Offender
Registration and Notification Act, who for such crime is
sentenced to a minimum of life imprisonment and whose
conviction is final (other than a person whose sentence was
commuted by the President or the Governor of a State, as the
case may be).
(b) Notice. The Executive Director is designated as the
Secretary of the Army’s representative authorized to receive
from the appropriate Federal or State officials notification of
conviction of capital crimes referred to in this section.
(c) Confirmation of person’s eligibility.
(1) If notice has not been received, but the Executive
Director has reason to believe that the person may have been
convicted of a Federal capital crime or a State capital crime,
the Executive Director shall seek written confirmation from:
(i) The Attorney General of the United States, with
respect to a suspected Federal capital crime; or
(ii) An appropriate State official, with respect to a
suspected State capital crime.
(2) The Executive Director will defer the decision on
whether to inter, inurn, or memorialize a decedent until a
written response is received. (See 32 C.F.R. § 553.20)

307
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 307

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
for training), and who would have been eligible for

retirement under the provisions of 10 U.S.C. 1201 had
the statute been in effect on the date of separation.
(5) Any veteran awarded one of the following
decorations:
(i) Medal of Honor;163
(ii) Distinguished Service Cross, Air Force Cross, or
Navy Cross;
(iii) Distinguished Service Medal;
(iv) Silver Star; or
(v) Purple Heart.
(6) Any veteran who served on active duty (other
than active duty for training) and who held any of the
following positions:
(i) President or Vice President of the United States;
(ii) Elected member of the U.S. Congress;
(iii) Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United
States or Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of
the United States;
(iv) A position listed, at the time the person held the
position, in 5 U.S.C. 5312164 or 5313165 (Levels I and
II of the Executive Schedule); or

_______________
163 The medal of honor awarded posthumously to a

deceased member of the armed forces who, as an
unidentified casualty of a particular war or other armed
conflict, is interred in the Tomb of the Unknowns at
Arlington National Cemetery, Virginia, is awarded to the
member as the representative of the members of the armed
forces who died in such war or other armed conflict and
whose remains have not been identified, and not to the
individual personally. (10 U.S.C.A. § 1134)
164 Includes the Secretary of State, Secretary of the

Treasury, Secretary of Defense, Attorney General, Secretary
of the Interior, Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary of
Commerce, Secretary of Labor, Secretary of Health and
Human Services, Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development, Secretary of Transportation, United States
Trade Representative, Secretary of Energy, Secretary of
Education, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Secretary of
Homeland Security, Director of the Office of Management
and Budget, Commissioner of Social Security, Social Security
Administration, Director of National Drug Control Policy,
Chairman and Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System, and Director of National Intelligence.
165 Includes the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Deputy
Secretary of State, Deputy Secretary of State for
Management and Resources, Administrator of Agency for
International Development, Administrator of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, Deputy Secretary of
Veterans Affairs, Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security,
Undersecretary of Homeland Security for Management,
Deputy Secretary of the Treasury, Deputy Secretary of
Transpor-

308

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
(v) Chief of Mission of a Category 4, 5, or 5+ post if

the Department of State classified that post as a
Category 4, 5, or 5+ post during the person’s tenure as
Chief of Mission.
(7) Any former prisoner of war who, while a prisoner

of war, served honorably in the active military service,
and who died on or after November 30, 1993.
(b) Derivatively eligible persons. The following
individuals are derivatively eligible persons for
purposes of interment who may be interred if space is
available in the gravesite of the primarily eligible
person:
(1) The spouse of a primarily eligible person who is
or will be interred in Arlington National Cemetery. A
former spouse of a primarily eligible person is not
eligible for interment in Arlington National Cemetery
under this paragraph.
(2) The spouse of an active duty service member or
an eligible veteran, who was:
_______________
tation, Chairman of Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Chairman of Council of Economic Advisers, Director of the
Office of Science and Technology, Director of the Central
Intelligence Agency, Secretary of the Air Force, Secretary of
the Army, Secretary of the Navy, Administrator of Federal
Aviation Administration, Director of the National Science
Foundation, Deputy Attorney General, Deputy Secretary of
Energy, Deputy Secretary of Agriculture, Director of the
Office of Personnel Management, Administrator of Federal
Highway Administration, Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, Undersecretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, Deputy
Secretary of Labor, Deputy Director of the Office of
Management and Budget, Independent Members of Thrift
Depositor Protection Oversight Board, Deputy Secretary of
Health and Human Services, Deputy Secretary of the
Interior, Deputy Secretary of Education, Deputy Secretary of
Housing and Urban Development, Deputy Director for
Management of Office of Management and Budget, Director
of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, Deputy

Commissioner of Social Security, Social Security
Administration, Administrator of the Community
Development Financial Institutions Fund, Deputy Director
of National Drug Control Policy, Members and Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Undersecretary of
Transportation for Policy, Chief Executive Officer of
Millennium Challenge Corporation, Principal Deputy
Director of National Intelligence, Director of the National
Counterterrorism Center, Director of the National Counter
Proliferation Center, Administrator of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency and Federal Transit
Administrator.

309
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 309

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
(i) Lost or buried at sea, temporarily interred

overseas due to action by the Government, or officially
determined to be missing in action;
(ii) Buried in a U.S. military cemetery maintained
by the American Battle Monuments Commission; or
(iii) Interred in Arlington National Cemetery as part
of a group burial (the derivatively eligible spouse may
not be buried in the group burial gravesite).
(3) The parents of a minor child or a permanently
dependent adult child, whose remains were interred
in Arlington National Cemetery based on the
eligibility of a parent at the time of the child’s death,
unless eligibility of the non-service connected parent
is lost through divorce from the primarily eligible
parent.
(4) An honorably discharged veteran who does not

qualify as a primarily eligible person, if the veteran
will be buried in the same gravesite as an already
interred primarily eligible person who is a close
relative, where the interment meets the following
conditions:
(i) The veteran is without minor or unmarried adult
dependent children;
(ii) The veteran will not occupy space reserved for
the spouse, a minor child, or a permanently
dependent adult child;
(iii) All other close relatives of the primarily eligible
person concur with the interment of the veteran with
the primarily eligible person by signing a notarized
statement;
(iv) The veteran’s spouse waives any entitlement to
interment in Arlington National Cemetery, where
such entitlement might be based on the veteran’s
interment in Arlington National Cemetery. The
Executive Director may set aside the spouse’s waiver,
provided space is available in the same gravesite, and
all close relatives of the primarily eligible person
concur;
(v) Any cost of moving, recasketing, or revaulting the
remains will be paid from private funds.

There is a separate list of eligible with respect
to the inurnment of cremated remains in the
Columbarium,166 interment of cremated re-
_______________
166 The following persons are eligible for inurnment in

the Arlington National Cemetery Columbarium, unless
otherwise prohibited as provided for in §§ 553.19-553.20,
provided that the last period of active duty of the service

member or veteran ended with an honorable discharge.

310

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
_______________
(a) Primarily eligible persons. The following are

primarily eligible persons for purposes of inurnment:
(1) Any person eligible for interment in Arlington
National Cemetery, as provided for in § 553.12(a).
(2) Any veteran who served on active duty other than
active duty for training.
(3) Any member of a Reserve component of the Armed
Forces who dies while:
(i) On active duty for training or performing full-time
duty under title 32, United States Code;
(ii) Performing authorized travel to or from such active
duty for training or full-time duty;
(iii) On authorized inactive-duty training, including
training performed as a member of the Army National Guard
of the United States or the Air National Guard of the United
States; or
(iv) Hospitalized or receiving treatment at the expense of
the Government for an injury or disease incurred or
contracted while on such active duty for training or full-time
duty, traveling to or from such active duty for training or
full-time duty, or on inactive-duty training.
(4) Any member of the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps
of the United States, Army, Navy, or Air Force, whose death
occurs while:
(i) Attending an authorized training camp or cruise;
(ii) Performing authorized travel to or from that camp or
cruise; or
(iii) Hospitalized or receiving treatment at the expense of
the Government for injury or disease incurred or contracted
while attending such camp or cruise or while traveling to or
from such camp or cruise.
(5) Any citizen of the United States who, during any war
in which the United States has been or may hereafter be
engaged, served in the armed forces of any government allied
with the United States during that war, whose last service
ended honorably by death or otherwise, and who was a
citizen of the United States at the time of entry into that
service and at the time of death.
(6) Commissioned officers, United States Coast and
Geodetic Survey (now National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration) who die during or subsequent to the service
specified in the following categories and whose last service
terminated honorably:
(i) Assignment to areas of immediate military hazard.
(ii) Served in the Philippine Islands on December 7, 1941.
(iii) Transferred to the Department of the Army or the
Department of the Navy under certain statutes.

311
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 311

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
mains in the Unmarked Area,167 and group

burial.168 As a national military cemetery,
eligibility standards for interment, inurnment,
or memo-
_______________
(7) Any commissioned officer of the United States Public

Health Service who served on full-time duty on or after July
29, 1945, if the service falls within the meaning of active
duty for training as defined in 38 U.S.C. 101(22) or inactive
duty training as defined in 38 U.S.C. 101(23) and whose
death resulted from a disease or injury incurred or
aggravated in line of duty. Also, any commissioned officer of
the Regular or Reserve Corps of the Public Health Service
who performed active service prior to July 29, 1945 in time of
war; on detail for duty with the Armed Forces; or while the
service was part of the military forces of the United States
pursuant to Executive order of the President.
(8) Any Active Duty Designee as defined in this part.
(b) Derivatively eligible persons. Those connected to an
individual described in paragraph (a) of this section through
a relationship described in
§ 553.12(b). Such individuals may be inurned if space is
available in the primarily eligible person’s niche. (32 C.F.R. §
553.13)
167 (a) The cremated remains of any person eligible for
interment in Arlington National Cemetery as described in §
553.12 may be interred in the designated Arlington National
Cemetery Unmarked Area.
(b) Cremated remains must be interred in a
biodegradable container or placed directly into the ground
without a container. Cremated remains are not authorized to
be scattered at this site or at any location within Arlington
National Cemetery.
(c) There will be no headstone or marker for any person
choosing this method of interment. A permanent register will
be maintained by the Executive Director.
(d) Consistent with the one-gravesite-per-family policy,
once a person is interred in the Unmarked Area, any
derivatively eligible persons and spouses must be interred in
this manner. This includes spouses who are also primarily
eligible persons. No additional gravesite, niche, or memorial

marker in a memorial area will be authorized. (32 C.F.R. §
553.14)
168 (a) The Executive Director may authorize a group
burial in Arlington National Cemetery whenever several
people, at least one of whom is an active duty service
member, die during a military-related activity and not all
remains can be individually identified.
(b) Before authorizing a group burial that includes both
United States and foreign decedents, the Executive Director
will notify the Department of State and request that the
Department of State notify the appropriate foreign embassy.
(32 C.F.R. § 553.15)

312

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
rialization in Arlington are based on honorable

military service.169 Exceptions to the eligibility
standards for new graves, which are rarely
granted, are for those persons who have made
significant contributions that directly and
substantially benefited the U.S. military.170
Judging from the foregoing, it is glaring that
the U.S. Army regulations on Arlington and the
AFP Regulations G 161-375 on the LNMB, as a
general rule, recognize and reward the military
services or military related activities of the
deceased. Compared with the latter, however,
the former is actually less generous in granting
the privilege of interment since only the spouse
or parent, under certain conditions, may be

allowed “if space is available in the gravesite of
the primarily eligible person.”
It is not contrary to the “well-established
custom,” as the dissent described it, to argue
that the word “bayani” in the LNMB has become
a misnomer since while a symbolism of heroism
may attach to the LNMB as a national shrine for
military memorial, the same does not
automatically attach to its feature as a military
cemetery and to those who were already laid or
will be laid therein. As stated, the purpose of the
LNMB, both from the legal and historical
perspectives, has neither been to confer to the
people buried there the title of “hero” nor to
require that only those interred therein should
be treated as a “hero.” In fact, the privilege of
internment at the LNMB has been loosen up
through the years. Since 1986, the list of eligible
includes not only those who rendered active
military service or military-related activities but
also non-military personnel who were recognized
for their significant contributions to the
Philippine society (such as government
dignitaries, statesmen, national artists, and
Commander-in-Chief, Congress or Secretary of
National Defense). In 1998, the widows of former
Presidents, Secretaries of National Defense and
Chief of Staff were added to the list. Whether or
not the extension of burial privilege to civilians
is unwarranted and should be restricted in order
to be consistent with the
_______________
169 32 C.F.R. § 553.22(a).

170 Id.

313
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 313

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
original purpose of the LNMB is immaterial and

irrelevant to the issue at bar since it is
indubitable that Marcos had rendered
significant active military service and military-
related activities.
Petitioners did not dispute that Marcos was a
former President and Commander-in-Chief, a
legislator, a Secretary of National Defense, a
military personnel, a veteran, and a Medal of
Valor awardee. For his alleged human rights
abuses and corrupt practices, we may disregard
Marcos as a President and Commander-in-Chief,
but we cannot deny him the right to be
acknowledged based on the other positions he
held or the awards he received. In this sense, We
agree with the proposition that Marcos should be
viewed and judged in his totality as a person.
While he was not all good, he was not pure evil
either. Certainly, just a human who erred like
us.
Our laws give high regard to Marcos as a
Medal of Valor awardee and a veteran. R.A. No.
9049171 declares the policy of the State “to
consistently honor its military heroes in order to
strengthen the patriotic spirit and nationalist
consciousness of the military.”172 For the
“supreme self-sacrifice and distinctive acts of

heroism and gallantry,”173 a Medal of Valor
awardee or his/her
dependents/heirs/beneficiaries are entitled to the
following social services and financial rewards:
1. Tax-exempt lifetime monthly gratuity of
Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00),
which is separate and distinct from any
salary or pension that the awardee
currently receives or will receive from the
government of the Philippines;174
2. Precedence in employment in government
agencies or government-owned or -
controlled corporation, if the job
qualifications or requirements are met;
_______________
171 Approved on March 22, 2001 and published in

national newspapers of general circulation on April 9, 2001
as well as in the Official Gazette on July 9, 2001. It repealed
P.D. No. 1687 dated March 24, 1980.
172 Sec. 1 of R.A. No. 9049.
173 Id.
174 In the event of the awardee’s death, the gratuity
shall accrue in equal shares and with the right of accretion
to the surviving spouse until she remarries and to the
children, legitimate, or adopted or illegitimate, until they
reach the age of eighteen (18) or until they marry, whichever
comes earlier.

314
ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
3. Priority in the approval of the awardee’s

housing application under existing housing
programs of the government;
4. Priority in the acquisition of public lands
under the Public Land Act and preferential
right in the lease of pasture lands and
exploitation of natural resources;
5. Privilege of obtaining loans in an aggregate
amount not exceeding Five Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) from
government-owned or -controlled financial
institutions without having to put up any
collateral or constitute any pledge or
mortgage to secure the payment of the
loan;
6. Twenty percent (20%) discount from all
establishments relative to utilization of
transportation services, hotels and similar
lodging establishments, restaurants,
recreation and sport centers and purchase
of medicine anywhere in the country;
7. Twenty percent (20%) discount on
admission fees charged by theaters, cinema
houses and concert halls, circuses,
carnivals and other similar places of
culture, leisure and amusement;
8. Free medical and dental services and
consultation in hospital and clinics
anywhere in the country;
9. Exemption from the payment of tuition and
matriculation fees in public or private
schools, universities, colleges and other
educational institutions in any pre-school,
baccalaureate or post graduate courses
such as or including course leading to the

degree of Doctor of Medicine (MD),
Bachelor of Laws (LLB), and Bachelor of
Science in Nursing (BSN) or allied and
similar courses; and
10. If interested and qualified, a quota is
given to join the cadet corps of the
Philippine Military Academy or otherwise
priority for direct commission, call to active
duty (CAD) and/or enlistment in regular
force of the AFP.

On the other hand, in recognizing their
patriotic services in times of war and peace for
the cause of freedom and democracy; for the
attainment of national unity, independence, and
socioeconomic advancement; and for the
maintenance of peace and order,175 R.A. No.
6948, as
_______________
175 Sec. 1 of R.A. No. 6948.

315
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 315

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
amended,176 grants our veterans177 and their

dependents or survivors with pension (old age,
disability, total administrative disability, and
death) and non-pension (burial, education,
hospitalization, and medical care and treatment)
benefits as well as provisions from the local

governments. Under the law, the benefits may
be withheld if the Commission on Human Rights
certifies to the AFP General Headquarters that
the veteran has been found guilty by final
judgment of a gross human rights violation
while in the service, but this factor shall not
be considered taken against his next of kin.178

2. Disqualification under the AFP
Regulations

Aside from being eligible for burial at the
LNMB, Marcos possessed none of the
disqualifications stated in AFP Regulations G
161-375. He was neither convicted by final
judgment of the offense involving moral
turpitude nor dishonorably
separated/reverted/discharged from active
military service.
Petitioners, however, protest that a narrow
interpretation of the AFP regulations disregards
historical context and the rule on statutory
construction. They urge the Court to construe
statutes not literally but according to their spirit
and reason.
It is argued that Marcos committed offenses
involving moral turpitude for his gross human
rights violations, massive graft and corruption,
_______________
176 Amended by R.A. Nos. 7696, 9396, and 9499.

177 A veteran refers to “any person who: (1) rendered
military service in the land, sea or air forces of the
Philippines during the revolution against Spain, the
Philippine-American War, and World War II, including
Filipino citizens who served with the Allied Forces in

Philippine territory; (2) was a member of the Philippine
Expeditionary Forces sent to the Korean War and the
Philippine Civic Action Group sent to the Vietnam War; (3)
rendered military service in the Armed Forces of the
Philippines (AFP) and has been honorably discharged or
retired after at least twenty (20) years total cumulative
active service or sooner separated while in the active service
in the AFP due to death or disability arising from a wound or
injury received or sickness or disease incurred in line of
duty.” (Sec. 2[a] of R.A. No. 6948, as amended by R.A. No.
9396).
178 Sec. 25 of R.A. No. 6948.

316

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
and dubious military records, as found by

foreign and local courts as well as
administrative agencies. By going into exile, he
deliberately evaded liability for his actions. And
by allowing death to overtake him, he inevitably
escaped the prospect of facing accountability for
his crimes. They also contend that his removal
in the 1986 popular uprising is a clear sign of his
discharge from the AFP. The People Power
Revolution was the direct exercise of the
Filipinos’ power to overthrow an illegitimate and
oppressive regime. As a sovereign act, it
necessarily includes the power to adjudge him as
dishonorably discharged from the AFP.
Furthermore, according to petitioners, to limit

the application of the disqualifying provisions of
AFP Regulations G 161-375 only to soldiers
would be unfair (since, unlike Presidents,
soldiers have an additional cause for
disqualification) and lead to absurd results
(because soldiers who were dishonorably
discharged would be disqualified for acts that
are less atrocious than that committed by
Marcos). Also, the AFP regulations would place
Marcos in the same class as the other Philippine
Presidents when in fact he is a class of his own,
sui generis. The other Presidents were never
removed by People Power Revolution and were
never subject of laws declaring them to have
committed human rights violations. Thus, the
intended burial would be an act of similarly
treating persons who are differently situated.
Despite all these ostensibly persuasive
arguments, the fact remains that Marcos was
not convicted by final judgment of any offense
involving moral turpitude. No less than the 1987
Constitution mandates that a person shall not
be held to answer for a criminal offense without
due process of law and that, “[i]n all criminal
prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed
innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall
enjoy the right to be heard by himself and
counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of
the accusation against him, to have a speedy,
impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses
face to face, and to have compulsory process to
secure the attendance of witnesses and the
production of evidence in his behalf.”179 Even the
U.N. principles on reparation and to
_______________
179 Section 14, Article III.

317
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 317

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
combat impunity cited by petitioners

unequivocally guarantee the rights of the
accused, providing that:
XIII. Rights of others

27. Nothing in this document is to be construed as
derogating from internationally or nationally
protected rights of others, in particular the right of an
accused person to benefit from applicable standards of
due process.

x x x

PRINCIPLE 9. GUARANTEES FOR PERSONS
IMPLICATED

Before a commission identifies perpetrators in its
report, the individuals concerned shall be entitled to
the following guarantees:
(a) The commission must try to corroborate
information implicating individuals before they are
named publicly;
(b) The individuals implicated shall be afforded an
opportunity to provide a statement setting forth their
version of the facts either at a hearing convened by
the commission while conducting its investigation or
through submission of a document equivalent to a

right of reply for inclusion in the commission’s file.

To note, in the U.S., a person found to have
committed a Federal or State capital crime (i.e.,
a crime which a sentence of imprisonment for
life or death penalty may be imposed) but who
has not been convicted by reason of not being
available for trial due to death or flight to avoid
prosecution, may be ineligible for interment,
inurnment, or memorialization in an Army
national military cemetery. Nevertheless, such
ineligibility must still observe the procedures
specified in § 553.21.180
_______________
180 (a) Preliminary inquiry. If the Executive Director

has reason to believe that a decedent may have committed a
Federal capital crime or a State capital crime but has not
been convicted of such crime by reason of such person not
being available for trial due to death or flight to avoid
prosecution, the Executive Director shall submit the issue to
the Army General Counsel. The Army General Counsel or
his or her designee shall initiate a preliminary inquiry
seeking information from Federal, State, or local law
enforcement officials, or other sources of potentially relevant
information.

318

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
_______________
(b) Decision after preliminary inquiry. If, after

conducting the preliminary inquiry described in paragraph
(a) of this section, the Army General Counsel or designee
determines that credible evidence exists suggesting the
decedent may have committed a Federal capital crime or
State capital crime, then further proceedings under this
section are warranted to determine whether the decedent
committed such crime. Consequently the Army General
Counsel or his or her designee shall present the personal
representative with a written notification of such
preliminary determination and a dated, written notice of the
personal representative’s procedural options.
(c) Notice and procedural options. The notice of
procedural options shall indicate that, within fifteen days,
the personal representative may:
(1) Request a hearing;
(2) Withdraw the request for interment, inurnment, or
memorialization; or
(3) Do nothing, in which case the request for interment,
inurnment, or memorialization will be considered to have
been withdrawn.
(d) Time computation. The fifteen-day time period
begins on the calendar day immediately following the earlier
of the day the notice of procedural options is delivered in
person to the personal representative or is sent by U.S.
registered mail or, if available, by electronic means to the
personal representative. It ends at midnight on the fifteenth
day. The period includes weekends and holidays.
(e) Hearing. The purpose of the hearing is to allow the
personal representative to present additional information
regarding whether the decedent committed a Federal capital
crime or a State capital crime. In lieu of making a personal
appearance at the hearing, the personal representative may

submit relevant documents for consideration.
(1) If a hearing is requested, the Army General Counsel
or his or her designee shall conduct the hearing.
(2) The hearing shall be conducted in an informal
manner.
(3) The rules of evidence shall not apply.
(4) The personal representative and witnesses may
appear, at no expense to the Government, and shall, in the
discretion of the Army General Counsel or his or her
designee, testify under oath. Oaths must be administered by
a person who possesses the legal authority to administer
oaths.
(5) The Army General Counsel or designee shall consider
any and all relevant information obtained.
(6) The hearing shall be appropriately recorded. Upon
request, a copy of the record shall be provided to the personal
representative.

319
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 319

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
The various cases cited by petitioners, which

were decided with finality by courts here and
abroad, have no bearing in this case since they
are merely civil in nature; hence, cannot and do
not establish moral turpitude.
Also, the equal protection clause is not
violated. Generally, there is no property right to
safeguard because even if one is eligible to be
buried at the LNMB, such fact would only give
him or her the privilege to be interred therein.
Unless there is a favorable recommendation

from the Commander-in-Chief, the Congress or
the Secretary of National Defense, no right can
be said to have ripen. Until then, such inchoate
right is not legally demandable and enforceable.
Assuming that there is a property right to
protect, the requisites of equal protection clause
are not met.181 In this case, there is a real and
_______________
(f) Final determination. After considering the opinion of

the Army General Counsel or his or her designee, and any
additional information submitted by the personal
representative, the Secretary of the Army or his or her
designee shall determine the decedent’s eligibility for
interment, inurnment, or memorialization. This
determination is final and not appealable.
(1) The determination shall be based on evidence that
supports or undermines a conclusion that the decedent’s
actions satisfied the elements of the crime as established by
the law of the jurisdiction in which the decedent would have
been prosecuted.
(2) If an affirmative defense is offered by the decedent’s
personal representative, a determination as to whether the
defense was met shall be made according to the law of the
jurisdiction in which the decedent would have been
prosecuted.
(3) Mitigating evidence shall not be considered.
(4) The opinion of the local, State, or Federal prosecutor
as to whether he or she would have brought charges against
the decedent had the decedent been available is relevant but
not binding and shall be given no more weight than other
facts presented.
(g) Notice of decision. The Executive Director shall
provide written notification of the Secretary’s decision to the
personal representative. (See 32 C.F.R. § 553.21; Effective:

October 26, 2016)
181 The requirements for a valid and reasonable
classification are: (1) it must rest on substantial distinctions;
(2) it must be germane to the purpose of

320

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
substantial distinction between a military

personnel and a former President. The
conditions of dishonorable discharge under the
Articles of War182 attach only to the members of
the military. There is also no substantial
distinction between Marcos and the three
Philippine Presidents buried at the LNMB
(Presidents Quirino, Garcia, and Macapagal). All
of them were not convicted of a crime involving
moral turpitude. In addition, the classification
between a military personnel and a former
President is germane to the purposes of
Proclamation No. 208 and P.D. No. 1076. While
the LNMB is a national shrine for military
memorials, it is also an active military
cemetery that recognizes the status or position
held by the persons interred therein.
Likewise, Marcos was honorably discharged
from military service. PVAO expressly
recognized him as a retired veteran pursuant to
R.A. No. 6948, as amended. Petitioners have not
shown that he was dishonorably discharged from
military service under AFP Circular 17, Series of

1987 (Administrative Discharge Prior to
Expiration of Term of Enlistment) for violating
Articles 94, 95 and 97 of the Articles of War.183
The
_______________
the law; (3) it must not be limited to existing conditions only;

and (4) it must apply equally to all members of the same
class. (Ferrer, Jr. v. Bautista, G.R. No. 210551, June 30,
2015, 760 SCRA 652, 709-710)
182 Commonwealth Act No. 408 dated September 14,
1938, as amended.
183 ARTICLE 94. Various Crimes.—Any person
subjected to military law who commits any crime, breach of
law or violation of municipal ordinance, which is recognized
as an offense of a penal nature and is punishable under the
penal laws of the Philippines or under municipal ordinances,
on a Philippine Army reservation, shall be punished as a
court-martial may direct; Provided, That in time of peace,
officers and enlisted men of the Philippine Constabulary
shall not be triable by courts-martial for any felony, crime,
breach of law or violation of municipal ordinances committed
under this Article.
ARTICLE 95. Frauds Against the Government Affecting
Matters and Equipments.—Any person subject to military
law who, having charge, possession, custody, or control of
any money or other property of the Commonwealth of the
Philippines, furnished or intended for the military service
thereof, knowingly delivers, or causes to be delivered, to any
person having authority to receive the same, any amount
thereof less than that for which he receives a certificate or
receipt; or

321
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 321

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
_______________
Who, being authorized to make or deliver any paper

certifying the receipt of any property of the Commonwealth
of the Philippines furnished or intended for the military
service thereof, makes or delivers to any person such writing,
without having full knowledge of the truth of the statements
therein contained and with intent to defraud the Philippines;
or
Who steals, embezzles, knowingly and willfully
misappropriates, applies to his own use or benefit, or
wrongfully or knowingly sells or disposes of any ordnance,
arms, equipments, ammunition, clothing, subsistence stores,
money, or other property of the Commonwealth of the
Philippines furnished or intended for the military service
thereof; or
Who knowingly purchases or receives in pledge for any
obligation or indebtedness from any soldier, officer, or other
person who is a part of or employed in said forces or service,
any ordnance, arms, equipment, ammunition, clothing
subsistence stores, or other property of the Commonwealth of
the Philippines, such soldier, officer, or other person not
having lawful right to sell or pledge the same;
Shall, on conviction thereof, be punished by fine or
imprisonment, or by such other punishment as a court-
martial may adjudge, or by any or all of said penalties. And
if any person, being guilty of any of the offenses aforesaid
while in the military service of the Philippines, received his
discharge or is dismissed from the service, he shall continue
to be liable to be arrested and held for trial and sentence by
a court-martial in the same manner and to the same extent
as if he had not received such discharge nor been dismissed.

And if any officer, being guilty, while in the military service
of the Philippines of embezzlement of ration savings, post
exchange, company, or other like funds, or of embezzlement
of money or other property entrusted to his charge by an
enlisted man or men, receives his discharge, or is dismissed,
or is dropped from the rolls, he shall continue to be liable to
be arrested and held for trial and sentence by a court-martial
in the same manner and to the same extent as if he had not
been so discharged, dismissed, or dropped from the rolls.
ARTICLE 97. General Article.—Though not mentioned
in these articles, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of
good order and military discipline and all conduct of a nature
to bring discredit upon the military service shall be taken
cognizance of by a general or special or summary court-
martial according to the nature and degree of the offense,
and punished at the discretion of such court.
(Commonwealth Act No. 408 dated September 14, 1938, as
amended by P.D. 1166 dated June 24, 1977)
Article 94 is under the jurisdiction of civil courts while
Articles 95 to 97, as service-connected crimes or offenses, are
under the jurisdiction of the court-martial (See R.A. No.
7055, approved on June 20, 1991)

322

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
NHCP study184 is incomplete with respect to his

entire military career as it failed to cite and
include the official records of the AFP.
With respect to the phrase “[p]ersonnel who

were dishonorably separated/reverted/discharged
from the service,” the same should be viewed in
light of the definition provided by AFP
Regulations G 161-375 to the term “active
service” which is “[s]ervice rendered by a military
person as a Commissioned Officer, enlisted
man/woman, probationary officer, trainee or
draftee in the Armed Forces of the Philippines
and service rendered by him/her as a civilian
official or employee in the Philippine Government
prior to the date of his/her separation or
retirement from the Armed Forces of the
Philippines, for which military and/or civilian
service he/she shall have received pay from the
Philippine Government, and/or such others as
may be hereafter be prescribed by law as active
service (PD 1638, as amended).”185 To my mind,
the word “service” should be construed as that
rendered by a military person in the AFP,
including civil service, from the time of his/her
commission, enlistment, probation, training or
drafting, up to the date of his/her separation or
retirement from the AFP. Civil service after
honorable separation and retirement from the
AFP is outside the context of “service” under
AFP Regulations G 161-375.
Hence, it cannot be conveniently claimed that
Marcos’ ouster from the presidency during the
EDSA Revolution is tantamount to his dishonor-
_______________
184 On July 12, 2016, the NHCP published its study,

entitled “Why Ferdinand E. Marcos Should Not Be Buried at
the Libingan Ng Mga Bayani,” concluding that Marcos’
military record is fraught with myths, factual
inconsistencies, and lies. The NHCP study demonstrated

that: (1) Marcos lied about receiving U.S. Medals
(Distinguished Service Cross, Silver Star, and Order of
Purple Heart); (2) his guerilla unit, the Ang Mga Maharlika,
was never officially recognized and neither was his
leadership of it; (3) U.S. officials did not recognize Marcos’
rank promotion from Major in 1944 to Lt. Col. by 1947; and
(4) some of Marcos’ actions as a soldier were officially called
into question by the upper echelons of the U.S. Military, such
as his command of the Alias Intelligence Unit (described as
“usurpation”), his commissioning of officers (without
authority), his abandonment of USAFIP-NL presumably to
build in airfield for Gen. Roxas, his collection of money for
the airfield (described as “illegal”), and his listing of his
name on the roster of different units (called a “malicious
criminal act”).
185 Emphasis supplied.

323
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 323

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
able separation, reversion or discharge from the

military service. The fact that the President is
the Commander-in-Chief of the AFP under the
1987 Constitution only enshrines the principle of
supremacy of civilian authority over the
military. Not being a military person who may
be prosecuted before the court martial, the
President can hardly be deemed “dishonorably
separated/reverted/discharged from the service”
as contemplated by AFP Regulations G 161-375.
Dishonorable discharge through a successful
revolution is an extra-constitutional and direct

sovereign act of the people which is beyond the
ambit of judicial review, let alone a mere
administrative regulation.
It is undeniable that former President Marcos
was forced out of office by the people through the
so-called EDSA Revolution. Said political act of
the people should not be automatically given a
particular legal meaning other than its obvious
consequence — that of ousting him as president.
To do otherwise would lead the Court to the
treacherous and perilous path of having to make
choices from multifarious inferences or theories
arising from the various acts of the people. It is
not the function of the Court, for instance, to
divine the exact implications or significance of
the number of votes obtained in elections, or the
message from the number of participants in
public assemblies. If the Court is not to fall into
the pitfalls of getting embroiled in political and
oftentimes emotional, if not acrimonious,
debates, it must remain steadfast in abiding by
its recognized guiding stars — clear
constitutional and legal rules — not by the
uncertain, ambiguous and confusing messages
from the actions of the people.

Conclusion

In sum, there is no clear constitutional or
legal basis to hold that there was a grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction which would justify the Court to
interpose its authority to check and override an
act entrusted to the judgment of another branch.
Truly, the President’s discretion is not totally
unfettered. “Discretion is not a freespirited
stallion that runs and roams wherever it pleases

but is reined in to keep it from straying. In its
classic formulation, ‘discretion is not unconfined
and vagrant’ but ‘canalized within banks that
keep it

324

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
from overflowing.’”186 At bar, President Duterte,

through the public respondents, acted within the
bounds of the law and jurisprudence.
Notwithstanding the call of human rights
advocates, the Court must uphold what is legal
and just. And that is not to deny Marcos of his
rightful place at the LNMB. For even the
Framers of our Constitution intend that full
respect for human rights is available at any
stage of a person’s development, from the time
he or she becomes a person to the time he or she
leaves this earth.187
There are certain things that are better left
for history — not this Court — to adjudge. The
Court could only do so much in accordance with
the clearly established rules and principles.
Beyond that, it is ultimately for the people
themselves, as the sovereign, to decide, a task
that may require the better perspective that the
passage of time provides. In the meantime, the
country must move on and let this issue
rest.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES
CONSIDERED, the petitions are DISMISSED.
Necessarily, the Status Quo Ante Order is
hereby LIFTED.
Sereno, CJ., See Dissenting Opinion.

Carpio, J., See Dissenting Opinion.
Velasco, Jr.,*** J., I concur in the ponencia
and also in the Opinion of Justice Mendoza.
Leonardo-De Castro, J., I concur in the
ponencia and Separate Opinion of Justice
Mendoza.
Brion, J., With Separate Concurring
Opinion.
Bersamin, J., See Separate Opinion.
Del Castillo, J., I join the Separate Opinion
of J. Mendoza.
_______________
186 National Artist for Literature Virgilio Almario v. The

Executive Secretary, supra note 46 at p. 163; p. 309.
187 Records (Vol. IV), September 19, 1986, pp. 829-831;
See also Bernas, Joaquin G., S.J., The Intent of the 1986
Constitution Writers, 1995, pp. 116-117.
*** On Official Leave.

325
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 325

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Perez, J., See Separate Opinion.

Mendoza, J., See Separate Opinion.
Reyes, J., Inhibited/No part.

Perlas-Bernabe, J., I join the Separate
Opinion of J. Mendoza.
Leonen, J., I dissent. See Separate Opinion.
Jardeleza, J., I join dissent of J. Caguioa.
Caguioa, J., I dissent. See Separate
Opinion.

DISSENTING OPINION

SERENO, CJ.:

The whole thesis of respondents on the
substantive issues lies in the absence of an
express prohibition against the burial of former
President Marcos; hence, they argue that this
Court cannot characterize the current
President’s decision to have him buried at the
Libingan ng mga Bayani (LNMB) as one made
in grave abuse of discretion.
Nothing can be more wrong, and no view
more diminishing of the Judiciary’s mandated
role under the 1987 Constitution.
If the absence of an express prohibition were
to be the primary or sole determinant of the
merits of this case, then even the processing
clerk of the administrative office supervising the
LNMB could decide this matter by simply
ticking off the appropriate box in a Yes or No
question that asks: “Is there an express statute
that prohibits a President from burying a former
bemedalled soldier or president in the Libingan
ng mga Bayani? If yes, bury. If no, do not bury.”
To the contrary, the case can only be decided
by deeply and holistically analyzing the extent
and implications of the legal phenomenon called
the power to exercise presidential discretion, and

how it should be measured in this case.
In light of allegations that the decision to
bury the late President will run counter to the
Constitution, statutory standards and judicial
pro-

326

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
nouncements, this Court must take a step back

in history to understand what the Constitution
that it is defending stands for; whether it is in
danger of being violated in spirit or in letter; and
whether this danger is of such kind and degree
that the exercise of presidential discretion
should be restrained. This Court must also
compare the statutory standards that have been
raised and determine whether the course of
action proposed by the President would run
counter to those standards. This Court must also
examine the doctrines and language employed in
many of its decisions if it is to guard against
heresy directed at the spirit of the Constitution
that could undermine not just one doctrine, but
perhaps the moral legitimacy of the Court itself.
This is how consequential any statement
coming from the Court on this issue could be.

The Court’s bounden duty is
not only to preserve the
Constitution, but also itself.

It has been posited that the Court should not
meddle in a political maneuver that the
President is compelled to make. Whether it is a
maneuver that is animated by the need to
maintain credibility in the eyes of important
supporters, or whether it is necessary to advance
unity in this country, is not a motivation that
the President should be accountable for.
Likewise, it has been proposed that this Court
should look beyond the past and shift its focus to
today’s political reality — that the present
decision maker is the most powerful and the
most popular politician in the republic; that for
him to undertake the reforms he has promised
requires that he be able to deliver on his
promises; that the key to unity in this day and
age is to forgive the past and give former
President Marcos the honors due the office that
he held and the bemedalled soldiering he
rendered; and that in any event, the state has
enacted many measures not only to compensate
Martial Law victims but also to advance the
cause of human rights.
At the initial stage of any discussion in this
Court, these kinds of arguments are usually met
with skepticism by its Members under the
express unction of the Constitution as
interpreted in the post-Marcos

327
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 327

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
decisions.1 For the relevant judicial powers

provisions of the 1987 Constitution impels the
Court to relegate the political question
argument, and any semblance of such argument
— deference, political wisdom, etc. — to a status
of non-importance, especially if it fails to satisfy
the threshold test. Simply put, that test is
whether indeed the question is one addressed to
purely political exercises internal to the
workings of the legislature;2 or whether, on the
part of the President, there are no legal
standards against which his particular action
can be evaluated.3 Indeed, the Court has, in
questions of grave national importance,
generally exercised judicial review when the
allegations of grave abuse of discretion are
sufficiently serious.
For the implications of this case goes to the
very fulcrum of the powers of Government: the
Court must do what is right by correctly
balancing the interests that are present before it
and thus preserve the stability of Philippine
democracy.
If the Court unduly shies away from
addressing the principal question of whether a
decision to bury the former President would
contradict the anti-Martial Law and human
rights underpinnings and direction of the 1987
Constitution, it would, wittingly or unwittingly,
weaken itself by diminishing its role as the
protector of the constitutional liberties of our
people. It would dissipate its own moral strength
and progressively be weakened, unable to
promptly speak against actions that mimic the
authoritarian past, or issue judicial writs to
protect the people from the excesses of

government.
This Court must, perforce, painstakingly go
through the process of examining whether any
claim put forth herein by the parties genuinely
_______________
1 Saguisag v. Ochoa, Jr., G.R. Nos. 212426 & 212444, 12

January 2016, 779 SCRA 241; Francisco, Jr. v.
Nagmamalasakit na mga Manananggol ng mga
Manggagawang Pilipino, Inc., 460 Phil. 830; 415 SCRA 44
(2003); Estrada v. Desierto, 406 Phil. 1; 353 SCRA 452
(2001); Oposa v. Factoran, Jr., G.R. No. 101083, 30 July
1993, 224 SCRA 792; Bondoc v. Pineda, 278 Phil. 784; 201
SCRA 792 (1991); Marcos v. Manglapus, 258 Phil. 479; 177
SCRA 668 (1989).
2 Arroyo v. De Venecia, 343 Phil. 42; 277 SCRA 268
(1997).
3 David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, 522 Phil. 705; 489 SCRA
160 (2006); Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Zamora, 392
Phil. 618; 338 SCRA 81 (2000); Llamas v. Orbos, 279 Phil.
920; 202 SCRA 844 (1991).

328

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
undermines the intellectual and moral fiber of

the Constitution. And, by instinct, the Court
must defend the Constitution and itself.

The 1987 Constitution is the embodiment
of the Filipino nations’ enduring values,
which this Court must zealously protect.

Countless times, this Court has said in so
many words that the 1987 Constitution
embodies the Filipinos’ enduring values.4 The
protection of those values has consequently
become the duty of the Court. That this is the
legal standard by which to measure whether it
has properly comported itself in its
constitutional role has been declared in various
fashions by the Court itself.
See, for example, how this Court articulated
its duty to protect the environment,5 women,6
children,7 labor,8 the indigenous people,9 and
_______________
4 1987 CONSTITUTION, Preamble. Also see Concurring

Opinion of Chief Justice Sereno in Poe-Llamanzares v.
Commission on Elections, G.R. Nos. 221697 & 221698-700, 8
March 2016, 786 SCRA 1.
5 Resident Marine Mammals of the Protected Seascape
Tañon Strait v. Reyes, G.R. No. 180771, 21 April 2015, 756
SCRA 513, 541; West Tower Condominium Corporation v.
First Philippine Industrial Corporation, G.R. No. 194239, 16
June 2015, 758 SCRA 292; Metropolitan Manila Development
Authority v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay, 595 Phil.
305; 574 SCRA 661 (2008); Oposa v. Factoran, Jr., supra
note 1.
6 Imbong v. Ochoa, Jr., G.R. Nos. 204819, 204934,
204957, 204988, 205003, 205043, 205138, 205478, 205491,
205720, 206355, 207111, 207172, 207563, 8 April 2014, 721
SCRA 146; Garcia v. Drilon, 712 Phil. 44; 699 SCRA 352
(2013); Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Company v.

NLRC, 338 Phil. 1093; 272 SCRA 596 (1997).
7 Poe-Llamanzares v. Commission on Elections, supra;
Dela Cruz v. Gracia, 612 Phil. 167; 594 SCRA 649 (2009);
People v. Abadies, 433 Phil. 814; 384 SCRA 442 (2002).
8 Seagull Maritime Corp. v. Dee, 548 Phil. 660; 520 SCRA
109 (2007); Lopez v. Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage
System, 501 Phil. 115; 462 SCRA 428 (2005).
9 La Bugal-B’laan Tribal Association, Inc. v. Ramos, 486
Phil. 754; 445 SCRA 1 (2004).

329
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 329

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
consistently, those who have been or are in

danger of being deprived of their human
rights.10
Note the power that the Constitution vests in
the Court to actively promulgate rules for the
protection of human rights, and how the Court
in turn described this duty when it promulgated
the writs of kalikasan, habeas data, and
amparo.11
Any conclusion in this case that betrays a
lack of enthusiasm on the part of this Court to
protect the cherished values of the Constitution
would be a judicial calamity. That the Judiciary
is designed to be passive relative to the “active”
nature of the political departments is a given.
But when called upon to discharge its relatively
passive role, the post-1986 Supreme Court has
shown zealousness in the protection of

constitutional rights, a zealousness that has
been its hallmark from then up to now. It
cannot, in the year 2016, be reticent in asserting
this brand of protective activism.

Not everything legally required
is written in black and white;
the Judges’ role is to discern
within the penumbra.

As early as 1950, the Civil Code, a creation of
the Legislature, has instructed the Judiciary on
how to proceed in situations where there is no
applicable law or where there is ambiguity in
the legislation that seems to apply to the case at
hand. The code provides:
Article 9. No judge or court shall decline to render

judgment by reason of the silence, obscurity or
insufficiency of the laws.
_______________

G.R. No. 205728, 21 January 2015, 747 SCRA 1; Land Bank
of the Philippines v. Heirs of Angel T. Domingo, G.R. No.
168533, 4 February 2008, 543 SCRA 627; Guazon v. De Villa,
260 Phil. 673; 181 SCRA 623 (1990).
11 See Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, A.M.
No. 09-6-8-SC, 13 April 2010; The Rule on the Writ of
Amparo, A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC, 25 September 2007; Rule on
the Writ of Habeas Data, A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC, 22 January
2008.

330

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Article 10. In case of doubt in the interpretation or

application of laws, it is presumed that the
lawmaking body intended right and justice to prevail.

I do not believe that this Court is bereft of
sufficient guides that can aid in the exercise of
its role of protecting and advancing
constitutional rights. It must with a magnifying
lens examine whether clear intent, historical
references, and express mandates can be found
in the 1987 Constitution and whether these are
relevant to this case. We must pick them out and
examine them. The ill-gotten wealth statutes,
the remedial human rights legislation — all
describe the burden of a nation that must
recover from the financial and moral plunder
inflicted upon this nation by Marcos, his family
and his cronies. We must get our bearings from
these guideposts and find out if they instruct us
on what must be done with respect to his
proposed burial beyond the express and implied
condemnation of the wrongs he has committed
against the country. The pronouncements of this
Court and those of the Sandiganbayan, the legal
pleadings and administrative propositions
submitted by the Philippine government to
international and local tribunals from 1987 to
the present — a full 29 years — from these we
must infer an indication of the treatment that
should be given to the proposed action of the

Government.
That constitutional and statutory
interpretation is the bread and butter of
adjudication is beyond cavil. From the oldest
cases in the Philippine Reports to its latest
decision,12 this Court has been in the business of
filling in gaps, interpreting difficult texts, so
that “right and justice will prevail.” That this is
the entire reason for the existence of the Judi-
_______________
12 See, among others, Padilla v. Padilla, 74 Phil. 377

(1943); Republic v. De los Angeles, 148-B Phil. 902; 41 SCRA
422 (1971); Floresca v. Philex Mining Corporation, 220 Phil.
533; 136 SCRA 141 (1985); Salvacion v. Central Bank of the
Philippines, 343 Phil. 539; 278 SCRA 27 (1997); Concurring
Opinion of Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno in
Corpuz v. People, 734 Phil. 353; 724 SCRA 1 (2014), citing
the Report of the Code Commission, p. 78; Social Weather
Stations, Inc. v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 208062, 7
April 2015, 755 SCRA 124; Carpio-Morales v. Court of
Appeals (Sixth Division), G.R. Nos. 217126-27, 10 November
2015, 774 SCRA 431; Poe-Llamanzares v. Commission on
Elections, supra note 4.

331
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 331

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
ciary is self-evident. The end of “judging” is not

to do what an administrative clerk can very well
do; it is to ensure that “right and justice” will
prevail.
Indeed, that judges must interpret statutes as
well as declare the existence and protection of
individual rights so that “justice and right”
might prevail has been the essence of an
independent Judiciary. This has been so from
the time that the necessity for such
independence was first recognized by the 1215
Magna Carta signed by King John; that no man,
not even the highest ruler of the land — and
King John believed in his divine right to rule —
can exercise power in such a way that denies the
fundamental liberty of any man.
And the modern Judiciary has progressed
considerably from that time. The Philippine
Judiciary will thus be measured by the universal
standard of whether it has discharged its power
of review, so that “right and justice will prevail.”
There was a time when this Court hid under
the “political question” doctrine and evaded
constitutional and moral responsibility for the
long period of suppression of the people’s basic
rights. Rightly so, that same Court, after the
repudiation by our people of the Marcos regime
in 1986, likewise repudiated the acts of the
majority of the Court during Martial Law.
This Court cannot afford to retrogress and
make the same mistakes as those made by its
predecessor courts during Martial Law. To do so
would possibly merit the same kind of
condemnation that former President Marcos
reaped in the fullness of time.

Is the preference for the

protection of human rights
encoded in the legal DNA of
the Constitution?

There is no question that the importance
given to human rights is encoded in the very
building blocks of the Philippine Constitution.
For the Constitution to make sense, the
Supreme Court has to recognize that it is
programmed to reject government actions that
are contrary to the respect for human rights, and
to uphold those that do.

332

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
The recognition of the hallowed place given to

the protection of human rights has been
tirelessly repeated by all the Justices who ever
walked the halls of Padre Faura. Not one has
said that it was unimportant; or that it should
be sacrificed at the altar of something else — not
economic progress, not even peace — not even by
those who saw when, why, and how Martial Law
began and progressed.
Former Chief Justice Reynato Puno has said:
The sole purpose of government is to promote, protect

and preserve these [human] rights. And when
government not only defaults in its duty but itself
violates the very rights it was established to protect, it
forfeits its authority to demand obedience of the

governed and could be replaced with one to which the
people consent. The Filipino people exercised this
highest of rights in the EDSA Revolution of February
1986.13

Chief Justice Puno unequivocably repudiated
the “ends-justifies-means” mantra of Martial
Law when he catapulted the rights that Marcos
trampled upon to the highest pinnacle of
government priorities, and when as Chief
Justice he made as his tenure’s flagship the
promulgation of the extraordinary and novel
human rights writs of amparo and habeas data.
If it is true that when the Government itself
violates the very rights it was established to
protect, that violation forfeits its right to govern,
then it becomes necessary for this Court to reject
any governmental attempt that encourages the
degradation of those rights. For this Court
guards not only against clear and direct
violations of the Constitution, but also against
actions that lead this country and its rulers to a
slippery slope that threatens to hurl its people to
the abyss of helpless unprotectedness.
Contrary to the thesis of my esteemed
colleague Justice Diosdado Peralta, the
constitutional provisions guaranteeing the
protection of human rights are not inert, coming
to life only when there is a specific law that
would make these rights accessible in specific
cases. Each right
_______________
13 Concurring Opinion of Chief Justice Puno in Republic

v. Sandiganbayan, 454 Phil. 504; 407 SCRA 10 (2003).

333
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 333

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
that is sought to be protected by the

Constitution acts as a prohibition against the
Government’s derogation of those rights. Not all
of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution
direct the commission of positive acts. Yet these
rights can, under the right circumstances, be
invoked either singly or collectively to bar public
officers from performing certain acts that
denigrate those rights.

Summary of the arguments
on the substantive issues

Credit must be given to the Solicitor General
for immediately agreeing that the Constitution,
decisions of this Court, human right statutes
and the ill-gotten wealth laws and proceedings
— in their totality — condemn the Martial Law
regime of the late President Marcos, his family
and his cronies.14 Nevertheless, he posits that all
of these are in the past; human rights victims
are to be compensated, anyway; and the recovery
of ill-gotten wealth would continue, including
the pursuit of criminal cases against the Marcos
family and their cronies. In other words, while
he admits that it would be most difficult to make
former President Marcos out as a hero,

considering the latter’s martial rule and
recorded plunder, nevertheless, Marcos was a
bemedalled war soldier, and that, in addition,
his being a former President who was never
dishonorably discharged as a soldier — this fact
alone — entitles him to be interred at the
LNMB. To the Solicitor General, it is non
sequitur for human rights victims to claim that
the burial of Marcos at a cemetery called
Libingan ng mga Bayani will entomb him as a
hero and negate the plethora of legal
pronouncements that he is not.
The candid admission made by the Solicitor
General has made the job of this Court much
easier. For the substantive issue now boils down
to whether, in fact and in law, the proposed
burial of the late President Marcos at the
LNMB.
_______________
14 Consolidated Comment dated 22 August 2016, p. 62;

Oral Arguments Transcript of Stenographic Notes
[hereinafter TSN], 7 September 2016, p. 243; Memorandum
dated 27 September 2016, pp. 134-136.

334

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
(1) will derogate from the state’s duty to

protect and promote human rights under
the Constitution, domestic statutes, and
international law;
(2) will violate Presidential Decree No. 105,
and Republic Act Nos. 10066, 10086 and
289;
(3) is an unconstitutional devotion of public
property to a private purpose;
(4) is an illegal use of public funds;
(5) cannot be sourced from the residual
powers of the President or his powers to
reserve lands for public purposes;
(6) cannot find legal mooring in AFP
Regulation G 161-375;
(7) is in violation of the clause on faithful
execution of the laws.

and thus the proposed burial is
unconstitutional and illegal, and the presidential
discretion sought to be exercised is being
committed in grave abuse of discretion.
On the procedural points, this Opinion fully
agrees with the Dissenting Opinion of Justice
Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, Jr., but will
nevertheless, attempt to augment what has been
so ably discussed by Justice Caguioa on the
political question defense.
On the substantive points, I fully agree with
Justice Caguioa, whose Dissenting Opinion had
first been proposed as the main decision. I had
prepared this Opinion to elucidate my
independent understanding of some of the issues
he has covered.

Discussion

I.

The Court has the Authority to Resolve this
Controversy Under the Expanded Concept of
Judicial Review in the 1987 Constitution.

Respondents contend that the issue in this
case is a matter within the discretion of the
Executive and must consequently be considered
beyond our power of judicial review.

335
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 335

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
As will be further discussed, this Court

cannot refuse to review an issue simply because
it is alleged to be a political question. That train
has departed a long time ago. Prevailing
jurisprudence is a generation apart from the
former usefulness of the political question
doctrine as a bar to judicial review. The reason
for that departure — Philippine Martial Law
experience.

A. With the advent of the 1987 Constitution,
respondents can no longer utilize the
traditional political question doctrine
to impede the power of judicial review.

The 1987 Constitution has expanded the
concept of judicial review15 by expressly
providing in Section 1, Article VIII, as follows:
Section 1. The Judicial power shall be vested in one

Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be
established by law.

Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of
justice to settle actual controversies involving rights
which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to
determine whether or not there has been a grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or

The above provision delineates judicial power
and engraves, for the first time, the so-called
expanded certiorari jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court.16
The first part of the provision represents the
traditional concept of judicial power involving
the settlement of conflicting rights as conferred
by law. The second part represents the
expansion of judicial power to enable the courts
of justice to review what was before forbidden
territory; that is, the discretion of the political
departments of the government.17
_______________
15 Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Zamora, supra

note 3.
16 Francisco, Jr. v. Nagmamalasakit na mga
Manananggol ng mga Manggagawang Pilipino, Inc., supra
note 1.
17 Oposa v. Factoran, Jr., supra note 1.

336

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
As worded, the new provision vests in the

judiciary, particularly in the Supreme Court, the
power to rule upon even the wisdom of the
decisions of the executive and the legislature, as
well as to declare their acts invalid for lack or
excess of jurisdiction, should they be tainted
with grave abuse of discretion.18
The deliberations of the 1986 Constitutional
Commission provide the nature and rationale of
this expansion of judicial power. In his
Sponsorship Speech, former Chief Justice and
Constitutional Commissioner Roberto R.
Concepcion stated:
The first section starts with a sentence copied from

former Constitutions. It says:
The judicial power shall be vested in one

Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may
be established by law.
I suppose nobody can question it.

The next provision is new in our constitutional law. I
will read it first and explain.
Judicial power includes the duty of courts of

justice to settle actual controversies involving
rights which are legally demandable and
enforceable and to determine whether or not
there has been a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on

the part or instrumentality of the government.
Fellow Members of this Commission, this is actually

a product of our experience during martial law.
As a matter of fact, it has some antecedents in the
past, but the role of the judiciary during the
deposed regime was marred considerably by the
circumstance that in a number of cases against
the government, which then had no legal
defense at all, the solicitor general set up the
defense of political questions and got away with
it. As a consequence, certain principles concerning
particularly the writ of habeas corpus, that is, the
authority of courts to order the release of political
detainees, and other matters related to the operation
and effect of martial law failed because the
government set up the de-
_______________
18 Id.

337
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 337

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
fense of political question. And the Supreme Court

said: “Well, since it is political, we have no authority
to pass upon it.” The Committee on the Judiciary feels
that this was not a proper solution of the questions
involved. It did not merely request an encroachment
upon the rights of the people, but it, in effect,
encouraged further violations thereof during the

martial law regime. . . .

x x x x

Briefly stated, courts of justice determine the limits of
power of the agencies and offices of the government as
well as those of its officers. In other words, the
judiciary is the final arbiter on the question whether
or not a branch of government or any of its officials
has acted without jurisdiction or in excess of
jurisdiction, or so capriciously as to constitute an
abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction
or lack of jurisdiction. This is not only a judicial power
but a duty to pass judgment on matters of this nature.

This is the background of paragraph 2 of
Section 1, which means that the courts cannot
hereafter evade the duty to settle matters of this
nature, by claiming that such matters constitute
a political question.19 (Emphasis supplied)

The expansion of judicial power resulted in
constricting the reach of the political question
doctrine.20 Marcos v. Manglapus21 was the first
case that squarely dealt with the issue of the
scope of judicial power vis-à-vis the political
question doctrine under the 1987 Constitution.
In that case, the Court explained:
The present Constitution limits resort to the

political question doctrine and broadens the scope of
judicial inquiry into areas which the Court, under
previous constitutions, would have normally left to
the political departments to decide.

x x x x
_______________
19 I Records of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, pp.

434-436 (1986).
20 Estrada v. Desierto, supra note 1.
21 Marcos v. Manglapus, supra note 1.

338

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
x x x When political questions are involved, the

Constitution limits the determination to whether or
not there has been a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part
of the official whose action is being questioned. If
grave abuse is not established, the Court will not
substitute its judgment for that of the official
concerned and decide a matter which by its nature or
by law is for the latter alone to decide.22

The prerogative of the Court to review cases
in order to determine the existence of grave
abuse of discretion was further clarified in
Estrada v. Desierto:23
To a great degree, the 1987 Constitution has

narrowed the reach of the political question doctrine
when it expanded the power of judicial review of this
court not only to settle actual controversies involving
rights which are legally demandable and enforceable
but also to determine whether or not there has been a
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess

instrumentality of government. Heretofore, the
judiciary has focused on the “thou shalt not’s” of the
Constitution directed against the exercise of its
jurisdiction. With the new provision, however,
courts are given a greater prerogative to
determine what it can do to prevent grave
instrumentality of government. Clearly, the new
provision did not just grant the Court power of doing
nothing.24 (Citations omitted and emphasis supplied)

Notably, the present Constitution has not
only vested the judiciary with the right to
exercise judicial power, but made it a duty to
proceed therewith — a duty that cannot be
abandoned “by the mere specter of this creature
called the political question doctrine.”25 This
duty must be exercised “to correct errors of
jurisdiction committed not only by a tribunal,
corporation, board or officer exercising judicial,
quasi-judicial or
_______________
22 Id., at pp. 506-507; p. 696.

24 Id., at pp. 42-43; p. 491.
note 1 at p. 910; p. 149.

339
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 339

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
ministerial functions but also to set right, undo

and restrain any act of grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by
any branch or instrumentality of the
Government, even if the latter does not exercise
judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial
26
functions.”
Chief Justice Concepcion had emphatically
explained to the 1986 Constitutional
Commission that the Supreme Court, which he
had been a part of, used the political question
theory to avoid reviewing acts of the President
during Martial Law, and thus enabled the
violation of the rights of the people. In his words:
It [referring to the refusal of the Supreme Court to

review] did not merely request an encroachment upon
the rights of the people, but it, in effect, encouraged
further violations thereof during the martial law
regime.27

The question I now pose to my colleagues in
the Majority: “Are we not, by refusing to pass
upon the question of the effects of the Marcos
burial at the LNMB, encouraging
authoritarianism, plunder, and the violation of
human rights, by signaling that what Marcos
and his Martial Rule represents is not
anathema?”

B. In the exercise of its expanded judi-

cial power, the Court has decided is-
sues that were traditionally consid-
ered political questions.

Following the effectivity of the present
Constitution, only a select number of issues
continue to be recognized by the Court as truly
political and thus beyond its power of review.
These issues include the executive’s
determination by the executive of sovereign or
diplomatic immunity,28 its espousal of the claims
of its nationals against a foreign gov-
_______________
26 Araullo v. Aquino III, G.R. Nos. 209287, 209155,

209164, 209260, 209442, 209517, 209569, 1 July 2014, 728
SCRA 1, 74.
27 Supra note 19.
28 Department of Foreign Affairs v. NLRC, 330 Phil. 573;
262 SCRA 39 (1996); Collado v. International Rice Research
Institute, 314 Phil. 46; 244 SCRA 210 (1995); Lasco v. United
Nations Revolving Fund for Natural Resources Ex-

340

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
ernment,29 and the electorate’s expression of

confidence in an incumbent official.30
Apart from these matters, all other acts of

government have been the subject of the
expanded certiorari jurisdiction of the Court
under Article VIII, Section 17 of the
Constitution. As demonstrated in the following
cases, the Court has reviewed the acts of the
President, the Senate, the House of
Representatives, and even of independent bodies
such as the electoral tribunals and the
Commission on Elections, even for acts that
were traditionally considered political.

Acts of the President

The Court in Marcos v. Manglapus31
ascertained the validity of the President’s
determination that the return of the Marcoses
posed a serious threat to the national interest
and welfare, as well as the validity of the
prohibition on their return. As previously stated,
the political question doctrine was first invoked
— and then rejected — by the Court in that case
in view of its expanded power of judicial review
under the 1987 Constitution.
The Court then reviewed the constitutionality
of a presidential veto in Gonzales v. Macaraig,
Jr.32 It ruled that “the political question doctrine
neither interposes an obstacle to judicial
determination of the rival claims. The
jurisdiction to delimit constitutional boundaries
has been given to this Court.”
The expanded power of judicial review was
likewise utilized to examine the grant by the
President of clemency in administrative cases;33
and the President’s power to call out the armed
forces to prevent or suppress
_______________
ploration, 311 Phil. 795; 241 SCRA 681 (1995); The Holy See
v. Rosario, Jr., G.R. No. 101949, 1 December 1994, 238
SCRA 524; International Catholic Migration Commission v.
Calleja, 268 Phil. 134; 190 SCRA 130 (1990).
29 Vinuya v. Romulo, 633 Phil. 538; 619 SCRA 533
(2010).
30 Evardone v. Commission on Elections, G.R. Nos.
94010, 95063, 2 December 1991, 204 SCRA 464.
32 Gonzales v. Macaraig, Jr., 269 Phil. 472; 191 SCRA
452 (1990).
33 Llamas v. Orbos, 279 Phil. 920; 202 SCRA 844 (1991).

341
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 341

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
lawless violence, invasion or rebellion.34 The

Court even tackled the legitimacy of the Arroyo
administration in Estrada v. Desierto.35
Although it resolved the question as a
constitutional issue, the Court clarified that it
would not defer its resolution based merely on
the political question doctrine.
In David v. Macapagal-Arroyo,36 it was the
validity of then President Arroyo’s declaration of
national emergency that was assailed before the
Court. Significantly, it reviewed the issue even
while it recognized that the matter was solely
vested in the wisdom of the executive:
While the Court considered the President’s “calling-

out” power as a discretionary power solely vested in
his wisdom, it stressed that this does not prevent an
examination of whether such power was exercised
within permissible constitutional limits or whether it
was exercised in a manner constituting grave abuse of
discretion. This ruling is mainly a result of the Court’s
reliance on Section 1, Article VIII of 1987 Constitution
which fortifies the authority of the courts to
determine in an appropriate action the validity of the
acts of the political departments. Under the new
definition of judicial power, the courts are authorized
not only “to settle actual controversies involving
rights which are legally demandable and enforceable,”
but also “to determine whether or not there has been
a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the government.”37 (Citations
omitted)

In Biraogo v. Philippine Truth Commission of
2010,38 even the President’s creation of a Truth
Commission was reviewed by the Court. As will
be further explained, the fact that the
commission was created to implement a
campaign promise did not prevent the
Court from examining the issue.
_______________

note 3.
36 David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, supra note 3.
37 Id., at p. 766; pp. 227-228.

Phil. 374; 637 SCRA 78 (2010).

342

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Acts of the Legislature

The Court has likewise exercised its
expanded power of judicial review in relation to
actions of Congress and its related bodies. In
Daza v. Singson,39 it reviewed the manner or
legality of the organization of the Commission on
Appointments by the House of Representatives.
While the review was premised on the fact that
the question involved was legal and not political,
the Court nevertheless held that “even if we
were to assume that the issue presented before
us was political in nature, we would still not be
precluded from resolving it under the expanded
jurisdiction conferred upon us that now covers,
in proper cases, even the political question.”
In later cases, the Court rejected the political
question doctrine and proceeded to look into the
following political acts of the legislature: (a) the
decision of the House of Representatives to allow
the dominant political party to change its
representative in the House Electoral
Tribunal;40 (b) the decision of the Senate Blue
Ribbon Committee to require the petitioners to
testify and produce evidence at its inquiry;41 (c)
the propriety of permitting logging in the

country;42 (d) the validity of the filing of a second
impeachment complaint with the House of
Representatives;43 (e) the validity of an
investigation conducted in aid of legislation by
certain Senate committees;44 and (f) the decision
of the House of Representatives Committee on
Justice to take cognizance of two impeachment
complaints.45
_______________
39 Daza v. Singson, 259 Phil. 980; 180 SCRA 496 (1989).
40 Bondoc v. Pineda, supra note 1.
41 Bengzon, Jr. v. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, G.R.
No. 89914, 20 November 1991, 203 SCRA 767, 769.
42 In Oposa v. Factoran, Jr., supra note 1, the Court
declared that “the political question doctrine is no longer the
insurmountable obstacle to the exercise of judicial power or
the impenetrable shield that protects executive and
legislative actions from judicial inquiry or review.”
note 1.
44 Neri v. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public
Officers and Investigations, 573 Phil. 554; 564 SCRA 152
(2008).
45 Gutierrez v. House of Representatives Committee on
Justice, 658 Phil. 322; 643 SCRA 198 (2011). We explained
therein that “the Court is not asserting

343
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 343

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
We also exercised our constitutional duty “to

determine whether or not there had been a
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction”46 on the part of the Senate
when it ratified the WTO Agreement and the
three Annexes thereof in Tañada v. Angara.47
The Court firmly emphasized in that case that
“it will not shirk, digress from or abandon its
sacred duty and authority to uphold the
Constitution in matters that involve grave abuse
of discretion brought before it in appropriate
cases, committed by any officer, agency,
instrumentality, or department of the
48
government.”

Latest Jurisprudence

The most recent jurisprudence in this area
remains in line with the notion of expanded
certiorari jurisdiction. The Court has been
consistent in its rejection of the political
question doctrine as a bar to its expanded power
of review.
In 2013, the constitutionality of the pork
barrel system was resolved in Belgica v.
Ochoa.49 While the Court clarified that the issue
involved legal questions, it nonetheless rejected
the invocation of the political question doctrine
and upheld the expanded judicial powers of the
Court.
In 2014, Araullo v. Aquino III50 delved into
the constitutionality of the Disbursement
Acceleration Program of the executive
department, again emphasizing the Court’s
expanded power of review.
In 2015, the Court in The Diocese of Bacolod

v. Commission on Elections51 rejected the
application of the political question doctrine. It
ruled that the right of the noncandidate
petitioners to post the subject tarpaulin in their
private property was an exercise of their right to
free expression. In rejecting the COMELEC’s
political question defense, it held that
_______________
its ascendancy over the Legislature in this instance, but

simply upholding the supremacy of the Constitution as the
repository of the sovereign will.”
46 Tañada v. Angara, 338 Phil. 546, 575; 272 SCRA 18,
49 (1997).
47 Id.
48 Id.
49 Belgica v. Ochoa, Jr., 721 Phil. 416; 710 SCRA 1
(2013).
50 Araullo v. Aquino III, supra note 26.
supra note 10.

344

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
“the concept of a political question. . . . never

precludes judicial review when the act of a
constitutional organ infringes upon a
fundamental individual or collective right.”52
A few months after Diocese of Bacolod, the

policy of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC)
requiring judges of first-level courts to render
five years of service before they could qualify as
applicants to second-level courts was assailed as
unconstitutional in Villanueva v. Judicial and
Bar Council.53 The Court resolved the issue by
stating “since the formulation of guidelines and
criteria, including the policy that the petitioner
now assails, is necessary and incidental to the
exercise of the JBC’s constitutional mandate, a
determination must be made on whether the
JBC has acted with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in
issuing and enforcing the said policy.”54
Early this year, the Court in Saguisag v.
Ochoa, Jr.,55 determined the constitutionality of
the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement
between the Republic of the Philippines and the
United States of America. The Court affirmed
therein its expanded jurisdiction:
The power of judicial review has since been

strengthened in the 1987 Constitution. The scope of
that power has been extended to the determination of
whether in matters traditionally considered to be
within the sphere of appreciation of another branch of
government, an exercise of discretion has been
attended with grave abuse. The expansion of this
power has made the political question doctrine “no
longer the insurmountable obstacle to the exercise of
judicial power or the impenetrable shield that protects
executive and legislative actions from judicial inquiry
or review.”56 (Citations omitted)

Notably, while there were instances when the
Court deferred from interfering with an issue
involving a political question, it did so not

because political questions were involved but
because of a finding that
_______________
52 Id., at p. 53.

53 Villanueva v. Judicial and Bar Council, G.R. No.
211833, 7 April 2015, 755 SCRA 182.
54 Id., at p. 197.
55 779 SCRA 241, supra note 1.
56 Id.

345
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 345

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
there was no grave abuse of discretion.57

Otherwise stated, the Court still exercised its
expanded judicial power, but found no reason to
annul the questioned acts. It held in Defensor-
Santiago v. Guingona, Jr.,58 “the all-embracing
and plenary power and duty of the Court ‘to
instrumentality of the Government’ is restricted
only by the definition and confines of the term
‘grave abuse of discretion.’”
It is evident from this long line of cases that
the Court can no longer refuse to adjudicate
cases on the basis of the “political question
doctrine.” Whenever issues of a political nature
are raised before it, it is the duty of the Court to

meet the questions head-on for as long as grave
abuse of discretion or constitutionality is
seriously involved.

C. The assertion that the burial is
intended to implement an election
campaign promise does not render
the matter non-justiciable.

In view of the above rulings of this Court, it is
evident that we must resolve the present
controversy, notwithstanding the allegation that
the decision of the President to allow the burial
is purely political in character. That the order
was supposedly founded on an “election
campaign promise” does not transform the
matter into a political issue that is beyond our
power to review.
_______________
57 See Pimentel, Jr. v. Senate Committee of the Whole,

660 Phil. 202; 644 SCRA 741 (2011); Dela Paz v. Senate
Committee on Foreign Relations, 598 Phil. 981; 579 SCRA
521 (2009); Garcia v. Executive Secretary, 602 Phil. 64; 583
SCRA 119 (2009); Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary, 466 Phil.
482; 421 SCRA 656 (2004); Eastern Assurance & Surety
Corporation (EASCO) v. Land Transportation Franchising
and Regulatory Board (LTFRB), 459 Phil. 395; 413 SCRA 75
(2003); Lim v. Executive Secretary, 430 Phil. 555; 380 SCRA
739 (2002); Bagatsing v. Committee on Privatization, 316
Phil. 404; 246 SCRA 334 (1995); Co v. Electoral Tribunal of
the House of Representatives, 216 Phil. 758; 199 SCRA 692
(1991); Garcia v. Executive Secretary, 281 Phil. 572; 204
SCRA 516 (1991).
58 Santiago v. Guingona, Jr., 359 Phil. 276; 298 SCRA

756 (1998).

346

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
In fact, in Biraogo v. Philippine Truth

Commission of 2010,59 the Court reviewed the
validity of the creation of the Truth Commission,
despite its recognition that the act was meant to
implement a campaign promise made by then
President Benigno Aquino III:
The genesis of the foregoing cases can be traced to

the events prior to the historic May 2010 elections,
when then Senator Benigno Simeon Aquino III
declared his staunch condemnation of graft and
corruption with his slogan, “Kung walang corrupt,
walang mahirap.” The Filipino people, convinced of
his sincerity and of his ability to carry out this noble
objective, catapulted the good senator to the
presidency.
To transform his campaign slogan into reality,
President Aquino found a need for a special body to
investigate reported cases of graft and corruption
allegedly committed during the previous
administration.
Thus, at the dawn of his administration, the
President on July 30, 2010, signed Executive Order
No. 1 establishing the Philippine Truth Commission
of 2010 (Truth Commission).60

Even under those circumstances, however,
the Court still decided the controversy and
ultimately declared the creation of the Truth
Commission unconstitutional. While I maintain
my dissenting view because unknowable
standards were imposed in that case, I believe
that the Court correctly took cognizance of the
dispute, notwithstanding the fact that a
campaign promise was involved. There is no
reason for the Court to deviate from that course
in the present case.
Having established the duty of the Court to
review the assailed acts, it is now necessary to
examine whether the decision of the President to
allow the burial of former President Marcos at
the LNMB is consistent with the Constitution
and the laws.
_______________
59 Supra note 38.

60 Id., at p. 428; pp. 138-139.

347
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 347

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
II.

The President Acted with Grave Abuse of
Discretion and in Violation of his Duty to
Faithfully Execute the Laws when he
Ordered the Burial of Marcos in the


The 1987 Constitution mandates the
president to ensure that laws are faithfully
executed.61 This duty of faithful execution
circumscribes all the actions of the President as
the Chief Executive. It also limits every exercise
of his discretion. As this Court declared in
Almario v. Executive Secretary:
Discretion is not a free-spirited stallion that runs and

roams wherever it pleases but is reined in to keep it
from straying. In its classic formulation, “discretion is
not unconfined and vagrant” but “canalized within
banks that keep it from overflowing.”

The President’s power must be exercised in
accordance with existing laws. Section 17, Article VII
of the Constitution prescribes faithful execution of the
laws by the President:
Sec. 17. The President shall have control of all

the executive departments, bureaus and offices.
He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully
executed.
The President’s discretion in the conferment of the

Order of National Artists should be exercised in
accordance with the duty to faithfully execute the
relevant laws. The faithful execution clause is
best construed as an obligation imposed on the
President, not a separate grant of power. It
simply underscores the rule of law and,
corollarily, the cardinal principle that the
President is not above the laws but is obliged to
obey and execute them. This is precisely why the
law provides that “[a]dministrative or executive acts,
orders and regulations shall be valid only when they

are not contrary to the laws or the Constitution.”62
(Citations omitted and emphasis supplied)
_______________
61 1987 CONSTITUTION, Article VII, Section 17.

62 714 Phil. 127, 163-164; 701 SCRA 269, 309 (2013).

348

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
In fulfilling this duty, the President is not

only obligated to enforce the express terms of the
Constitution or the statutes; he is likewise
bound to implement any right, duty, or
obligation inferable from these primary
sources.63 This rule finds support in
Cunningham v. Neagle,64 in which the United
States Supreme Court suggested that the duty
of the President to faithfully execute the
law is not limited to the enforcement of the
express terms of acts of Congress or of
treaties, that duty extends to “all rights,
duties and obligations growing out of the
Constitution itself, our international
relations, and all the protection implied by
the nature of the government under the
Constitution.”65
As a consequence of these principles, any act
of the President that contravenes the law, its
policies, or any right or duty inferable therefrom

must be considered grave abuse of discretion.66
By the same token, a refusal to execute the laws
when necessary must be invalidated in the
absence of any statutory justification.67
As will be demonstrated, the directive of
President Duterte to allow the burial of Marcos
at the LNMB contravenes the constitution, laws,
_______________
63 See Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Arturo

Brion, Biraogo v. Philippine Truth Commission of 2010,
supra note 38.
64 135 U.S. 1, 82-84.
65 Id., at p. 64.
66 In Carpio-Morales v. Court of Appeals (Sixth Division),
supra note 12, the Court defined grave abuse of discretion in
this manner:
It is well-settled that an act of a court or tribunal can only be

considered as with grave abuse of discretion when such act is done
in a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to
lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be so patent and
gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual
refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in
contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an
arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility. It
has also been held that “grave abuse of discretion arises when a
lower court or tribunal patently violates the Constitution, the law
or existing jurisprudence.” [citations omitted]
67 Supra note 38.

349
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 349

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
policies, and jurisprudence. Moreover, the basis

for the directive was an invalid regulation issued
by the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) in
excess of its statutory authority. Considering
that the order was made in contravention of law,
it cannot be justified by mere reference to the
President’s residual powers. Such act is tainted
with grave abuse of discretion.

A. Statutes and jurisprudence estab-
lish a clear policy to condemn the
acts of Marcos and what he repre-
sents, which effectively prohibits
the incumbent President from
honoring him through a burial in
the Libingan ng mga Bayani.

It is the duty of the Court to give effect not
only to the letter of the law, but more
importantly to the spirit and the policy that
animate it. In Alonzo v. Intermediate Appellate
Court,68 the Court explained:
Thus, we interpret and apply the law not

independently of but in consonance with justice. Law
and justice are inseparable, and we must keep them
so. x x x
The spirit, rather than the letter of a statute

determines its construction, hence, a statute
must be read according to its spirit or intent. For
what is within the spirit is within the statute
although it is not within the letter thereof; and
that which is within the letter but not within the
spirit is not within the statute. Stated

differently, a thing which is within the intent of
the lawmaker is as much within the statute as
within the letter; and a thing which is within the
letter of the statute is not within the statute
unless within the intent of the lawmakers.69

To carry out this duty, the Court must
examine not only the subject law itself, but the
entire body of related laws including the
Constitution,
_______________
68 234 Phil. 267; 150 SCRA 259 (1987).

69 Id., at pp. 272-273; pp. 265-266.

350

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
domestic statutes, administrative issuances and

jurisprudence. It is only by taking a holistic view
of the matter that the Court can ensure that its
reading of the law is consistent with the spirit
thereof. In Social Weather Stations, Inc. v.
COMELEC,70 we explained the importance of
taking a holistic view when interpreting the law:
Third, the assumption that there is, in all cases, a

universal plain language is erroneous. In reality,
universality and uniformity of meaning is a rarity. A

contrary belief wrongly assumes that language is
static.

The more appropriate and more effective approach is,
thus, holistic rather than parochial: to consider
context and the interplay of the historical, the
contemporary, and even the envisioned. Judicial
interpretation entails the convergence of social
realities and social ideals. The latter are meant to be
effected by the legal apparatus, chief of which is the
bedrock of the prevailing legal order: the Constitution.
Indeed, the word in the vernacular that describes the
Constitution — saligan — demonstrates this
imperative of constitutional primacy.

Thus, we refuse to read Section 5.2(a) of the Fair
Election Act in isolation. Here, we consider not an
abstruse provision but a stipulation that is part of the
whole, i.e., the statute of which it is a part, that is
aimed at realizing the ideal of fair elections. We
consider not a cloistered provision but a norm that
should have a present authoritative effect to achieve
the ideals of those who currently read, depend on, and
demand fealty from the Constitution.71

In this case, we are being asked to decide
whether the President may validly order the
burial of Former President Marcos in the LNMB.
The resolution of this question requires more
than an examination of the text of AFP
Regulations 161-375. More than finding a
textual anchor, we are compelled by this issue to
scrutinize the implications of the President’s
order and determine if it conflicts with the text,
the policy, and the spirit of the law.
At its core, the present dispute turns on

whether the state, through the President
and the AFP, may legally honor Former
_______________
70 G.R. No. 208062, 7 April 2015, 755 SCRA 124.

71 Id., at p. 167.

351
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 351

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
President Marcos and his family. For that

is the essence of the proposed burial at the
LNMB regardless of whether Marcos is to
be buried as a hero, as a soldier or as a
former president. A clear understanding of
our Constitution, laws, jurisprudence, and
our international obligations must lead to
the conclusion that the grant of any such
honors for the late dictator is prohibited.
Setting aside the validity of AFP Regulations
161-375 for the moment, their blind application
to the present case would be an egregious
mistake. Considering that various laws and
jurisprudence reveal the clear policy of the state
to denounce both former President Marcos and
the Martial Law regime, it would be
inappropriate, if not absurd, for the state to
honor his memory.

1. Marcos is perpetuated
as a plunderer and a
perpetrator of human
rights violations in our
organic and statutory
laws.

As soon as the EDSA Revolution succeeded in
1986, the revolutionary government — installed
by the direct exercise of the power of the Filipino
people72 — declared its objective to immediately
recover the ill-gotten wealth amassed by Marcos,
his family, and his cronies. The importance of
this endeavor is evident in the fact that it was
specifically identified in the 1986 Provisional
Constitution as part of the mandate of the
people. Article II, Section 1 of that Constitution
states:
SECTION 1. Until a legislature is elected and

convened under a New Constitution, the President
shall continue to exercise legislative power.
The President shall give priority to measures to
achieve the mandate of the people to:

x x x x
_______________
72 Provisional Constitution, First Whereas Clause; also

see In Re: Puno, A.M. No. 90-11-2697-CA (Resolution), 29
June 1992.

352

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
d) Recover ill-gotten properties amassed by the

leaders and supporters of the previous regime
and protect the interest of the people through
orders of sequestration or freezing of assets of
accounts.

Pursuant to this mandate, then President
Corazon Aquino issued three executive orders
focused entirely on the recovery of the ill-gotten
wealth taken by Marcos and his supporters:
a) Executive Order No. 173 created the
Presidential Commission on Good
Government (PCGG) tasked to, among
others, assist the President in the “recovery
of all ill-gotten wealth accumulated by
former President Marcos, his immediate
family, relatives, subordinates and close
associates x x x by taking undue advantage
of their public office and/or using their
powers, authority, influence, connections or
relationship.”74
b) Executive Order No. 275 authorized the
freezing and sequestration of assets
pertaining to Marcos, his relatives,
associates, dummies, agents or nominees,
which had been “acquired by them directly
or indirectly, through or as a result of the
improper or illegal use of funds or
properties owned by the Government of the
Philippines”;76 or “by taking undue
advantage of their office, authority,
influence, connections or relationship.”77
c) Executive Order No. 1478 empowered the

PCGG to file and prosecute all cases it had
investigated pursuant to Executive Order
Nos. 1 and 2.
_______________
73 Executive Order No. 1, CREATING THE PRESIDENTIAL

COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT (1987).
74 Id., Section 2(a).
75 EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 2, REGARDING THE FUND, MONEYS,
ASSETS, AND PROPERTIES ILLEGALLY ACQUIRED OR MISAPPROPRIATED
BY FORMER PRESIDENT FERDINAND MARCOS, MRS. IMELDA

ROMUALDEZ MARCOS, THEIR CLOSE RELATIVES, SUBORDINATES,
BUSINESS ASSOCIATES, DUMMIES, AGENTS, OR NOMINEES (1987).

76 Id., First Whereas Clause.
77 Id.
78 Executive Order No. 14, DEFINING THE JURISDICTION OVER
CASES INVOLVING THE ILL-GOTTEN WEALTH OF FORMER PRESIDENT

FERDINAND E. MARCOS, MRS. IMELDA R. MARCOS, MEMBERS OF
THEIR IMMEDIATE FAMILY, CLOSE RELATIVES, SUBORDINATES, CLOSE
AND/OR BUSINESS ASSOCIATES, DUMMIES, AGENTS AND NOMINEES.

353
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 353

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
All three executive orders affirmed that

Marcos, his relatives and supporters had
acquired assets and properties through the
improper or illegal use of government funds or
properties by taking undue advantage of their
office, authority, influence, or connections. These
acts were proclaimed to have caused “grave

damage and prejudice to the Filipino people and
the Republic of the Philippines.”79
The gravity of the offenses committed by
former President Marcos and his supporters
even prompted the Court to describe the
mandate of the PCGG as the recovery of “the
tremendous wealth plundered from the people
by the past regime in the most execrable
thievery perpetrated in all history.”80 The
importance of this mandate was further
underscored by the sovereign Filipino people
when they ratified the 1987 Constitution,
including the following provision:

ARTICLE XVIII
Transitory Provisions

SECTION 26. The authority to issue
sequestration or freeze orders under Proclamation No.
3 dated March 25, 1986 in relation to the recovery of
ill-gotten wealth shall remain operative for not more
than eighteen months after the ratification of this
Constitution. However, in the national interest, as
certified by the President, the Congress may extend
said period.

Apart from being declared a plunderer,
Marcos has likewise been pronounced by the
legislature as a perpetrator of human rights
violations. In Republic Act No. (R.A.) 10368, the
state recognized the following facts:
a) Human rights violations were committed
during the Martial Law period “from
September 21, 1972 to February 25, 1986
by persons acting in an official capacity

and/or agents of the State”;81 and
_______________
79 Executive Order No. 2, First Whereas Clause.

80 Presidential Commission on Good Government v. Peña,
243 Phil. 93; 159 SCRA 556 (1998).
81 Section 3 of RA No. 10368 defines a “human rights
violation” as “any act or omission committed during the
period from September 21, 1972 to February 25, 1986 by
persons acting in an official capacity and/or agents of the
State.”

354

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
b) A number of these human rights violations

occurred because of decrees, declarations or
issuances made by Marcos;82 and by “acts
of force, intimidation or deceit”83 done by
him, his spouse, Imelda Marcos, and their
immediate relatives by consanguinity or
affinity, associates, cronies and
84
subordinates.

Because of the human rights violations
perpetrated by Marcos and his associates, the
legislature has decreed that victims are entitled
to both monetary85 and nonmonetary86
reparations to be principally sourced
_______________
82 The definition of human rights violations in Section 3

of R.A. No. 10348 includes: any search, arrest and/or
detention without a valid search warrant or warrant of
arrest issued by a civilian court of law, including any
warrantless arrest or detention carried out pursuant to the
declaration of Martial Law by former President Ferdinand E.
Marcos as well as any arrest, detention or deprivation of
liberty carried out during the covered period on the basis of
an “Arrest, Search and Seizure Order (ASSO),” a
“Presidential Commitment Order (PCO)” or a “Preventive
Detention Action (PDA)” and such other similar executive
issuances as defined by decrees of former President
Ferdinand E. Marcos, or in any manner that the arrest,
detention or deprivation of liberty was effected.
83 A human rights violation under Section 3(b)(5) of R.A.
No. 10368 includes “[a]ny act of force, intimidation or deceit
causing unjust or illegal takeover of a business, confiscation
of property, detention of owner/s and or their families,
deprivation of livelihood of a person by agents of the State,
including those caused by Ferdinand E. Marcos, his spouse
Imelda R. Marcos, their immediate relatives by
consanguinity or affinity, as well as those persons considered
as among their close relatives, associates, cronies and
subordinates under Executive Order No. 1, issued on
February 28, 1986 by then President Corazon C. Aquino in
the exercise of her legislative powers under the Freedom
Constitution.”
84 Under Section 3(d) of R.A. No. 10368, human rights
violations may be compensation if they were committed by
“Persons Acting in an Official Capacity and/or Agents of the
State.” This includes former President Ferdinand E. Marcos,
spouse Imelda R. Marcos, their immediate relatives by
consanguinity or affinity, as well as their close relatives,
associates, cronies and subordinates.
85 R.A. No. 10368, Section 4 states:
SECTION 4. Entitlement to Monetary Reparation.—

Any [Human Rights Violation Victim] qualified under
this Act shall receive reparation from the State, free
of tax, as herein prescribed x x x.
86 Id., Section 5 provides:

355
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 355

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
from the funds transferred to the Philippine

government by virtue of the Order of the Swiss
Federal Supreme Court.87 Those funds were
earlier declared part of the ill-gotten wealth of
the Marcos family and forfeited in favor of the
Philippine government.
The statements in the above laws were
clear indictments by both the
revolutionary government and the
legislature against the massive plunder
and the countless abuses committed by
Marcos and his cronies during his tenure
as President. These laws not only condemn
him as a thief; they equally recognize his
criminal liability for the atrocities inflicted
on innumerable victims while he was in
power.

2. Decisions of this Court have
denounced the abuses com-
mitted by Marcos during the
Martial Law dictatorship.

Apart from earning the condemnation of the

legislature, Marcos and the Martial Law regime
have likewise received harsh criticism from this
Court. In dozens of decisions, it denounced the
abuses he had committed; the pernicious effects
of his dictatorship; and the grave damage
_______________
SECTION 5. Nonmonetary Reparation.—The

Department of Health (DOH), the Department of
Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), the
Department of Education (DepEd), the Commission on
Higher Education (CHED), the Technical Education
and Skills Development Authority (TESDA), and such
other government agencies shall render the necessary
services as nonmonetary reparation for HRVVs and/or
their families, as may be determined by the Board
pursuant to the provisions of this Act.
SECTION 7. Source of Reparation.—The amount of
Ten billion pesos (P10,000,000,000.00) plus accrued
interest which form part of the funds transferred to
the government of the Republic of the Philippines by
virtue of the December 10, 1997 Order of the Swiss
Federal Supreme Court, adjudged by the Supreme
Court of the Philippines as final and executory in
Republic v. Sandiganbayan on July 15, 2003 (G.R. No.
152154) as Marcos ill-gotten wealth and forfeited in
favor of the Republic of the Philippines, shall be the
principal source of funds for the implementation of
this Act.

356

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
inflicted upon the nation by his corruption,

thievery, and contempt for human rights.
Foremost among these denunciations are found
in are four cases ordering the forfeiture of the ill-
gotten wealth he amassed with the assistance of
his relatives and cronies.
In Republic v. Sandiganbayan,88 the Court
forfeited a total of USD658 million in favor of
the government. These funds, contained in Swiss
deposit accounts in the name of certain
foundations, were declared ill-gotten, as they
were manifestly out of proportion to the known
lawful income of the Marcos family. The Court
used the same reasoning in Marcos, Jr. v.
Republic89 to justify the forfeiture of the assets
of Arelma, S.A., valued at USD3,369,975 in
1983.
On the other hand, in Republic v. Estate of
Hans Menzi90 and in Yuchengco v.
91
Sandiganbayan, the Court scrutinized the
beneficial ownership of certain shares of Bulletin
Publishing Corporation and Philippine
Telecommunications Investment Corporation,
respectively. The Court concluded in the two
cases that the shares, although registered in the
names of cronies and nominees of Marcos, were
part of the ill-gotten wealth of the dictator and
were subject to forfeiture.
It must be emphasized that in the preceding
cases, the Court noted the grand schemes
employed by Marcos and his supporters to
unlawfully amass wealth and to conceal their
transgressions. In Yuchengco, it declared:
In PCGG v. Peña, this Court, describing the rule of

Marcos as a “well-entrenched plundering regime” of
twenty years, noted the “magnitude of the past
regime’s ‘organized pillage’ and the ingenuity of the
plunderers and pillagers with the assistance of the
experts and best legal minds available in the market.”
The evidence presented in this case reveals one more
instance of this grand scheme. This Court — guardian
of the high standards and noble traditions of the legal
profession — has thus before it an opportunity to
undo[,]
_______________
88 Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 453 Phil. 1059; 406 SCRA

190 (2003).
89 686 Phil. 980; 671 SCRA 280 (2012).
90 512 Phil. 425; 476 SCRA 20 (2005).
91 515 Phil. 1; 479 SCRA 1 (2006).

357
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 357

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
even if only to a certain extent, the damage that has

been done.92 (citations omitted)

In addition to the plunder of the public
coffers, Marcos was harshly condemned by this
Court for the human rights abuses committed
during the Martial Law period.93 In Mijares v.
Ranada, et al.,94 it stated:
Our martial law experience bore strange unwanted

fruits, and we have yet to finish weeding out its bitter
crop. While the restoration of freedom and the
fundamental structures and processes of democracy
have been much lauded, according to a significant
number, the changes, however, have not sufficiently
healed the colossal damage wrought under the
oppressive conditions of the martial law period. The
cries of justice for the tortured, the murdered,
and the desaparecidos arouse outrage and
sympathy in the hearts of the fair-minded, yet
the dispensation of the appropriate relief due them
cannot be extended through the same caprice or whim
that characterized the ill-wind of martial rule. The
damage done was not merely personal but
institutional, and the proper rebuke to the iniquitous
past has to involve the award of reparations due
within the confines of the restored rule of law.
The petitioners in this case are prominent victims
of human rights violations who, deprived of the
opportunity to directly confront the man who
once held absolute rule over this country, have
chosen to do battle instead with the earthly
representative, his estate.95 (Emphasis supplied)

Marcos himself was severely criticized for
abuses he had personally committed while in
power. For instance, he was found to have
unlawfully exercised his authority for personal
gain in the following cases: (a) Tabuena v.
Sandiganbayan,96 in which he ordered the
general manager of the Manila International
Airport Authority to directly remit to the
_______________
92 Id., at pp. 48-49; pp. 56-57.

93 See Contado v. Tan, 243 Phil. 546; 160 SCRA 404
(1988).
94 495 Phil. 372; 455 SCRA 397 (2005).
95 Id., at p. 372; p. 400.
96 335 Phil. 795; 268 SCRA 332 (1997).

358

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Office of the President the amount owed by the

agency to the Philippine National Construction
Corporation; (b) Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-
Finding Committee on Behest Loans v.
Desierto,97 in which Marcos made a marginal
note prohibiting the foreclosure of the mortgaged
assets of Mindanao Coconut Oil Mills and
waiving the liabilities of the corporation and its
owners to the National Investment and
Development Corporation; and (c) Republic v.
Tuvera,98 in which Marcos himself granted a
Timber License Agreement to a company owned
by the son of his longtime aide, in violation of
the Forestry Reform Code and Forestry
Administrative Order No. 11.
Marcos was likewise deemed personally
responsible for the corruption of the judicial
process in Galman v. Sandiganbayan.99
Affirming the findings of a commission created
to receive evidence on the case, the Court stated:
The Court adopts and approves the Report and its

findings and holds on the basis thereof and of the
evidence received and appreciated by the Commission
and duly supported by the facts of public record and
knowledge set forth above and hereinafter, that the
then President (code named Olympus) had stage
managed in and from Malacañang Palace “a
scripted and predetermined manner of handling
and disposing of the Aquino-Galman murder
case”; and that “the prosecution in the Aquino-
Galman case and the Justices who tried and
decided the same acted under the compulsion of
some pressure which proved to be beyond their
capacity to resist,” and which not only prevented
the prosecution to fully ventilate its position and to
offer all the evidences which it could have otherwise
presented, but also predetermined the final outcome
of the case of total absolution of the twenty-six
respondents accused of all criminal and civil liability.

x x x x
_______________
97 664 Phil. 16; 635 SCRA 487 (2010).

98 545 Phil. 21; 516 SCRA 113 (2007).
99 228 Phil. 42; 144 SCRA 43 (1986).

359
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 359

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
The record shows suffocatingly that from beginning to

end, the then President used, or more precisely,
misused the overwhelming resources of the
government and his authoritarian powers to
corrupt and make a mockery of the judicial
process in the Aquino-Galman murder cases.
x x x

Indeed, the secret Malacañan conference at which the
authoritarian President called together the Presiding
Justice of the Sandiganbayan and Tanodbayan
Fernandez and the entire prosecution panel headed by
Deputy Tanodbayan Herrera and told them how to
handle and rig (moro-moro) the trial and the close
monitoring of the entire proceedings to assure the pre-
determined ignominious final outcome are without
parallel and precedent in our annals and
jurisprudence.100 (Emphasis supplied)

Because of the abuses committed, the Court
condemned the Marcos years as a “dark chapter
in our history,”101 a period of “national
trauma”102 dominated by a “well-entrenched
plundering regime,”103 which brought about
“colossal damage wrought under the oppressive
conditions of the Martial Law period.”104 The
attempt by the dictator to return to the country
after the EDSA Revolution was even described
by the Court as “the case of a dictator forced out
of office and into exile after causing twenty years
of political, economic and social havoc in the
country.”105
The foregoing pronouncements are considered
part of the legal system of the Philippines106 and
must be considered binding, since they are
integral parts of final and immutable judgments.
It may be presumed that the Court made the

above declarations only after a judicious
consideration of the evidence and the applicable
law. Consequently, those declarations cannot be
questioned, reversed, or disregarded without
_______________
100 Id., at pp. 71-83; pp. 70, 82-83.

101 See Heirs of Gregorio Licaros v. Sandiganbayan, 483
Phil. 510, 524; 440 SCRA 483, 497-498 (2004).
102 See Republic v. Tuvera, supra note 98 at p. 61; p. 153.
103 See Presidential Commission on Good Government v.
Peña, supra note 80 at p. 115; p. 574.
104 Mijares v. Ranada, supra note 94 at p. 372; p. 399.
105 Marcos v. Manglapus, supra note 1 at p. 492; p. 682.
106 CIVIL CODE, Article 8.

360

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
running afoul of the doctrine of immutability of

judgment. This doctrine of finality of judgments
applies even to the highest court of the land.107
The claim that judgment has not been
rendered against Marcos for the plunder and the
atrocities committed under his regime is belied
by the declarations of this very Court. In his
Separate Opinion in Olaguer v. Military
Commission No. 34,108 former Chief Justice
Claudio Teehankee wrote of our nation’s history
during the Martial Law regime, and it would be

well to recall his words:
It was a long and horrible nightmare when our

people’s rights, freedoms and liberties were sacrificed
at the altar of “national security” even though it
involved nothing more than the President-dictator’s
perpetuation in office and the security of his relatives
and some officials in high positions and their
protection from public accountability of their acts of
venality and deception in government, many of which
were of public knowledge.

x x x x

The treacherous assassination on August 21, 1983
of the martyred Benigno S. Aquino, Jr., within
minutes of his arrival at the Manila International
Airport, although ringed with 2,000 soldiers, shocked
and outraged the conscience of the nation. After three
years of exile following almost eight years of detention
since martial law, Aquino, although facing the
military commission’s predetermined death sentence,
supra, yet refused proper travel documents, was
returning home “to strive for genuine national
reconciliation founded on justice.” The late Senator
Jose W. Diokno who passed away this year was
among the first victims of the martial law coup d’état
to be locked up with Senator Aquino. In March, 1973,
all of their personal effects, including their eyeglasses
were ominously returned to their homes. Their wives’
visitation privileges were suspended and they lost all
contact for over a month. It turned out that Aquino
had smuggled out of his cell a written statement
critical of the martial law regime. In swift retribution,
both of them were flown out blindfolded to the army
camp at Fort Laur in Nueva Ecija and kept in solitary
confinement in dark boarded cells with hardly any

ventila-
_______________
107 Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) v.

Group Management Corporation (GMC), 666 Phil. 277; 651
SCRA 279 (2011).
108 234 Phil. 144; 150 SCRA 144 (1987).

361
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 361

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
tion. When their persons were produced before the

Court on habeas corpus proceedings, they were a
pitiable sight having lost about 30 to 40 lbs. in weight.
Senator Diokno was to be released in September, 1974
after almost two years of detention. No charges of any
kind were ever filed against him. His only fault was
that he was a possible rival for the presidency.
Horacio Morales, Jr., 1977 TOYM awardee for
government service and then executive vice president
of the Development Academy of the Philippines, was
among the hardworking government functionaries
who had been radicalized and gave up their
government positions. Morales went underground on
the night he was supposed to receive his TOYM
award, declaring that “(F)or almost ten years, I have
been an official in the reactionary government,
serviced the Marcos dictatorship and all that it stands
for, serving a ruling system that has brought so much
suffering and misery to the broad masses of the
Filipino people. (I) refuse to take any more part of

this. I have had enough of this regime’s tyranny and
treachery, greed and brutality, exploitation and
oppression of the people,” and “(I)n rejecting my
position and part in the reactionary government, I am
glad to be finally free of being a servant of foreign and
local vested interest. I am happy to be fighting side by
side with the people.” He was apprehended in 1982
and was charged with the capital crime of subversion,
until he was freed in March, 1986 after President
Corazon C. Aquino’s assumption of office, together
with other political prisoners and detainees and
prisoners of conscience in fulfillment of her campaign
pledge.
Countless others forfeited their lives and stand as
witnesses to the tyranny and repression of the past
regime. Driven by their dreams to free our
motherland from poverty, oppression, iniquity and
injustice, many of our youthful leaders were to make
the supreme sacrifice. To mention a few: U.P.
Collegian editor Abraham Sarmiento, Jr., worthy son
of an illustrious member of the Court pricked the
conscience of many as he asked on the front page of
the college paper: Sino ang kikibo kung hindi tayo
kikibo? Sino ang kikilos kung hindi tayo kikilos? Kung
hindi ngayon, kailan pa? He was locked up in the
military camp and released only when he was near
death from a severe attack of asthma, to which he
succumbed. Another TOYM awardee, Edgar Jopson,
an outstanding honor student at the Ateneo
University, instinctively pinpointed the gut issue in
1971 he pressed for a “non-partisan Constitutional
Convention”; and demanded that the then president-
soon-to-turn dictator “put down in

362

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
writing” that he was not going to manipulate the

Constitution to remove his disqualification to run for
a third term or perpetuate himself in office and was
called down as “son of a grocer.” When as he feared,
martial law was declared, Jopson went underground
to continue the struggle and was to be waylaid and
killed at the age of 34 by 21 military troops as the
reported head of the rebel movement in Mindanao.
Another activist honor student leader, Emmanuel
Yap, son of another eminent member of the Court,
was to disappear on Valentine’s Day in 1976 at the
young age of 24, reportedly picked up by military
agents in front of Channel 7 in Quezon City, and
never to be seen again.
One of our most promising young leaders, Evelio B.
Javier, 43, unarmed, governor of the province of
Antique at 28, a Harvard-trained lawyer, was
mercilessly gunned down with impunity in broad
daylight at 10 a.m. in front of the provincial capitol
building by six mad-dog killers who riddled his body
with 24 bullets fired from M-16 armalite rifles (the
standard heavy automatic weapon of our military). He
was just taking a breather and stretching his legs
from the tedious but tense proceedings of the
canvassing of the returns of the presidential snap
election in the capitol building. This was to be the last
straw and the bloodless EDSA revolt was soon to
unfold. The Court in Javier v. Comelec, through Mr.
Justice Cruz, said these meager words in tribute to a
fallen hero who was struck down in the vigor of his
youth because he dared to speak against tyranny.

“Where many kept a meekly silence for fear of
retaliation, and still others feigned and fawned in
hopes of safety and even reward, he chose to fight. He
was not afraid. Money did not tempt him. Threats did
not daunt him. Power did not awe him. His was a
singular and all-exacting obsession: the return of
freedom to his country. And though he fought not in
the barricades of war amid the sound and smoke of
shot and shell, he was a soldier nonetheless, fighting
valiantly for the liberties of his people against the
enemies of his race, unfortunately of his race too, who
would impose upon the land a perpetual night of dark
enslavement. He did not see the breaking of the dawn,
sad to say, but in a very real sense Evelio B. Javier
made that dawn draw nearer because he was, like
Saul and Jonathan, “swifter than eagles and stronger
than lions.’”109 (Citations omitted)
_______________
109 Id., at pp. 173-177; pp. 175-178.

363
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 363

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
The pronouncements of the Court on this

matter must be respected and considered
conclusive. Hence, while Marcos may have
evaded a criminal proceeding by choosing to go
on exile after the EDSA Revolution, the
atrocities committed against the Filipino people
during his regime must be remembered. Our

declarations on this matter cannot be
disregarded or forgotten, as Chief Justice
Teehankee reminded us in Olaguer:
The greatest threat to freedom is the shortness

of human memory. We must note here the
unforgettable and noble sacrifices of the
countless brave and patriotic men and women
who feel as martyrs and victims during the long
dark years of the deposed regime. In vacating the
death sentence imposed on the petitioners who
survived the holocaust, we render them simple justice
and we redeem and honor the memory of those who
selflessly offered their lives for the restoration of
truth, decency, justice and freedom in our beloved
land.110 (Emphasis supplied)

3. The President may not contra-
dict or render ineffective the de-
nunciations, or the policies and
principles enunciated in the
foregoing statutes and jurispru-
dence.

It is the obligation of the President to give
effect to the pronouncements of the Legislature
and the Judiciary as part of his duty to faithfully
execute the laws. At the very least, the President
cannot authorize an act that runs counter to the
letter and the spirit of the law.
In this case, the foregoing statutes and
jurisprudence condemning Marcos and his
regime effectively prohibit the incumbent
President from granting him any form of tribute
or honor. The President’s discretion in this
matter is not unfettered. Contrary to the
assertions of respondents, the President

cannot arbitrarily and whimsically decide
that the acts attributed to Marcos during
Martial Law
_______________
110 Id., at p. 177; p. 178.

364

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
are irrelevant, solely because “he possessed

the title to the presidency until his
eventual ouster from office.”111
Indeed, it would be the height of
absurdity for the Executive branch to
insist on paying tribute to an individual
who has been condemned by the two other
branches of government as a dictator, a
plunderer, and a human rights violator.
Whether Marcos is to be buried in the
LNMB as a hero, soldier, or former
President is of little difference. The most
important fact is that the burial would
accord him honor. For the Court to pretend
otherwise is to sustain a delusion, as this
controversy would not have arisen if not
for this reality.
A state of affairs that would allow Marcos to
reap any accolade or tribute from the state using
public funds and property would obviously

contradict the laws and judicial findings
described above. Clearly, there is more than
sufficient basis to reject the proposed burial.

B. The AFP does not have the
power to determine which
persons are qualified for
interment in the Libingan.

The argument of respondents that the burial
is permitted under AFP Regulations 161-375 is
unavailing, as the AFP does not have the
authority to select which persons are qualified to
be buried in the LNMB. For this reason, the
enumeration contained in AFP Regulations 161-
375 must be deemed invalid.
In Proclamation No. 208,112 then President
Marcos reserved a certain parcel of land in
Taguig — the proposed site of the LNMB — for
“na-
_______________
111 Public Respondents’ Memorandum with Prayer to

Lift Status Quo Ante Order (hereinafter Public Respondents’
Memorandum), p. 106.
112 Proclamation No. 208, Excluding from the operation
of Proclamation No. 423, dated July 12, 1957, which
established the Fort Bonifacio Military Reservation a certain
portion of the land embraced therein situated in the
Municipality of Taguig, Province of Rizal, and reserving the
same for national shrine purposes, 28 May 1967.

365
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 365

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
tional shrine purposes.” This parcel of land was

placed “under the administration” of the
National Shrines Commission (NSC). The NSC
was later transferred to the Department of
National Defense (from the Department of
Education) and then abolished through the
Integrated Reorganization Plan. The functions of
the former NSC were then transferred to the
National Historical Institute (NHI).
On 26 January 1977, Presidential Decree No.
(P.D.) 1076113 created the Philippine Veterans
Affairs Office (PVAO) under the Department of
National Defense. The PVAO was tasked to,
among others, “administer, maintain and
develop military memorials and battle
monuments proclaimed as national shrines.”
P.D. 1076 also abolished the NHI and
transferred its functions to the PVAO. The
transferred functions pertained to military
memorials, including the authority to
“administer” the LNMB.
The authority of the PVAO to administer,
maintain and develop the LNMB pertains purely
to the management and care of the cemetery. Its
power does not extend to the determination of
which persons are entitled to be buried there.
This authority pertains to Congress,
because the power to deal with public
property, including the right to specify the
purposes for which the property may be
used, is legislative in character.114
Accordingly, the provision in AFP Regulations
161-375 enumerating the persons qualified to be
interred in the LNMB cannot bind this Court.
At any rate, the AFP Regulations cannot be

considered in isolation. As part of the legal
system, administrative issuances must be
interpreted and implemented in a manner
consistent with statutes, jurisprudence, and
other rules.115 In the same manner, the
purported discretion of the President to
determine the persons who may be interred in
the LNMB must be considered limited by
statutes and judicial decisions.116
_______________
113 Presidential Decree No. 1076, AMENDING PART XII

(EDUCATION) AND PART XIX (NATIONAL SECURITY) OF THE
INTEGRATED REORGANIZATION PLAN, 26 January 1977.

114 Rabuco v. Villegas, 154 Phil. 615; 55 SCRA 656
(1974).
115 CIVIL CODE, Article 7.
116 See National Artist for Literature Virgilio Almario, et
al. v. The Executive Secretary, supra note 62.

366

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Since the proposed interment of Marcos in the

LNMB runs counter to law as explained in the
preceding section, AFP Regulations 161-375
must be interpreted to mean that Marcos is
specifically disqualified from being buried in
that cemetery. Only by adhering to this
interpretation can the Court ensure that the

issuance is in harmony with other existing laws.
Consequently, we cannot choose to implement
AFP Regulations 161-375 exclusively while
disregarding the statutes and jurisprudence
referred to above.

C. The burial cannot be justified by mere
reference to the President’s residual
powers; it is not unfettered, and such
power can only be exercised in confor-
mity with the entire Constitution.

During the oral arguments, respondents
attempted to justify the decision of the President
to allow the burial primarily on the basis of his
residual power.117 Citing Marcos v.
118
Manglapus and Sanlakas v. Executive
119
Secretary, they argued that the President is
vested with powers other than those enumerated
in the Constitution and statutes, and that these
powers are implicit in the duty to safeguard and
protect the general welfare.120
It must be emphasized that the statement in
Marcos v. Manglapus acknowledging the
“President’s residual power to protect the
general welfare of the people” was not
unconditional. The Court, in fact, explicitly
stated that only acts “not forbidden” by the
Constitution or the laws were permitted
under this concept:
To the President, the problem is one of balancing the

general welfare and the common good against the
exercise of rights of certain individuals. The power
involved is the President’s residual power to
protect the general welfare of the people. It is

founded on
_______________
117 TSN, 7 September 2016, pp. 11-12.

119 Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary, supra note 57.
120 TSN, 7 September 2016, p. 11.

367
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 367

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
the duty of the President, as steward of the

people. To paraphrase Theodore Roosevelt, it is
not only the power of the President but also his
duty to do anything not forbidden by the
Constitution or the laws that the needs of the
nation demand. [See Corwin, supra at p. 153] It is a
power borne by the President’s duty to preserve and
defend the Constitution. It also may be viewed as a
power implicit in the President’s duty to take care
that the laws are faithfully executed [see Hyman, The
American President, where the author advances the
view that an allowance of discretionary power is
unavoidable in any government and is best lodged in
the President].121 (Emphasis supplied)

The Court in that case also reiterated the
underlying principles that must guide the
exercise of presidential functions and powers,

residual or otherwise:
Admittedly, service and protection of the

people, the maintenance of peace and order, the
protection of life, liberty and property, and the
promotion of the general welfare are essentially
ideals to guide governmental action. But such does
not mean that they are empty words. Thus, in the
exercise of presidential functions, in drawing a plan of
government, and in directing implementing action for
these plans, or from another point of view, in making
any decision as President of the Republic, the
President has to consider these principles, among
other things, and adhere to them.122 (Emphasis
supplied)

Clearly, the residual power of the President
cannot be used to justify acts that are contrary
to the Constitution and the laws. To allow him to
exercise his powers in disregard of the law would
be to grant him unbridled authority in the guise
of inherent power. Clearly, that could not have
been the extent of the residual powers
contemplated by the Court in Marcos v.
Manglapus.
To reiterate, the President is not above the
laws but is, in fact, obliged to obey and execute
them.123 This obligation is even more para-
_______________
121 Marcos v. Manglapus, supra note 1 at p. 504; pp. 694,

723-724.
122 Id., at p. 503; p. 693.
v. The Executive Secretary, supra note 62.

368

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
mount in this case because of historical

considerations and the nature of the norms
involved, i.e., peremptory norms of human rights
that are enshrined both in domestic and
international law.

III.

To Allow Marcos to be Buried in the
Libingan ng mga Bayani would Violate
International Human Rights Law as an
Independent Source of State Obligations,
and Would Negate the Remedies Provided
by Republic Act No. 10368.

An examination of the vast body of
international human rights law establishes a
duty on the part of the state to provide the
victims of human rights violations during the
Marcos regime a range of effective remedies and
reparations. This obligation is founded on the
state’s duty to ensure respect for, and to protect
and fulfill those rights.
Allowing the proposed burial of Marcos in the
LNMB would be a clear violation of the foregoing
international law obligations. Consequently, the
planned interment must be enjoined in light of
Article II, Section 11 of the Constitution, the

established principle of pacta sunt servanda, and
the fact that the state has already acknowledged
these duties and incorporated them in our
domestic laws.

A. Under international law, the Philip-
pines is obligated to provide effective
remedies, including holistic repara-
tions, to human rights victims.

The obligation of the Philippines to respect,
protect, and fulfill human rights has its legal
basis in international agreements and
customary international law. As will be
discussed, this obligation includes the duty to
provide effective remedies, which, in turn,
incorporates the grant of holistic reparations to
victims of human rights violations.

1. The Philippines is bound to
respect, protect, and fulfill
human rights under its

369
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 369

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
treaty obligations and cus-

tomary international law.

As a party to the United Nations (UN)
Charter124 and the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR),125 the

Philippines is bound to comply in good faith with
our obligations therein pursuant to the principle
of pacta sunt servanda.126 These treaties form
the normative foundation of the duty of the state
to provide effective remedies and reparations to
victims of human rights violations.
The promotion, protection and fulfilment of
human rights norms are obligations woven
throughout the entire UN Charter, beginning
with the Preamble which “reaffirm[s] faith in
fundamental human rights, in the dignity and
worth of the human person, in the equal rights
of men and women and of nations large and
small.”127 In line with this statement, the
promotion of “universal respect for, and
observance of, human rights and fundamental
freedoms for all without distinction as to race,
sex, language, or religion”128 was identified as
one of the basic purposes
_______________
124 United Nations, Charter of the United Nations, 24

October 1945, 1 UNTS XVI [hereinafter UN Charter].
125 UN General Assembly, International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights, 16 December 1966, United
Nations, Treaty Series, Vol. 999, p. 171 [hereinafter ICCPR].
126 In Government of the United States of America v.
Purganan, G.R. No. 148571, 24 September 2002, 389 SCRA
623, the Court explained the principle of pacta sunt servanda
as follows:
Article 2, Section 2, of the 1987 Philippine Constitution provides for

an adherence to general principles of international law as part of
the law of the land. One of these principles is the basic rule of pacta
sunt servanda or the performance in good faith of a state’s treaty
obligations. Pacta sunt servanda is the foundation of all

conventional international law, for without it, the superstructure of
treaties, both bilateral and multilateral, which comprise a great
part of international law, could well be inconsequential.
127 UN Charter, supra, Preamble.

128 Id., Art. 55.

370

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
of the United Nations.129 These principles

became part of a concrete obligation via Article
56 of the Charter, as states were mandated to
take joint and separate action in cooperation
with the UN for the achievement of its
purposes.130
On the other hand, the ICCPR obligates
states parties to respect and ensure the human
rights of all individuals within its territory.
Article 2(1) of this covenant provides:
Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes

to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its
territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights
recognized in the present Covenant, without
distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex,
language, religion, political or other opinion, national
or social origin, property, birth or other status.
Interpreting this provision, the United

Nations Human Rights Committee131 (UNHRC)
issued General Comment No. 31132 declaring
that the obligation in Article 2(1) is owed not
just to individuals as the rights holders under
the ICCPR, but to every state party therein.133
The duty to respect basic human rights is
likewise considered an erga omnes obligation in
view of the importance of the rights involved.134
In other words, it is an obligation towards the
international community as a whole.135
Further establishing the obligation to respect
human rights is the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights (UDHR) which defines and
_______________
129 Id.
130 Id., Art. 56.
131 Pursuant to Article 40 of the ICCPR, the UNHRC is
described as the official body that monitors compliance with
the ICCPR.
132 UN Human Rights Committee (HRC), General
Comment No. 31 [80], The nature of the general legal
obligation imposed on States Parties to the Covenant, 26 May
2004, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13 [hereinafter UNHRC
General Comment No. 31].
133 Id., par. 2.
134 Case concerning the Barcelona Traction Light and
Power Company, Ltd. (Second Phase, Belgium v. Spain),
I.C.J. Reports 1970, p. 32 [hereinafter Barcelona Traction
Case].
135 Id.

371
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 371

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
codifies human rights norms provided for in the

UN Charter. Considered the most important
human rights document in the world,136 the
UDHR enumerates the human rights that states
are bound to respect, including the right to life,
liberty, and security of persons;137 the
prohibition against torture and arbitrary arrest
or detention;138 and the right to freedom from
interference with one’s privacy, family, home, or
correspondence.139 While not a legally binding
treaty, the UDHR is generally considered a
codification of the customary international law
on human rights.140 Hence, it binds all nations
including the Philippines.
The foregoing instruments clearly create
rights that every state is obliged to recognize
and respect. To give effect to these entitlements,
a violation of protected rights brings about the
obligation on the part of the offending state to
provide a corresponding remedy.

2. The duty to respect, protect,
and fulfill human rights
includes the obligation to
provide an effective remedy.

The international guarantee of a remedy for
human rights violations is well established328 as
one of the bedrock principles of contemporary
international human rights law.329 Ubi ius ibi
remedium — “where there is a right, there is a
remedy.”330 It is settled that gross human rights
violations give rise to a right to remedy for

victims, which in turn im-
_______________
136 Hannum, Hurst, The Universal Declaration of

Human Rights, in The Essentials of Human Rights, p. 351
(Rhona K.M. Smith and Christian van den Anker eds., 2005).
137 UN General Assembly, Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, 10 December 1948, 217 A (III), Art. 3
[hereinafter UDHR].
138 Id., Arts. 4, 5, 9.
139 Id., Art. 12.
140 Hannum, supra.
141 Shelton, Dinah, Remedies in International Human
Rights Law, p. 37 (1999 ed.).
142 Starr, Sonja B., Rethinking “Effective Remedies”:
Remedial Deterrence in International Courts, 83 N.Y.U. L.
REV. 693, 698 (2008), p. 693.
143 Id.; Black’s Law Dictionary, p. 1120, 6th ed. (1990).

372

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
plies a duty on the part of states to provide the

same.144 This obligation is based on the principle
that failure to provide an adequate remedy for
violations renders the duty to respect the rights
involved meaningless and illusory.145

Under Treaties

International human rights law instruments,
both global and regional, impose upon states the
duty not merely to offer a remedy, but also to
ensure that the remedy provided is “effective.”
This rule is clearly demonstrated in the
provisions discussed below.
It is an accepted principle that “[e]veryone
has the right to an effective remedy by the
competent national tribunals for acts violating
the fundamental rights granted him by the
constitution or by law.”146 This rule is further
developed in Article 2 of the ICCPR, which
provides:
3. Each State Party to the present Covenant

undertakes:

(a) To ensure that any person whose rights or
freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have
an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the
violation has been committed by persons acting in an
official capacity;

(b) To ensure that any person claiming such a
remedy shall have his right thereto determined by
competent judicial, administrative or legislative
authorities, or by any other competent authority
provided for by the legal system of the State, and to
develop the possibilities of judicial remedy;

enforce such remedies when granted.147
_______________
144 Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for

Human Rights, Rule-of-Law Tools for Post-Conflict States:
Reparations Programmes, p. 7, U.N. Sales No. E.08.XIV.3
(2008); Shelton, supra note 141 at p. 15.
145 Shelton, Dinah, Remedies in International Human
Rights Law, p. 61 (2015 ed.).
146 UDHR, supra note 137, Art. 8.
147 ICCPR, supra note 125, Art. 2.

373
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 373

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Explaining the nature of the obligations

imposed by this provision, the UNHRC stated
that the grant of reparations to individual
victims is a central component of this legal
obligation.148
A similar guarantee of effective remedies is
included in the Convention on the Elimination of
Racial Discrimination (CERD),149 while the
Convention against Torture and other Cruel,
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
150
Punishment (Convention Against Torture)
refers to an equivalent right in the form of
redress and compensation.151 This right to
redress was
_______________
148 In General Comment No. 31, supra note 132, the

UNHRC explains:
Article 2, paragraph 3, requires that States Parties make

reparation to individuals whose Covenant rights have been
violated. Without reparation to individuals whose Covenant rights
have been violated, the obligation to provide an effective remedy,
which is central to the efficacy of Article 2, paragraph 3, is not
discharged.

149 UN General Assembly, International Convention on
the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 21
December 1965, United Nations, Treaty Series, Vol. 660, p.
195 [hereinafter CERD]. Article 6 of this treaty provides:
States Parties shall assure to everyone within their jurisdiction

effective protection and remedies, through the competent national
tribunals and other State institutions, against any acts of racial
discrimination which violate his human rights and fundamental
freedoms contrary to this Convention, as well as the right to seek
from such tribunals just and adequate reparation or satisfaction for
any damage suffered as a result of such discrimination.

150 UN General Assembly, Convention Against Torture
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment, 10 December 1984, United Nations, Treaty
Series, Vol. 1465, p. 85 [hereinafter CAT].
151 Article 14 of the CAT states:
1. Each State Party shall ensure in its legal system that the
victim of an act of torture obtains redress and has an
enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation, including
the means for as full rehabilitation as possible. In the event of
the death of the victim as a result of an act of torture, his
dependants shall be entitled to compensation.
2. Nothing in this article shall affect any right of the victim or
other persons to compensation which may exist under national
law.

374

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
clarified in General Comment No. 3152 of the UN

Committee Against Torture (UNCAT) as a
comprehensive reparative concept, which
embraces both “effective remedy” and
“reparation.” Redress “entails restitution,
compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction and
guarantees of non-repetition and refers to the
full scope of measures required to redress
violations under the Convention.”153 The
committee also emphasized that reparative
measures must take into account the particular
needs of the victims and the gravity of the
violations committed against them.154
Even regional instruments such as the
European Convention for the Protection of
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,155
the Ameri
_______________
152 UN Committee Against Torture (CAT), General

Comment No. 3; Convention against Torture and Other
Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment:
Implementation of Article 14 by States Parties, 13 December
2012 [hereinafter General Comment No. 3].
153 Id., par. 2.
154 General Comment No. 3, par. 6 states:
Reparation must be adequate, effective and comprehensive. States

parties are reminded that in the determination of redress and
reparative measures provided or awarded to a victim of torture or
ill treatment, the specificities and circumstances of each case must
be taken into consideration and redress should be tailored to the
particular needs of the victim and be proportionate in relation to
gravity of the violations committed against them. The Committee
emphasi[z]es that the provision of reparation has an inherent
preventive and deterrent effect in relation to future violations.

155 Council of Europe, European Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as
amended by Protocols Nos. 11 and 14, 4 November 1950, ETS
5 [hereinafter ECPHR]. Article 13 of the Convention
provides:
Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention

are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national
authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by
persons acting in an official capacity.

375
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 375

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
can Convention on Human Rights,156 and the

Protocol to the African Charter,157 provide for
effective remedies for human rights violations.

Under Customary International Law

At the same time, customary international

law, as discerned from the law of state
responsibility and the progressive development
of human rights treaty law, is further solidifying
the legal basis of the right to remedy of victims
of human rights violations.158
The Articles on the Responsibility of States
for Internationally Wrongful Acts codified by the
International Law Commission (ILC Articles)
provides that state responsibility arising from an
internationally wrongful act159 gives rise to the
duty to make reparations. Under the ILC
Articles, a state held liable for the breach of an
obligation may be re-
_______________
156 Organization of American States (OAS), American

Convention on Human Rights, “Pact of San Jose,” Costa
Rica, 22 November 1969 [hereinafter ACHR]. Article 63 of
the treaty talks about remedies and compensation, as
follows:
If the Court finds that there has been a violation of a right or

freedom protected by this Convention, the Court shall rule that the
injured party be ensured the enjoyment of his right or freedom that
was violated. It shall also rule, if appropriate, that the
consequences of the measure or situation that constituted the
breach of such right or freedom be remedied and that fair
compensation be paid to the injured party.

157 African Union, Protocol to the African Charter on
Human and People’s Rights on the Rights of Women in
Africa, 11 July 2003. Article 27 of the Protocol states:
If the Court finds that there has been violation of a human or

peoples’ rights, it shall make appropriate orders to remedy the
violation, including the payment of fair compensation or reparation.

Human Rights, supra note 144 at pp. 5-6.
159 International Law Commission, Draft Articles on
Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts,
November 2001, Supplement No. 10 (A/56/10), Chp. IV.E.1,
Art. 1 [hereinafter ILC Articles].

376

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
quired to perform the following acts: (1)

cessation of the violation,160 (2) guarantee of
non-repetition,161 and (3) full reparation for the
injury caused.162
Because of the emergence of human rights in
international law,163 the duty to remedy a
breach under the ILC Articles is deemed owed
not only to the injured state as traditionally
imagined, but also to individuals whose human
rights have been impaired by the breach under a
state’s jurisdiction.164 The right to effective
remedies and just reparations for individual
victims may be culled from the obligations of the
state to cease violations, guarantee non-
repetition and make full reparation.165 This
right is further affirmed by Article 33 of the ILC
Articles, which declares that the obligation of
the state to provide reparations is “without
prejudice to any right, arising from the

international responsibility of a State, which
may accrue directly to any person or entity other
than a State.”166
_______________
160 ILC Articles, Art. 30(a).

161 Id., Art. 30(b).
162 Id., Art. 31(a).
Human Rights, supra note 144 at p. 6.
164 UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and
Protection of Human Rights, Study concerning the right to
restitution, compensation and rehabilitation for victims of
gross violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms:
final report/submitted by Theo van Boven, Special
Rapporteur, 2 July 1993, E/CN.4/Sub.2/1993/8, paragraphs
43-46 [hereinafter Van Boven Report]; see also Buyse,
Antoine, Lost and regained? Restitution as a remedy for
human rights violations in the context of International Law,
68 Heidelberg J. OF I. L. 129, 134-135 (2008), wherein the
author posits as follows: “The ICJ in its Advisory Opinion
Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United
Nations recognized that a nonstate entity — the
international organization of the United Nations — had the
right to claim reparation at the international level from a
state. Extending this, one could argue that if other new
subjects of international law arise, they too can claim.
Individuals have been recognized as being such subjects of
international law. To the extent that they are accorded
rights under international law, they should therefore have
the possibility to claim.”
165 Van Boven Report, id., par. 45.
166 ILC Articles, supra note 159, Art. 33(2).


377
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 377

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
To further substantiate the existence of a rule

of customary international law on this matter,
two declarations approved by the UNHRC and
the UN General Assembly, respectively, may be
cited.
The Declaration on the Protection of All
Persons from Enforced Disappearance167 issued
by the UNHRC is a body of principles concerning
enforced disappearances, including a provision
for the right of victims of acts of enforced
disappearance to adequate compensation and
complete rehabilitation.168
On the other hand, the Declaration of Basic
Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and
Abuse of Power169 offers guidelines in relation to
abuse of economic and political power. Through
this declaration, the UN General Assembly
recognized that millions of people suffer harm as
a result of crime and abuse of power, and that
these victims are entitled to prompt redress and
access to the mechanisms of justice.170
These instruments and customary norms of
international human rights law clearly provide
for the duty to grant effective remedies to a
victim of violations. More than being an
essential component of other substantive norms,
they create a distinct obligation; hence, the
failure to
_______________
167 UN Commission on Human Rights, Declaration on

the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance,
28 February 1992, E/CN.4/RES/1992/29.
168 Article 19 of the Declaration provides:
The victims of acts of enforced disappearance and their family shall

obtain redress and shall have the right to adequate compensation,
including the means for as complete a rehabilitation as possible. In
the event of the death of the victim as a result of an act of enforced
disappearance, their dependants shall also be entitled to
compensation.

169 UN General Assembly, Declaration of Basic
Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of
Power: resolution/adopted by the General Assembly, 29
November 1985, A/RES/40/34.
170 The Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for
Victims of Crime (par. 4) states:
Victims should be treated with compassion and respect for their

dignity. They are entitled to access to the mechanisms of justice and
to prompt redress, as provided for by national legislation, for the
harm that they have suffered.

378

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
provide effective remedies is an additional and

independent violation of internationally
recognized human rights.171

Defining Effective Remedies

Because an exact definition of an effective
remedy is not provided by the foregoing
international instruments, it is necessary to
examine the interpretations of authorized
bodies, as well as the theory and practice of
international courts, in order to determine the
exact scope of the obligation.172
As the succeeding discussion will show, the
duty to provide an “effective remedy” does not
embrace a singular concept. Rather, that duty
embodies a variety of measures more aptly
referred to as holistic “reparations.”

3. The obligation of the state
to provide an effective rem-
edy incorporates the duty to
offer holistic reparations.

The right to effective remedy is comprised of
two dimensions: procedural and substantive.173
As explained by the UNCAT in General
Comment No. 3:
The obligations of States parties to provide redress

under Article 14 are two-fold: procedural and
substantive. To satisfy their procedural
obligations, States parties shall enact legislation
and establish complaints mechanisms,
investigation bodies and institutions, including
independent judicial bodies, capable of
determining the right to and awarding redress for a
victim of torture and ill treatment, and ensure that
such mechanisms and bodies are effective and
accessible to all victims. At the substantive level,

States parties shall ensure that victims of torture or
ill treatment obtain full and effective redress and
reparation, including com-
_______________
171 Shelton, supra note 141 at p. 37.

172 Id.
173 Contreras-Garduño, Diana, Defining Beneficiaries of
Collective Reparations: The Experience of the IACtHR, 4
AMSTERDAM LAW FORUM, p. 43 (2012).

379
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 379

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
pensation and the means for as full rehabilitation

as possible.174 (Emphasis supplied)

In other words, the procedural dimension
refers to the legal means by which alleged
human rights violations are addressed by an
impartial authority; the substantive dimension
involves prompt and effective reparation for the
harm suffered.175
The right to reparations is therefore but one
side of an effective remedy, and is a crucial
element in delivering justice to victims.176 As
such, the duty to provide reparations is as
binding as the duty to provide effective
remedies. This principle is clearly enunciated in
international instruments, to the extent that it

has achieved a non-derogable status.177 As the
International Criminal Court (ICC) in
Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo (Lubanga
Case)178 ratiocinated:
The Chamber accepts that the right to reparations

is a well-established and basic human right,
that is enshrined in universal and regional
human rights treaties, and in other
international instruments, including the UN Basic
Principles; the Declaration of Basic Principles of
Justice for Victims of Crime and
_______________
174 General Comment No. 3, supra note 152, par. 5.

175 Contreras-Garduño, supra note 173.
176 Id.
177 UN Human Rights Committee (HRC), CCPR General
Comment No. 29: Article 4: Derogations during a State of
Emergency, 31 August 2001, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.11, par.
14 [hereinafter General Comment No. 29] which states:
“Article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant (ICCPR) requires a
State party to the Covenant to provide remedies for any
violation of the provisions of the Covenant. This clause is not
mentioned in the list of non-derogable provisions in Article 4,
paragraph 2, but it constitutes a treaty obligation inherent
in the Covenant as a whole. Even if a State party, during a
state of emergency, and to the extent that such measures are
strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, may
introduce adjustments to the practical functioning of its
procedures governing judicial or other remedies, the State
party must comply with the fundamental obligation, under
Article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant to provide a remedy
that is effective.”
178 The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, ICC-01/04-

01/06-803-tEN, 14 May 2007.

380

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Abuse of Power; the Guidelines on Justice in Matters

involving Child Victims and Witnesses of Crime; the
Nairobi Declaration; the Cape Town Principles and
Best Practices on the Recruitment of Children into the
Armed Forces and on Demobilization and Social
Reintegration of Child Soldiers in Africa; and the
Paris Principles. These international instruments, as
well as certain significant human rights reports, have
provided guidance to the Chamber in establishing the
present principles.179 (Emphasis supplied)

Understanding Reparations

The term reparation is derived from the word
repair. Thus, it is often perceived as making of
amends by providing recompense to persons who
suffered loss or harm due to gross human rights
violations.180 Within the context of State
responsibility, it pertains to a series of actions
expressing the State’s acknowledgment and
acceptance of its responsibility in consequence of
the gross violations. Reparation therefore
denotes all types of redress for victims of human
rights violations,181 all seeking to make them
whole again to the fullest extent possible. The

Chorzow Factory case182 decided by the
Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ)
in 1928 provides the leading definition of the
concept:
Reparation must, as far as possible, wipe out all

consequences of the illegal act and reestablish the
situation which would, in all probability, have existed
if that act had not been committed.183

Reparation, as a means to provide redress for
past violations, goes to the very heart of human
protection. It has been recognized as a “vital
process in the acknowledgment of the wrong
done to the victim, and a
_______________
179 Id., par. 185.

180 Sarkin, Jeremy, Providing reparations in Uganda:
Substantive recommendations for implementing reparations
in the aftermath of the conflicts that occurred over the last
few decades, 14 AHRLJ 526, 534-535 (2014).
181 Van Boven Report, supra note 164 at p. 7.
182 Factory at Chorzów, Germany v. Poland, Judgment,
Claim for Indemnity, Merits, Judgment No. 13, (1928) PCIJ
Series A, No. 17, ICGJ 255 (PCIJ 1928), 13 September 1928.
183 Id., par. 124.

381
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 381
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
key component in addressing the complex needs

of victims in the aftermath of violations of
international human rights and humanitarian
law.”184 As explained by the Inter-American
Commission of Human Rights (IACtHR) in its
Report on the Implementation of the Justice and
Peace Law:185
The [Inter-American Court of Human Rights]

considers that, beyond the established legal system,
the State has a key role and a primary responsibility
to guarantee that victims of crimes against
international law will have effective access under
conditions of equality to measures of reparation,
consistent with the standards of international law
governing human rights. Access to reparations for
victims of crimes against humanity must never be
subject exclusively to determination of the criminal
liability of the perpetrators, or the prior disposal of
their personal goods, licit or illicit.186

x x x x

The State must play a primary, rather than a
secondary, role in guaranteeing victims’ access to
reparations in accordance with the standards of
international law.187

UN Reparations Principles

The most important text dealing with the
concept of reparations is the Basic Principles
and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and
Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of
International Human Rights Law and Serious

Violations of International Humanitarian Law
(UN Reparations Principles).188 This text is
regarded as the international standard for the
provision of reparations around the world.189
_______________
184 Sarkin, supra note 180 at p. 528.

185 Organization of American States (OAS) Inter-
American Commission on Human Rights, Report on the
Implementation of the Justice and Peace Law: Initial Stages
in the Demobilization of the AUC and First Judicial
Proceedings, OEA/Ser.L/V/II, Doc. 3, 2 October 2007
[hereinafter Report on the Implementation of the Justice and
Peace Law].
186 Id., par. 98.
187 Id., par. 110(6).
188 UN General Assembly, Basic Principles and
Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for
Victims of Gross Violations of International Human

382

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
The UN Reparations Principles was the

product of the work of Theodoor Van Boven, who
was appointed in 1989 by the United Nations
Sub-Commission on Prevention of
Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, to
examine the possibility of developing basic
principles and guidelines on remedies for gross

violations.190 Van Boven’s work resulted in a
landmark final report in 1993, also known as the
Van Boven Principles, which declared that
human rights violations give rise to a right of
reparation for victims.191 These principles
attribute the State’s duty to make such
reparations to its obligation to afford remedies
and ensure respect for human rights and
fundamental freedoms.192
After 15 years of consideration, the UN
General Assembly adopted the UN Reparations
Principles on 16 December 2005193 without a
vote. While these principles are argued to be soft
law, they are considered binding on states
because they elucidate the basic standards
applicable to reparations internationally and
domestically.194 The number of states in the UN
General Assembly that accepted the resolution
by consensus likewise indicates the
authoritative weight of the principles, and
signifies the status of these rules as part of
emerging customary international law.195
It must be emphasized that the UN
Reparations Principles is not a source of new
commitments but rather a statement of existing
obligations, as it expresses the content of
international law on reparations to ensure that
this is respected. This view was explicitly set out
in the prefatory statement of the principles:
_______________
Rights Law and Serious Violations of International

Humanitarian Law: resolution/adopted by the General
Assembly, 21 March 2006, A/RES/60/147 [hereinafter UN
Reparations Principles].

190 United Nations Sub-Commission on Prevention of
Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, Resolution
1989/13 of 31 August 1989.
191 Van Boven Report, supra note 164 at par. 137,
General Principle No. 1.
192 Id., par. 137, General Principle No. 2.
193 UN General Assembly Resolution 60/147, 16
December 2005.
195 Buyse, supra note 164 at p. 140.

383
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 383

Ocampo vs. Enriquez

international or domestic legal obligations but identify
mechanisms, modalities, procedures and methods for
the implementation of existing legal obligations under
international human rights law and international
humanitarian law which are complementary though
different as to their norms x x x.196

Therefore, the state obligation to provide
reparations to victims of human right violations
— as established in this text — takes its
normative character from existing legal
obligations under international human rights
law. As declared in the Preamble197 and Parts
I198 and II199 of the
_______________
196 UN Reparations Principles, supra note 188 at p. 3.

197 The Preamble of the UN Reparations Principles
states in relevant part:
Recalling the provisions providing a right to a remedy
for victims of violations of international human rights
law found in numerous international instruments.
x x x
Recalling the provisions providing a right to a remedy
for victims of violations of international human rights
found in regional conventions. x x x
Recognizing that, in honouring the victims’ right to
benefit from remedies and reparation, the
international community keeps faith with the plight
of victims, survivors and future human generations
and reaffirms the international legal principles of
accountability, justice and the rule of law[.]
198 The UN Reparations Principles, supra note 188, Part
I, states:
I. Obligation to respect, ensure respect for and

implement international human rights law and
international humanitarian law.
1. The obligation to respect, ensure respect for
and implement international human rights
law and international humanitarian law as
provided for under the respective bodies of
law emanates from:
(a) Treaties to which a State is a party;

(b) Customary international law;
(c) The domestic law of each State.
2. If they have not already done so, States shall,

as required under international law, ensure
that their domestic law is consistent with

their intemational legal obligations by:

384

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
UN Reparations Principles, the underlying

framework of this document is grounded on the
right to effective remedies enshrined in
international human rights law.
“Adequate, effective and prompt reparation
for harm suffered” is, in fact, a component of the
remedies required to be accorded to victims of
gross violations of international human rights
law, and serious viola-
_______________
(a) Incorporating norms of international

human rights law and international
humanitarian law into their domestic
law, or otherwise implementing them
in their domestic legal system;
(b) Adopting appropriate and effective
legislative and administrative
procedures and other appropriate
measures that provide fair, effective
and prompt access to justice;
(c) Making available adequate, effective,
prompt and appropriate remedies,
including reparation, as defined below;

(d) Ensuring that their domestic law
provides at least the same level of
protection for victims as that required
by their international obligations.
199 The UN Reparations Principles, supra note 188, Part

II, provides:
II. Scope of the obligation

3. The obligation to respect, ensure respect for
and implement international human rights
law and international humanitarian law as
provided for under the respective bodies of
law, includes, inter alia, the duty to:
(a) Take appropriate legislative and
administrative and other appropriate
measures to prevent violations;
(b) Investigate violations effectively,
promptly, thoroughly and impartially
and, where appropriate, take action
against those allegedly responsible in
accordance with domestic and
international law;
(c) Provide those who claim to be victims
of a human rights or humanitarian
law violation with equal and effective
access to justice, as described below,
irrespective of who may ultimately be
the bearer of responsibility for the
violation; and
(d) Provide effective remedies to victims,
including reparation, as described
below.

385
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 385

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
tions of international humanitarian law.200

Elaborating on the purpose and scope of
reparation, the UN Reparations Principles
provides:
IX. Reparation for harm suffered

intended to promote justice by redressing gross
violations of international human rights law or
serious violations of international humanitarian law.
Reparation should be proportional to the gravity of
the violations and the harm suffered. In accordance
with its domestic laws and international legal
obligations, a State shall provide reparation to victims
for acts or omissions which can be attributed to the
State and constitute gross violations of international
human rights law or serious violations of
international humanitarian law. In cases where a
person, a legal person, or other entity is found liable
for reparation to a victim, such party should provide
reparation to the victim or compensate the State if the
State has already provided reparation to the victim.

x x x x

18. In accordance with domestic law and
international law, and taking account of individual
circumstances, victims of gross violations of
international human rights law and serious violations
of international humanitarian law should, as
appropriate and proportional to the gravity of the

violation and the circumstances of each case, be
provided with full and effective reparation, as laid out
in principles 19 to 23, which include the following
forms: restitution, compensation, rehabilitation,
satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition.

Holistic Approach to Reparations

Although the PCIJ in the Chorzów Factory
case201 declared that the ultimate goal of
reparation is restitutio in integrum,202 or the
return of the victims to a situation prior to the
unlawful conduct, it is acknowledged that
human rights violations are impossible to
rectify. As aptly stated by Special Rapporteur
Van Boven in his final report:
_______________
200 UN Reparations Principles, supra note 188, Part VII.

201 Supra note 182.
202 Contreras-Garduño, supra note 173 at p. 43.

386

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
It is obvious that gross violations of human rights and

fundamental freedoms, particularly when they have
been committed on a massive scale, are by their
nature irreparable. In such instances any remedy

or redress stands in no proportional
relationship to the grave injury inflicted upon
the victims. It is nevertheless an imperative norm of
justice that the responsibility of the perpetrators be
clearly established and that the rights of the victims
be sustained to the fullest possible extent.203
(Emphasis supplied)

This view was seconded by Judge A.A.
Cancado Trindade of the IACtHR in his
Separate Opinion in Bulacio v. Argentina.204 He
opined “the harm cannot be erased. Instead,
reparations for human rights violations only
provide the victims the means to attenuate their
suffering, making it less unbearable, perhaps
bearable.”205
These statements reflect the underlying idea
that the reparations in the UN Reparations
Principles are envisioned to extend beyond the
pecuniary or material dimension. Rather,
holistic reparation is the key. This conclusion is
supported by Principles 19 to 23 of the UN
Reparations Principles pertaining to the five
forms of full and effective reparation:
19. Restitution should, whenever possible, restore

the victim to the original situation before the gross
serious violations of international humanitarian law
occurred. Restitution includes, as appropriate:
restoration of liberty, enjoyment of human rights,
identity, family life and citizenship, return to one’s
place of residence, restoration of employment and
return of property.


circumstances of each case, resulting from gross
violations of international human rights law and
serious violations of international humanitarian law,
such as:
_______________
203 Van Boven Report, supra note 164, par. 131.

204 I/A Court H.R., Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Merits,
Reparations and Costs, Judgment of 18 September 2003,
Series C, No. 100.
205 Id., Judge A.A. Cancado Trindade (Separate
Opinion), Sec. 25.

387
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 387

Ocampo vs. Enriquez

(b) Lost opportunities, including employment,
education and social benefits;
(c) Material damages and loss of earnings,
including loss of earning potential;
(d) Moral damage;
medicine and medical services, and
psychological and social services.


22. Satisfaction should include, where applicable,
any or all of the following:

(b) Verification of the facts and full and public
disclosure of the truth to the extent that such
disclosure does not cause further harm or
threaten the safety and interests of the victim,
the victim’s relatives, witnesses, or persons who
have intervened to assist the victim or prevent
the occurrence of further violations;
(c) The search for the whereabouts of the
disappeared, for the identities of the children
abducted, and for the bodies of those killed, and
assistance in the recovery, identification and
reburial of the bodies in accordance with the
expressed or presumed wish of the victims, or
the cultural practices of the families and
communities;
(d) An official declaration or a judicial decision
restoring the dignity, the reputation and the
rights of the victim and of persons closely
connected with the victim;
(e) Public apology, including acknowledgment of
the facts and acceptance of responsibility;
(f) Judicial and administrative sanctions against
persons liable for the violations;

388

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
(h) Inclusion of an accurate account of the

violations that occurred in international human
rights law and international humanitarian law
training and in educational material at all
levels.
23. Guarantees of non-repetition should include,

where applicable, any or all of the following measures,
which will also contribute to prevention:
(a) Ensuring effective civilian control of military

and security forces;
(b) Ensuring that all civilian and military
proceedings abide by international standards of
due process, fairness and impartiality;
(c) Strengthening the independence of the
judiciary;
(d) Protecting persons in the legal, medical and
health-care professions, the media and other
related professions, and human rights
defenders;
(e) Providing, on a priority and continued basis,
human rights and international humanitarian
law education to all sectors of society and
training for law enforcement officials as well as
military and security forces;
(f) Promoting the observance of codes of conduct
and ethical norms, in particular international
standards, by public servants, including law
enforcement, correctional, media, medical,
psychological, social service and military
personnel, as well as by economic enterprises;
(h) Reviewing and reforming laws contributing to

or allowing gross violations of international
human rights law and serious violations of
international humanitarian law.

Clearly, aside from addressing the injuries
suffered by victims through financial
compensation, reparation also addresses a
broader set of issues, through the prevention of
future human rights violations. It addresses
“democracy, good governance, and building an
inclusive po-

389
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 389

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
litical community. Reparations include

recognition, acknowledgment of violations and
state responsibility. It can contribute to
structural transformation”206 while also seeking
to promote peace and reconciliation.207 This
holistic approach to reparation is followed in
other human rights institutions like the
UNCAT, the UNHRC, the ICC, the IACtHR and
the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
General Comment No. 3 of the UNCAT
emphasizes that “monetary compensation alone
may not be sufficient redress for a victim of
torture and ill treatment. The Committee
affirms that the provision of only monetary
compensation is inadequate for a State party to
comply with its obligations under Article 14.”208
General Comment No. 31 of the UNHRC

likewise notes that “where appropriate,
reparation can involve restitution, rehabilitation
and measures of satisfaction, such as public
apologies, public memorials, guarantees of non-
repetition and changes in relevant laws and
practices, as well as bringing to justice the
perpetrators of human rights violations.”209
The holistic approach was likewise applied by
the ICC to the Lubanga Case,210 in which it held
that victims of war crimes, crimes against
humanity, and genocide have a fundamental
right to receive reparations. The trial chamber
observed that reparations “go beyond the notion
of punitive justice, towards a solution which is
more inclusive, encourages participation and
recognizes the need to provide effective remedies
for victims.”211 It then explained that
reparations must be applied in a broad and
flexible manner, so as to allow it to approve the
widest possible remedies for violations of the
rights of the victims.212
In Blazek v. Czech Republic, the UNHRC
declared that a remedy is only effective if it
results in adequate measures of reparation
granted to victims. It further provided that the
approach must be holistic so as to
_______________

207 Contreras-Garduño, supra note 173 at p. 41.
208 General Comment No. 3, supra note 152, par. 9.
209 UNHRC General Comment No. 31, supra note 132,
par. 16.
210 The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, supra note
178.
211 Id., par. 177.

212 Id., par. 180.

390

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
put the needs and interests of the victim at the

center of the process with the aim of restoring
the latter’s dignity.213
For its part, the IACtHR made it clear that as
a principle of international law, every violation
of an international obligation that results in
harm creates a duty to make adequate
reparation. In this respect, the Court ruled that
reparation
consists in full restitution (restitutio in integrum),

which includes the reestablishment of the previous
situation. If this is not feasible, as in most cases of
human rights violations, the Court will determine
measures to guarantee the rights that have been
violated and to redress the consequences of the
violations. Therefore, the Court has found it necessary
to award different measures of reparation in order to
redress the damage fully, so that, in addition to
pecuniary compensation, measures of restitution,
rehabilitation and satisfaction, and guarantees of non-
repetition, have special relevance to the harm
caused.214
It is noteworthy that the IACtHR has

constantly addressed human rights violations of
a widespread nature, which can be attributed to
the authoritarian regimes and violent conflicts
in Latin America during the 1970s and early
1980s.215 Consequently, IACtHR rulings are
particularly relevant to our discussion of the
authoritarian Marcos regime.
Lastly, while the ECHR has awarded “just
satisfaction” partaking of a pecuniary nature in
most of its cases,216 the intention to provide a
_______________
213 UN Human Rights Committee, Blazek, et al. v. The

Czech Republic, Communication No. 847/1999,
CCPR/C/72/D/857/1999, 12 July 2001, par. 7.
214 I/A Court H.R., Case of Gonzales Lluy, et al. v.
Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and
Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Series C, No. 298.;
Cf. Case of the Las Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala.
Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs.
Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C, No. 211, par. 226,
and Case of Cruz Sanchez, et al. v. Peru, par. 452.
215 Contreras-Garduño, supra note 173 at p. 45, citing
Medina-Quiroga, C. The Battle of Human Rights: Gross,
Systematic Violations and the Inter-American System, p. 369
(1988).
216 Van Boven Report, supra note 164, par. 81, citing the
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights
and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 50.

391
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 391

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
holistic approach in providing effective

satisfaction can be discerned in its Vagrancy
Cases against the Belgian Government:
[I]f the victim, after exhausting in vain the domestic

remedies before complaining at Strasbourg of a
violation of his rights, were obliged to do so a second
time before being able to obtain from the Court just
satisfaction, the total length of the procedure
instituted by the Convention would scarcely be in
keeping with the idea of the effective protection of
human rights. Such a requirement would lead to a
situation incompatible with the aim and object of the
Convention.217

x x x x

Nevertheless, the provisions of Article 50 which
recognise the Court’s competence to grant to the
injured party a just satisfaction also cover the case
where the impossibility of restitutio in integrum
follows from the very nature of the injury; indeed
common sense suggests that this must be so a
fortiori.218

B. The burial would contravene
the duty of the Philippines to
provide reparations to victims
of human rights violations
during the Marcos regime.

It is evident from the foregoing discussion
that the Philippines is obligated to provide
holistic reparations to victims of human rights

violations during Martial Law. In fact, as
discussed in the previous section, R.A. 10368
acknowledged the “moral and legal obligation [of
the State] to recognize and/or provide reparation
to said victims and/or their families for the
deaths, injuries, sufferings, deprivations and
damages they suffered under the Marcos
regime.”219 As stated in the Explanatory Note
_______________
217 Id., par. 82, citing European Court of Human Rights,

De Wilde, Ooms and Versijp Cases (“Vagrancy” Cases),
Judgment of 10 March 1972 (Article 50), Series A, Vol. 14,
par. 16.
218 Id., par. 20.
219 RA No. 10368, Section 2.

392

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
of House Bill No. 54 — one of the progenitors of

R.A. 10368 — this recognition was one of the
main features of the law:
Among the important features of this bill are:

One, Congress recognition that those who have filed a
case against the Marcoses before the US Federal
District Court in Hawaii and are given favorable
judgment are considered human rights violations

victims. This is called legislative cognizance.

Two, any person who has secured or can secure a
favorable judgment from any court in the country
arising from a human rights violation is given a so-
called conclusive presumption that he or she is a
human rights violation victim.

Three, some ten billion pesos of funds seized from
bank accounts and discovered investments of the
Marcos family shall be used to compensate the
victims; and

Four, an independent Human Rights Victims
Compensation Board is created attached to, but not
necessarily under the direct supervision of the CHR to
ensure the proper disposition of the funds guided by
this Act.

No amount of money can really be enough to
compensate our living heroes and those survived by
their kinds for the democracy that our people are now
enjoying. The least we can do though is pass this bill
to honor, in our small way, the sacrifices, that they
have made for our country.220

The law also recognized the binding nature of
the Decision of the US Federal District Court of
Honolulu, Hawaii,221 by creating a conclusive
presumption that the claimants in the case
against the Estate of Ferdinand Marcos were
human rights violations victims.222 In that case,
compensatory and exemplary damages were
awarded to (a) the class plaintiffs who were
declared to have been tortured; or (b) the heirs

and beneficiaries of those who were summarily
executed, or who disappeared
_______________
220 Explanatory Note of House Bill 54, introduced by

Rep. Lorenzo R. Tañada, III, 15th Congress, First Regular
Session.
221 MDL No. 840, CA No. 86-0390, Human Rights
Litigation Against the Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos.
222 RA No. 10368, Section 17.

393
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 393

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
while in the custody of Philippine military or

paramilitary groups.223 Several petitioners in
the present case were claimants therein and are
_______________
223 The Final Judgment in Human Rights Litigation

Against the Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos states in relevant
part:
1) The Court incorporates herein its Judgment on Liability

entered October 20, 1992 and its Order entered December
17, 1992 denying defendant’s post-trial motions
reliability.
2) Judgment for compensatory damages is entered for the
below named randomly selected class claims as follows:
Torture Subclass
Summary Execution Subclass
Disappearance Subclass
3) Judgment for compensatory damages is entered for the

remaining members of the Plaintiff class as follows:
a) for the remaining Plaintiff subclass of all current
citizens of the Republic of the Philippines, their
heirs and beneficiaries, who between September
1972 and February 1986 were tortured while in
the custody of the Philippine military or para-
military groups in the aggregate of
$251,819,811.00, to be divided pro rata.
b) for the remaining Plaintiff Subclass of all current
1972 and February 1986 were summarily executed
while in the custody of the Philippine military or
para-military groups in the aggregate of
$409,191,760.00 to be divided pro rata.
c) for the remaining Plaintiff Subclass of all current
1972 and February 1986 disappeared (and are
presumed dead) while in the custody of the
Philippine military or para-military groups in the
aggregate of $94,910,640.00 to be divided pro rata.
4) Judgment for exemplary damages, to make an example for
the public good, is entered in the aggregate of
$1,197,227,417.90 to be divided pro rata among all
members of the Plaintiff class.

394

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
thus conclusively considered victims of human

rights during the Marcos regime.
Both monetary224 and nonmonetary225 forms
of reparations were provided for in R.A. 10368.
These measures notwithstanding, the members
of the Bicameral Conference Committee
emphasized the symbolic value of recognition in
acknowledgment of the fact that material forms
of reparation are not sufficient to atone for the
suffering of the victims of atrocities:
Sen. Guingona: Page 5, letter (d) “Monetary

Compensation refers to financial consideration
equivalent to.” Then, we changed “economically
assessable damage” just to —We just make it “refers
to financial consideration extended to human rights
violation victims.”

Ang rationale dito kasi this one implies — The
present definition implies that the damage —
When you’re human rights victim, it can be
equivalent to a material damage when actually
there is no adequate compensation when your
human rights are violated. So we just make it
just “financial consideration extended to human
rights violation victims as defined in this Act.”
Ganoon.
Rep. Lagman: Baka instead of financial consideration,
maski iyong consideration, ano, eh — Ah, financial
reparation.

Sen. Guingona: Okay.
Rep. Lagman: Reparation.
_______________
224 R.A. No. 10368, Section 4 states.

SECTION 4. Entitlement to Monetary Reparation.—
Any HRVV qualified under this Act shall receive
reparation from the State, free of tax, as herein
prescribed x x x.
SECTION 5. Nonmonetary Reparation.—The
Department of Health (DOH), the Department of
Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), the
Department of Education (DepEd), the Commission on
Higher Education (CHED), the Technical Education
and Skills Development Authority (TESDA), and such
other government agencies shall render the necessary
services a nonmonetary reparation for HRVVs and/or
their families, as may be determined by the Board
pursuant to the provisions of this Act.

395
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 395

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Sen. Guingona: Reparation. Instead of

“economically assessable” parang sinasabi mo
you[r] right has been violated but that’s
eqivalent to this amount.226

x x x x

Sen. Arroyo: x x x Here, we seemed to be concerned
about the physical aspects of human rights, meaning
torture and all that. But take for instance, those who
were economically depressed, harassed. You mean to

say the family of Chino Roces, who lost his entire
Manila Times and his family, is not really living in
poverty x x x.

Now they will not ask for compensation but
they would want recognition. This is the
purpose of recognition. That is why to us that
roll of honor is very important. Because to
others, they just want to be recognized.227
(Emphasis supplied)

Considering the foregoing, the intent is that
not only must material reparation be provided
by the state to human rights victims, the
prohibition against public acts and symbolisms
that degrade the recognition of the injury
inflicted — although not expressly mentioned in
the statute — are likewise included in the
obligation of the state. Therefore, while the
passage of legislative measures and the
provision of government mechanisms in an effort
to comply with this obligation are lauded, the
State’s duty does not end there.
Contrary to the implications of the ponencia,
the statutes, issuances, and rules enacted by the
different branches of government to promote
human rights cannot suffice for the purpose of
fulfilling the state’s obligation to the human
rights victims of former President Marcos. These
enactments cannot erase the violations
committed against these victims, or the failure
of the state to give them justice; more important,
these enactments cannot negate the further
violation of their rights through the proposed
burial.
_______________
226 Bicameral Conference Committee on the Disagreeing

Provisions of Senate Bill 3334 and House Bill No. 5990
(Human Rights Victims Reparation and Compensation Act),
16 January 2013, I-2, pp. 6-7.
227 Id., at IV-6, p. 7 and I-7, p. 1.

396

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
It must be emphasized that the obligation

owed by the Philippine government to the
victims of human rights violations during
Martial Law is distinct from the general
obligation to avoid further violations of human
rights. As distinct species of obligations, the
general duty to prevent further human rights
violations cannot offset the right of past victims
to full and holistic reparations. Their rights
under international law have already been
violated; they have already disappeared, been
tortured or summarily executed.228 The
government cannot choose to disregard their
specific claims and assert that it has fulfilled its
obligation to them merely by enacting laws that
apply in general to future violations of human
rights.
As will be further discussed, victims of human
rights violations during the Martial Law regime
have a distinct right to holistic reparations,

including the grant thereof in symbolic form.

1. Symbolic reparation
is an indispensable
facet of an adequate
reparations regime.

Symbolic forms of reparation are mandated
by international law and are considered
hallmarks of any reparations regime.229 Within
the framework of the UN Reparations
Principles, satisfaction and guarantees of non--
repetition are described as symbolic, because
they involve a greater intangible element.230 On
the other hand, restitution, compensation, and
rehabilitation are typically financial or material
in character.
_______________
228 See In re Estate of Ferdinand Marcos, Human Rights

Litigation Hilao v. Estate of Ferdinand Marcos, 25 F. 3d
1467.
229 Megret, Frederic, Of Shines, Memorials and
Museums: Using the International Criminal Court’s Victim
Reparation and Assistance Regime to Promote Transitional
Justice, p. 13, available at
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?
abstract_id=1403929> (last accessed 20 September 2016)
[Megret]; Megret, Frederic, The International Criminal
Court and the Failure to Mention Symbolic Reparations, p.
12, available at <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?
abstract
_id=1275087> [last accessed 20 September 2016] [Megret II].
230 Megret II, id., at p. 3.

397
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 397

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
As earlier explained, a comprehensive and

holistic program of reparations is expected to
contain aspects of both.231

Symbols as sources of meaning

The collective dimension of symbolic
reparations is the source of their value.232
Symbolic reparations extend beyond the victim
and their families, and represent a demand for
recognition, respect, dignity, and hope for a safe
future.233 They assist communities as a whole in
dealing with the process of remembering and
commemorating the past.234 In other words,
symbolic measures provide moral reparation,235
which is considered by victims to be of equal or
higher importance than material or physical
reparation.
The United Nations, in its guidelines for
reparation programs for post-conflict states,
describes the significance of symbolic
reparations in this manner:
As many recent reparations programmes have been

proposed by truth commissions (which have broader
mandates and goals than typical judicial instances),
they are becoming less like mere compensation
mechanisms and are increasingly proposing more
complex reparations measures, including symbolic
ones. Individualized letters of apology signed by the

highest authority in Government, sending each victim
a copy of the truth commission’s report and
supporting families to give a proper burial to their
loved ones are some of the individual symbolic
measures that have been tried with some success in
different contexts. Some of the collective symbolic
meas-
_______________

232 Megret II, supra note 229 at p. 6.
233 Doñoso, Gina, Inter-American Court of Human
Rights’ reparation judgments: Strengths and challenges for a
comprehensive approach, 49 Revista IIDH 29, 58 (2009);
Megret II, supra note 229 at p. 6.
234 Sarkin, supra note 180 at p. 548, citing the Report of
Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa.
235 UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and
Protection of Human Rights, Question of the impunity of
perpetrators of human rights violations (civil and political),
26 June 1997, E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/20, par. 40 [hereinafter
Joinet Report]; Contreras-Garduño, supra note 173 at p. 42.

398

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
ures that have been tried are renaming public spaces,

building museums and memorials, rededicating places
of detention and torture, turning them into sites of

memory, establishing days of commemoration and
engaging in public acts of atonement. Like other
reparations measures, symbolic benefits are, at least
in part, geared towards fostering recognition.
However, in contrast to other benefits, symbolic
measures derive their great potential from the
fact that they are carriers of meaning, and
therefore can help victims in particular and
society in general to make sense of the painful
events of the past. Symbolic measures usually
turn out to be so significant because, by making
the memory of the victims a public matter, they
disburden their families from their sense of
obligation to keep the memory alive and allow
them to move on. This is essential if reparations
are to provide recognition to victims not only as
victims but also as citizens and as rights holders
more generally.236 (Emphasis supplied)

Restitution, compensation, and rehabilitation
under the UN Reparations Principles, while
necessary, are lacking in this symbolic
dimension. Monetary forms of reparation can
indeed provide funds for certain necessities and
improve the future of victims, but without more,
it is unlikely that they would lead to the justice
sought.
Moreover, it has been observed that human
rights victims want an apology, above all else.237
They also place a premium on obtaining
recognition of the harm done to them.238 In
contrast, financial reparations or damages are
considered less important than emotional or
symbolic reparations, because the former fail to
squarely address a person’s need for “dignity,
emotional relief, participation in the social

polity, or institutional reordering.”239 If given in
isolation, monetary reparation may even
_______________

Human Rights, supra note 144 at p. 23.
237 Antkowiak, Thomas, An Emerging Mandate for
International Courts: Victim-Centered Remedies and
Restorative Justice, 47 Stan. J. Int’l Law, 279, 284 (2011).
238 Megret, supra note 229 at p. 13.
239 Antkowiak, supra.

399
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 399

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
have a trivializing effect on suffering in certain

cultural, social, and political contexts.240

Forms of Symbolic Reparation

Because of its peculiar nature, symbolic
reparation takes various forms. An examination
of the UN Reparations Principles, as well as the
decisions of international and regional courts,
reveals that different measures have been
utilized to satisfy this requirement.
The following have been identified as
examples of measures intended to offer
satisfaction to victims of atrocities: (a)
“verification of the facts and full and public
disclosure of the truth”;241 (b) “an official

declaration or a judicial decision restoring the
dignity, the reputation and the rights of the
victim and of persons closely connected with the
victim”;242 (c) “public apology”;243 and (d)
“commemorations and tributes to the victims.”244
These methods deal with the emotional,
psychological, and symbolic aspects of the
suffering of the victims,245 and are primarily
concerned with the restoration of their dignity
through an acknowledgment by the state of the
harm done.
Guarantees of non-repetition, on the other
hand, focus on reform and restructuring
initiatives pursuant to the state’s commitment to
never again engage in the practices that led to
human rights violations.246 The actual steps
taken by state institutions represent the
guarantees of non-repetition. These steps
include “promoting mechanisms for preventing
and monitoring social conflicts and their
resolution”247 and “reviewing and reforming laws
contributing to or allowing gross violations of
international human rights law.”248
_______________
240 Id.
241 UN Reparations Principles, supra note 188, Principle
22(b).
242 Id., Principle 22(d).
243 Id., Principle 22(e).
244 Id., par. 22(g).
245 Megret, supra note 229 at p. 26.
246 Megret II, supra note 229 at p. 5.
247 UN Reparations Principles, supra note 188, Principle
23(g).
248 Id., Principle 23(h).

400

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Meanwhile, the ICC in the Lubanga Case

considered the conviction and the sentence
issued by the Court itself as forms of reparation
on account of their significance to the victims
and the communities.249 In turn, the IACtHR —
the most progressive court in terms of granting
reparations to victims of human rights violations
— has ordered the following measures as part of
“other forms of reparation”: (a) the construction
of monuments to commemorate the suffering of
victims,250 (b) the naming of a school after
them,251 (c) the designation of a day of
remembrance for them,252 (d) the conduct by the
state of public ceremonies offering apologies in
honor of the fallen;253 (e) the establishment of
memorial scholarships;254 and (f) human rights
courses.255

Memorials as Symbolic Reparation

In a report on memorialization processes
utilized by states transitioning from conflicts or
periods of repression, Farida Shaheed, the UN
Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights,
identified memorials as “physical
representation[s] or commemorative activities,
located in public spaces, that concern specific

events regardless of the period of occurrence
(wars and conflicts, mass or grave human rights
violations),
_______________
249 The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, supra note

178, par. 237.
250 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Moiwana Community v.
Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and
Costs. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C, No. 124, par.
218.
251 I/A Court H.R., Case of Trujillo Oroza v. Bolivia.
Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 27, 2002.
Series C, No. 92, par. 122.
252 I/A Court H.R., Serrano-Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador,
Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, Order of the Court,
2010 Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (Feb. 3, 2010).
253 Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname, supra,
par. 191.
254 I/A Court H.R., Case of Norin Catrimán, et al.
(Leaders, members and activist of the Mapuche Indigenous
People) v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of
May 29, 2014. Series C, No. 279, par. 432.
255 I/A Court H.R., Case of Espinoza Gonzales v. Peru.
Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs.
Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C, No. 289, par. 327.

401
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 401

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
or the persons involved (soldiers, combatants,

victims, political leaders or activists for
example).”256
In recent times, memorials have become
principally focused on honoring the victims of
human rights atrocities. As Special Rapporteur
Shaheed explained, memorials were utilized as a
means of “ensuring recognition for the victims,
as reparation for mass or grave violations of
human rights and as a guarantee of
nonrecurrence,”257 as well as a way to combat
injustice and promote reconciliation.258 This
trend was followed in post-conflict states, where
memorials commemorating victims of human
rights violations were regularly established. The
Report states:
An exhaustive list of all truth and reconciliation

commissions that have advocated the construction of
memorials is beyond the scope of this document.
Nevertheless, one should mention the
recommendations of the truth and reconciliation
commissions in El Salvador, Germany, Guatemala,
Peru, Morocco and South Africa and the commission
of inquiry in Chad, even though not all their
recommendations were implemented.

The Commission on the Truth for El Salvador clearly
called in its report for the construction of a national
monument in El Salvador bearing the names of all
victims of the conflict, recognition of their good name
and the serious crimes of which they were the victims
and the institution of a national holiday in memory of
the victims of conflict as a symbol of reconciliation.

Similarly, the Commission for Historical Clarification
in Guatemala recommended, among other things, that
monuments and parks be constructed and the names

of victims assigned to public buildings and highways
in memory of the victims. The Commission stated that
“the historical memory, both individual and collective,
forms the basis of national identity.”259
_______________
256 UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Special

Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights, Memorialization
processes, 23 January 2014, par. 5 [hereinafter Shaheed
Report].
257 Id., Summary.
258 Id., par. 12.
259 Id., pars. 39-41.

402

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
The reason behind the creation of memorials

intended to commemorate victims of atrocities
was explained by Special Rapporteur Shaheed in
relation to the duty to provide symbolic
reparations:
With the passage of time, memorials have shifted

from honouring soldiers dying in the line of duty to a
victims’ perspective and new visions of reconciliation.
Starting in the 1980s, the creation of memorials has
become linked to the idea that ensuring public
recognition of past crimes is indispensable to the
victims, essential for preventing further violence and

necessary for redefining national unity.
Memorialization is often a demand of victims and
society at large and the path to national reconciliation
is seen to pass through not only legal reparations, but
also symbolic reparations such as memorials.260

2. The proposed burial would
be the antithesis of an act
of symbolic reparation.

In the present case, the dispute also involves
the creation of a memorial in the form of a burial
plot located at the LNMB. Instead of
commemorating victims, however, the memorial
proposes to honor Marcos, the recognized
perpetrator of countless human rights violations
during the Martial Law regime. The
establishment of this memorial would
accomplish the exact opposite of what is
intended by symbolic reparation, and would
consequently violate the obligations of the
Philippines under international human rights
law.
For reasons previously discussed, the burial
of Marcos would be more than a simple matter of
the interment of his remains, because it would
involve his victims’ right to symbolic
reparations. Undoubtedly, to honor the very
perpetrator of human rights atrocities would be
the direct opposite of the duty of the state to
respect, promote, and fulfil human rights.
These conclusions are supported by the
opinion of UN Special Rapporteur Pablo De
Greiff in the analogous case of another dictator,
General Francisco Franco of Spain, and his

burial place — the Valle de los
_______________
260 Id., par. 9.

403
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 403

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Caídos (Valley of the Fallen).261 The site, located

in Madrid, serves as a monument and a
memorial, as it is also the burial ground of
almost 34,000 other individuals. The structure,
however, is still considered by many as “an
exaltation of Francoism”262 and a reminder of
the forced labor of thousands of political
prisoners who were compelled to build the
structure.263
In his Report on the promotion of truth,
justice, reparation and guarantees of
nonrecurrence,264 Special Rapporteur De Greiff
studied the fate of symbols of Francoism in
relation to the then newly enacted 2007 Law of
Historical Memory.265 This law dealt with the
recognition of victims of human rights violations
during the Spanish Civil War and the 40-year
regime of General Franco.
Special Rapporteur De Greiff reviewed, in
particular, the effects of a provision in the Law
of Historical Memory requiring the removal of
all memorials related to Franco and the latter’s
dictatorship. In his report, he welcomed the

measures introduced to combat the exaltation of
the coup d’état, the Civil War, and the repression
by the Franco dictatorship, particularly through
the removal of symbols and monuments.266 He
further noted “majority of inventoried symbols
and monuments had been removed, and that the
remaining symbols and monuments either
required a lengthy administrative procedure or
considerable expense, or were subject to
protection rules for their historic or artistic
value.”267
As part of the implementation of the Law of
Historical Memory, the removal of Valle de los
Caídos was proposed because of its ties to
General Franco and Francoism. However,
because the structure could not be
_______________
261 UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Special

Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and
guarantees of nonrecurrence, Mission to Spain, 22 July 2014,
par. 5 [hereinafter de Greiff Report].
262 Id., pars. 29-30
263 Id., par. 32.
264 de Greiff Report, supra.
265 Ley de Memoria Histórica or La Ley por la que se
reconocen y amplían derechos y se establecen medidas en
favor de quienes padecieron persecucion o violencia durante
la Guerra Civil y la Dictadura, Ley 52/2007 de 26 de
Diciembre.
266 de Greiff Report, supra, par. 27.
267 Id.

404

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
removed without disturbing the burial grounds

of other individuals,268 De Greiff made the
following recommendation with respect to the
site:
The site can be put to good use and “reinterpreted,”

with suitable techniques and pedagogy, in favour of
the promotion of truth and memory, and given an
educational and preventive purpose. It can hardly
be construed as a place devoted to peace and
reconciliation, so long as silence is maintained
about the facts relevant to the context and
origin of the site, and especially while the
flower-covered tomb of the dictator remains in
the centre of the monument.269 [Emphasis
supplied]

The necessity for the reinterpretation and
“recontextualization” of the Valle de los Caídos
highlights the fact that far from being an
ordinary burial plot, the final resting place of a
dictator and perpetrator of human rights
violations is a symbol and a source of meaning.
The meaning it conveys, particularly to the
victims of atrocities, cannot be underestimated.
Special Rapporteur Shaheed, in her report on
memorialization processes, also expressed
concerns about the monuments and sites
intended to honor past oppressive regimes:
The question is how to manage an architectural

legacy with strong symbolic connotations when
oppressive regimes collapse. Should a new democratic
Government destroy, conserve or transform these
legacies? Answers vary from situation to situation,
frequently giving rise to intense controversy,
including amongst victims. Striking examples include
debates in Spain over the memorial in Valle de los
caídos (the Valley of the Fallen) where Franco is
buried, in Bulgaria over the mausoleum of former
communist leader Georgy Dimitrov, which was finally
destroyed, and in Germany over Hitler’s bunker, now
located beneath a parking lot in the centre of Berlin,
marked only by a small sign.270

Shaheed therefore concludes “the choice to
conserve, transform or destroy always
carries meaning and so needs to be
discussed,
_______________
268 Id., par. 30.

269 Id., par. 33.
270 Id., par. 62.

405
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 405

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
framed and interpreted.”271 In this

undertaking, the concerns and views of
victims are given primary consideration

and for good reason — they are, after all,
the persons most affected by any decision
on the matter.
In this case, the victims of human rights
violations have expressed their objection
to the proposed burial of Marcos in the
LNMB. They assert that the burial would
constitute a state-sanctioned narrative that
would confer honor upon him.272 This, in
turn, would subject his human rights
victims to the same indignity, hurt, and
damage that they have already
experienced under his regime.273
These opinions must be given paramount
consideration by the state in compliance with its
duty to provide symbolic reparations to victims
of human rights atrocities. For the President to
allow the burial in disregard of these views
would constitute a clear contravention of
international human rights law and would
amount to grave abuse of discretion.

C. The burial would run
counter to the duty of the
state to combat impunity.

As part of their obligation to protect and
ensure human rights under international law,274
states have the duty to combat impunity and
hold perpetrators of human rights violations
accountable. In fact, the clear nexus between the
impunity of perpetrators of gross violations of
human rights, and the failure to provide
adequate reparation to the victims275 indicate
that the two obligations must go hand in hand.
_______________
271 Id., par. 63.

272 Rosales Petition, p. 61.
273 Id., at p. 17.
274 Seibert-Fohr, Anja, Reconstruction Through
Accountability in MAX PLANCK YEARBOOK OF UNITED NATIONS
LAW, p. 559 (A. Von Bogdandy and R. Wolfrum, eds., 2005),
citing U.N. GAOR, Hum. Rts. Comm., 52d Sess., 1365th mtg.
at p. 12, para. 54, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/SR.1365 (1994); U.N.
GAOR, Hum. Rts. Comm., 57th Sess. at p. 5, para. 32, U.N.
Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.65 (1996).
275 Van Boven Report, supra note 164, par. 126.

406

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
In his report, Special Rapporteur Theodoor

Van Boven concluded that “in many situations
where impunity has been sanctioned by the law
or where de facto impunity prevails with regard
to persons responsible for gross violations of
human rights, the victims are effectively barred
from seeking and receiving redress and
reparation.”276 His conclusion is unsurprising,
given the significant role of reparations in
ensuring that the perpetrators are held
responsible for their actions.
Certainly, states cannot claim to look after
the interest of the victims and at the same time
endorse a social and political climate where
impunity prevails. This incongruity would be

tantamount to a violation of the victims’ right to
effective remedy and reparations. In Van
Boven’s words, “it is hard to perceive that a
system of justice that cares for the rights of
victims can remain at the same time indifferent
and inert towards the gross misconduct of
perpetrators.”277

The UN Impunity Principles

The primary instrument providing for the
duty to combat impunity is the UN Set of
Principles for the Protection and Promotion of
Human Rights through Action to Combat
Impunity (UN Impunity Principles).278 Like the
UN Reparations Principles, this document does
not impose new obligations, but only frames and
emphasizes the existing state obligations under
international human rights law. This rule is
apparent in the Preamble of the Principles,
which cites the UN Charter and the UDHR as
the bases for the statement that “the duty of
every State under international law to respect
and to secure respect for human rights requires
that effective measures should be taken to
combat impunity.”279
In these Principles, the UN Human Rights
Committee enumerates the acts from which
impunity may arise. Principle 1 states:
_______________
276 Id., par. 127.

277 Id., par. 130.
278 UN Human Rights Committee, Updated Set of
Principles for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights
through Action to Combat Impunity, E/CN.4/2005/102/Add.1,

8 February 2005 [hereinafter UN Impunity Principles].
279 Id., Preamble.

407
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 407

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Impunity arises from a failure by States to meet their

obligations to investigate violations; to take
appropriate measures in respect of the perpetrators,
particularly in the area of justice, by ensuring that
those suspected of criminal responsibility are
prosecuted, tried and duly punished; to provide
victims with effective remedies and to ensure that
they receive reparation for the injuries suffered; to
ensure the inalienable right to know the truth about
violations; and to take other necessary steps to
prevent a recurrence of violations.280

A reading of the UN Principles on Impunity
reveals the close relationship between impunity
and the concepts of reparations and the
preservation of memory.

Impunity and the Right to Reparation

The provision of effective remedies and
reparations for victims has been recognized as
one of the means to combat impunity. Principles
31 and 34 provide:
PRINCIPLE 31. RIGHTS AND DUTIES ARISING

OUT OF THE OBLIGATION TO MAKE
REPARATION

Any human rights violation gives rise to a right to
reparation on the part of the victim or his or her
beneficiaries, implying a duty on the part of the State
to make reparation and the possibility for the victim
to seek redress from the perpetrator.

x x x x

PRINCIPLE 34. SCOPE OF THE RIGHT TO
REPARATION

The right to reparation shall cover all injuries
suffered by victims; it shall include measures of
restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, and
satisfaction as provided by international law.
_______________
280 Id., Principle 1.

408

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
In particular, symbolic reparations are

considered significant. In his Report281 on the
Question of the Impunity of Perpetrators of
Human Rights Violations (Civil and Political),282

Special Rapporteur Louis Joinet concluded:
On a collective basis, symbolic measures intended to

provide moral reparation, such as formal public
recognition by the State of its responsibility, or official
declarations aimed at restoring victims’ dignity,
commemorative ceremonies, naming of public
thoroughfares or the erection of monuments, help to
discharge the duty of remembrance. In France, for
example, it took more than 50 years for the Head of
State formally to acknowledge, in 1996, the
responsibility of the French State for the crimes
against human rights committed by the Vichy regime
between 1940 and 1944. Mention can be made of
similar statements by President Cardoso concerning
violations committed under the military dictatorship
in Brazil, and more especially of the initiative of the
Spanish Government, which recently conferred the
status of ex-servicemen on the anti-Fascists and
International Brigade members who fought on the
Republican side during the Spanish civil war.283

The Duty to Preserve Memory

Another facet of the fight against impunity
involves the duty of a state to preserve the
memory of its people. In this regard, the UN
Impunity Principles requires states to combat
any measure that tends to encourage people to
forget or downplay past human rights violations.
Principle 3 provides:
_______________
281 This report was accomplished pursuant to the

request of the UNCHR Sub-Commission on Prevention of
Discrimination and Protection of Minorities for Joinet to

undertake a study on the impunity of perpetrators of human
rights violations.
282 Joinet Report, supra note 235.
283 Id., par. 42.

409
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 409

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
PRINCIPLE 3. THE DUTY TO PRESERVE

MEMORY

A people’s knowledge of the history of its
oppression is part of its heritage and, as such, must be
ensured by appropriate measures in fulfillment of the
State’s duty to preserve archives and other evidence
concerning violations of human rights and
humanitarian law and to facilitate knowledge of those
violations. Such measures shall be aimed at
preserving the collective memory from extinction and,
in particular, at guarding against the development of
revisionist and negationist arguments.

While the UN Impunity Principles sees
reconciliation and justice as the primary goals, it
is firm in asserting that these goals may not be
achieved by disregarding human rights
atrocities that occurred in the past. In fact, the
principles emphasize that before true
reconciliation can be achieved, the human rights
violators must be held accountable. This dictum

is reflected in the Preamble of the instrument:
Aware that there can be no just and lasting

reconciliation unless the need for justice is effectively
satisfied,
Equally aware that forgiveness, which may be an
important element of reconciliation, implies, insofar
as it is a private act, that the victim or the victim’s
beneficiaries know the perpetrator of the violations
and that the latter has acknowledged his or her deeds,

x x x x

Convinced, therefore, that national and
international measures must be taken for that
purpose with a view to securing jointly, in the
interests of the victims of violations, observance of the
right to know and, by implication, the right to the
truth, the right to justice and the right to reparation,
without which there can be no effective remedy
against the pernicious effects of impunity.284

Consistent with the foregoing, the UN
Impunity Principles imposes restrictions on
certain rules of law like limiting the entitlement
of perpetrators to amnesties and other measures
of clemency. In Principle 24, the restrictions are
imposed even when clemency measures are “in-
_______________
284 UN Impunity Principles, supra note 278, Preamble.

410

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
tended to establish conditions conducive to a

peace agreement or to foster national
reconciliation.”285 Joinet, in his report,
emphasizes the importance of accountability in
the context of reconciliation:
[T]here can be no just and lasting reconciliation

without an effective response to the need for justice;
as a factor of reconciliation, forgiveness, insofar as it
is a private act, implies that the victim must know the
perpetrator of the violations and that the latter has
been in a position to show repentance. For forgiveness
to be granted, it must first have been sought.286

In this case, the burial of Marcos in the
LNMB would be tantamount to a disregard
of the human rights violations perpetrated
by his regime. To allow it to proceed would
sanction an egregious act of impunity and
allow the government to bestow an honor
that is clearly not due upon a perpetrator
of human rights violations. To allow it
would be a rampant violation of the rights
of victims under international law.
In the process of mapping through the vast
body of international human rights law, each
turn leads to the conclusion that the burial of
Marcos in the LNMB would be incompatible
with the international obligations of the
Philippines. For the Court to permit the burial
would be to sanction these violations and allow

the state to disregard the latter’s duty to provide
effective remedies to victims of human rights
violations, particularly its duty to provide
symbolic reparations and to combat impunity.

Incorporation of international law
principles in Philippine law

The foregoing principles of international law
have been incorporated in Philippine law as part
of two domestic statutes intended for the
protection of human rights.
_______________
285 Id., Principle 24.

286 Joinet Report, supra note 235, par. 26.

411
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 411

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
As discussed above, R.A. 10368 was enacted

pursuant to generally accepted principles of
international law, as well as the specific
obligations of the Philippines under
international human rights laws and
287
conventions. In accordance with these
principles, the statute recognized the
_______________
287 SECTION 2. Declaration of Policy.—Section 11 of

Article II of the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the
Philippines declares that the State values the dignity of
every human person and guarantees full respect for human
rights. Pursuant to this declared policy, Section 12 of Article
III of the Constitution prohibits the use of torture, force,
violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which
vitiate the free will and mandates the compensation and
rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices and
their families.
By virtue of Section 2 of Article II of the Constitution
adopting generally accepted principles of international law
as part of the law of the land, the Philippines adheres to
international human rights laws and conventions, the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, including the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR) and the Convention Against Torture (CAT) and
Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment which imposes on each State party the
obligation to enact domestic legislation to give effect to the
rights recognized therein and to ensure that any person
whose rights or freedoms have been violated shall have an
effective remedy, even if the violation is committed by
persons acting in an official capacity. In fact, the right to a
remedy is itself guaranteed under existing human rights
treaties and/or customary international law, being
peremptory in character (jus cogens) and as such has been
recognized as non-derogable.
Consistent with the foregoing, it is hereby declared the policy
of the State to recognize the heroism and sacrifices of all
Filipinos who were victims of summary execution, torture,
enforced or involuntary disappearance and other gross
human rights violations committed during the regime of
former President Ferdinand E. Marcos covering the period
from September 21, 1972 to February 25, 1986 and restore
the victims’ honor and dignity. The State hereby
acknowledges its moral and legal obligation to recognize
and/or provide reparation to said victims and/or their

families for the deaths, injuries, sufferings, deprivations and
damages they suffered under the Marcos regime.
Similarly, it is the obligation of the State to acknowledge the
sufferings and damages inflicted upon persons whose
properties or businesses were forcibly taken over,
sequestered or used, or those whose professions were
damaged and/or impaired, or those whose freedom of
movement was restricted, and/or such other victims of the
violations of the Bill of Rights.

412

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
“heroism and sacrifices of all Filipinos who were

victims of summary execution, torture, enforced
or involuntary disappearance and other gross
human rights violations” and vowed to “restore
the victims’ honor and dignity” through the
grant of reparations to victims and/or their
families.288
The same principles were likewise
289
incorporated in R.A. 9851, a statute
penalizing crimes against international
humanitarian law, genocide, and other crimes
against humanity. In providing remedies for
offenses under this law, courts were specifically
mandated to follow international principles
relating to reparations for victims, including
restitution, compensation, and rehabilitation.290
The statute also enu-
_______________
288 Id.
289 PHILIPPINE ACT ON CRIMES AGAINST INTERNATIONAL
HUMANITARIAN LAW, GENOCIDE, AND OTHER CRIMES AGAINST
HUMANITY, Republic Act No. 9851, 11 December 2009.
290 Sections 14 and 15 of RA No. 9851 state:
SECTION 14. Reparations to Victims.—In addition to

existing provisions in Philippine law and procedural rules
for reparations to victims, the following measures shall be
undertaken:
(a) The court shall follow principles relating to reparations

to, or in respect of, victims, including restitution,
compensation and rehabilitation. On this basis, in its
decision, the court may, either upon request or on its own
motion in exceptional circumstances, determine the scope
and extent of any damage, loss and injury to, or in respect
of, victims and state the principles on which it is acting;
(b) The court may make an order directly against a convicted
person specifying appropriate reparations to, or in respect
of, victims, including restitution, compensation and
rehabilitation; and
(c) Before making an order under this section, the court may
invite and shall take account of representations from or
on behalf of the convicted person, victims or other
interested persons.
Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prejudicing

the rights of victims under national or international law.

413
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 413
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
merated the sources of international law that

may guide the courts in the application and
interpretation of the statute. These sources
include international instruments, decisions of
international courts and tribunals, as well as
writings of most highly qualified publicists and
authoritative commentaries.
The obligation of the state to provide holistic
reparations for victims of human rights
violations is, therefore, enshrined in both
international and domestic laws. This obligation
includes the responsibility to provide victims
with reparations — both financial and symbolic
— in recognition of their suffering and heroism.
The grant of reparations should likewise go hand
in hand with the duty of the state to combat
impunity by holding perpetrators of human
rights violations accountable.
As previously discussed, the proposed burial
of former President Marcos in the LNMB
contravenes these principles, because it would
_______________
SECTION 15. Applicability of International Law.—In the

application and interpretation of this Act, Philippine courts
shall be guided by the following sources:
(a) The 1948 Genocide Convention;

(b) The 1949 Geneva Conventions I-IV, their 1977 Additional
Protocols I and II and their 2005 Additional Protocol III;
(c) The 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural
Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, its First Protocol
and its 1999 Second Protocol;
(d) The 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child and its
2000 Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in
Armed Conflict;
(e) The rules and principles of customary international law;
(f) The judicial decisions of international courts and
tribunals;
(g) Relevant and applicable international human rights
instruments;
(h) Other relevant international treaties and conventions
ratified or acceded to by the Republic of the Philippines;
and
(i) Teachings of the most highly qualified publicists and
authoritative commentaries on the foregoing sources as
subsidiary means for the determination of rules of
international law.

414

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
honor the identified perpetrator of human rights

violations. As such, it would accomplish the
exact opposite of what is intended to be
accomplished by international and domestic
principles on reparations, i.e., to recognize and
honor the sufferings of victims; and to make
amends for the physical, emotional and
psychological harm they have sustained. The
burial would also perpetuate a climate of
impunity, as it would effectively disregard the
human rights violations perpetrated by Marcos

transgressions.
Clearly, the President cannot sanction the
burial without going against domestic and
international principles, as well as his solemn
oath to faithfully execute the law.

IV.

Public Funds and Property Cannot be Used
for the Burial as it Serves No Legitimate
Public Purpose.

On a final note, I must point out that the
discretion of the President in this case is not
unlimited, as argued by respondents. Because
their proposal involves public funds and
property, certain rules must be complied with.
Respondents propose the use of a portion of
the LNMB, a national cemetery owned by the
government, for the interment of Marcos. They
likewise intend to use money from the
government coffers for the preparation and
maintenance of the gravesite, as well as for
military honors to be accorded to the deceased by
the AFP.
Considering that public resources would be
used for the interment, it is necessary for this
Court to determine if the planned expenditures
are for a legitimate public purpose. The reason is
simple — public property, including public
funds, belongs to the people.291 Hence, it is the
duty of the government to ensure the prudent
use of these resources at all times to prevent
dissipation and waste.292 As a necessary
corollary to these
_______________
291 Dimapilis-Baldoz v. Commission on Audit, 714 Phil.

171; 701 SCRA 318 (2013).
292 Id.

415
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 415

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
principles, it is settled that public property and

funds may only be used for public purposes.293
This Court has explained the nature and the
meaning of the term “public purpose” in the
context of public expenditures in several cases.
It has declared that the term includes not only
activities that will benefit the community as a
body and are related to the traditional functions
of government,294 but also those designed to
promote social justice, general welfare and the
common good.295 This broad understanding of
the public purpose requirement, however, does
not authorize the use of public funds and
property for unmistakably personal and political
motives.296
Ultimately, the validity of a public
expenditure depends on the essential character
of its direct object. In Albon v. Fernando,297 the
Court explained:
In Pascual v. Secretary of Public Works, the Court

laid down the test of validity of a public expenditure:
it is the essential character of the direct object
of the expenditure which must determine its

validity and not the magnitude of the interests
to be affected nor the degree to which the
general advantage of the community, and thus
the public welfare, may be ultimately benefited
by their promotion. Incidental advantage to the
public or to the State resulting from the promotion of
private interests and the prosperity of private
enterprises or business does not justify their aid by
the use of public money.298 (Citations omitted and
emphasis supplied)
_______________
293 Presidential Decree 1445 (1978), Section 4(2);

Republic Act No. 7160 (1991), Section 305(b); see Strategic
Alliance Development Corporation v. Radstock Securities
Limited, 622 Phil. 431; 607 SCRA 413 (2009).
294 Yap v. Commission on Audit, 633 Phil. 174; 619
SCRA 154 (2010).
295 Binay v. Domingo, 278 Phil. 515; 201 SCRA 508
(1991).
296 See Pambansang Koalisyon ng mga Samahang
Magsasaka at Manggagawa sa Niyugan (PKSMMN) v.
Executive Secretary, 685 Phil. 295; 669 SCRA 49 (2012).
297 526 Phil. 630; 494 SCRA 141 (2006).
298 Id., at p. 638; p. 150.

416

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Based on the foregoing standard, the validity

of public expenditures must be determined based
on the nature of the particular expense involved,
and the public purpose sought to be
accomplished.
As will be explained in further detail, the
proposed burial would promote only the
private interest of the Marcos family.
Significantly, respondents have failed to prove
that any sort of public purpose would be served
by the planned interment; in fact, the event
would contravene the public purposes of the
LNMB. Consequently, the intended public
expenditure cannot be allowed.

A. The burial would contravene
the public purpose of the

The government in this case proposes to
shoulder the expenses for the burial of Marcos in
the LNMB, a military cemetery maintained on
public property and a declared national shrine.
The expenses contemplated are comprised of the
cost of a plot inside a military cemetery, the
maintenance expenses for the gravesite, and the
cost of military honors and ceremonies.299
Generally, burial expenses are not borne by
the government because interments are
customarily private affairs. However, as
exceptions to the foregoing rule, public
expenditure is allowed in the case of cemeteries
that serve certain public purposes, for instance:
(a) burial grounds set aside for the indigent in
the name of social justice;300 and (b) cemeteries
reserved for individuals deemed worthy of honor
and reverence, i.e., the nation’s war dead,
soldiers or dignitaries, of the government.301 The

LNMB belongs to this second exception.
Formerly known as the Republic Memorial
Cemetery, the LNMB was designated by former
President Ramon M. Magsaysay as the national
cemetery for the nation’s war dead in 1954.
Through Executive Order
_______________
299 TSN, 7 September 2016, pp. 220-226.

300 See Republic Act No. 7160, Section 17.
301 See Proclamation No. 425, Balantang Memorial
Cemetery National Shrine in Jaro, Iloilo City, 13 July 1994.

417
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 417

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
No. 77,302 he ordered that the remains of the war

dead interred at the Bataan Memorial Cemetery
and other places be transferred to the LNMB to
accord honor to dead war heroes; improve the
accessibility of the burial grounds to relatives of
the deceased; and consolidate the expenses of
maintenance and upkeep of military cemeteries.
He thereafter issued Proclamation No. 86,303
which renamed the cemetery to “Libingan ng
mga Bayani,” because the former name was “not
symbolic of the cause for which our soldiers have
died, and does not truly express the nation’s
esteem and reverence for her war dead.”
It is therefore evident that the LNMB is no

ordinary cemetery, but a burial ground
established on public property to honor the
nation’s war dead and fallen soldiers. Further,
the designation of the cemetery as a national
shrine confirms its sacred character and main
purpose, that is, to serve as a symbol for the
community and to encourage remembrance of
the honor and valor of great Filipinos.304
Respondents themselves acknowledged this fact
when they argued that the LNMB implements a
public purpose because it is a military shrine
and a military memorial.305
To allow the LNMB to fulfill the foregoing
purposes, it has been and continues to be the
recipient of public funds and property. Not only
was the cemetery established on land owned by
the government, public funds are also being
utilized for the cost of maintenance and other
expenses. The use of these resources is justified
because of the public purpose of the site. As a
necessary consequence of this principle, an
expenditure that does not further this public
purpose is invalid.
Applying the foregoing standards, the
proposed expenditures for the burial of Marcos
in the LNMB must be considered invalid. As
earlier
_______________
302 Executive Order No. 77, Transferring the remains of

war dead interred at Bataan Memorial Cemetery, Bataan
Province and at other places in the Philippines to the
Republic Memorial Cemetery at Fort WM Mckinley, Rizal
Province, 23 October 1954.
303 Proclamation No. 86, Changing the “Republic Memorial

Cemetery” at Fort WM McKinley, Rizal Province, to
“Libingan ng mga Bayani,” 27 October 1954.
304 Presidential Decree No. 105, Declaring National
Shrines as Sacred (Hallowed) Places and Prohibiting
Desecration Thereof (1973).
305 Consolidated Comment dated 22 August 2016, pp.
43-44.

418

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
discussed, Marcos was an ousted dictator

and disgraced president. Consequently, he
is clearly not worthy of commendation
from the state and no public purpose would
be served by his interment therein. In fact,
his burial in the LNMB would result in a
contravention of the public purpose of the
site as it would no longer be a sacred
symbol of honor and valor.

B. Respondents have not explained how
the burial would serve the avowed
policy of national unity and healing.

Considering that the public purpose of the
LNMB would not be served by the interment, we
must now examine the other public purpose
supposedly fulfilled by the proposal. According to
respondents, that purpose pertains to national
unity and healing. In their Comment, they

contend:
Undeniably, no cadaver has polarized this nation for

the longest time other than that of the former
President Marcos. Thus, President Duterte deems
that it is but high time to put an end to this issue by
burying the mortal remains of a former President,
Commander-in-Chief, and soldier.
President Duterte’s decision to accord respect to the
remains of former President Marcos is not simply a
matter of political accommodation, or even whims.
Viewed from a wider perspective, this decision should
be dovetailed to his war against corruption and
dangerous drugs, and his recent dealings with the
CPP/NPA/NDF. All these are geared towards
changing the national psyche and beginning the
painful healing of this country.306

x x x x

It should likewise be emphasized that President
Duterte’s order to allow former President Marcos’
interment at the Libingan is based on his
determination that it shall promote national healing
and forgiveness, and redound to the benefit of the
Filipino people. Surely, this is an exercise of his
executive prerogative beyond the ambit of judicial
review.307
_______________
306 Id., at p. 5.
307 Id., at p. 26.

420

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
It is significant to note, however, that

respondents fail to explain how the burial would
lead to national unity and healing.
Consequently, their statements remain
meaningless assertions. To emphasize, mere
reference to an avowed public purpose cannot
automatically justify the use of public funds and
property. This Court must still review the
validity of the declared purpose of public
expenditure, as well as the reasonable
connection between the objective and the
proposed means for its attainment. Our duty to
safeguard public funds and property demands no
less. To reiterate, “[p]ublic funds are the
property of the people and must be used
prudently at all times with a view to prevent
dissipation and waste.”308
Furthermore, as previously discussed, it is
the essential character of the direct object of
public expenditure that determines its
validity,309 and not the incidental advantage
derived from it by the community. Hence,
assuming for the sake of argument that the
burial would bear an incidental benefit of
promoting unity and healing, this supposed
benefit would not erase the reality that the
interment would principally be for the promotion
of the personal interest of former President
Marcos and his family.
.
C. The burial would promote

only the private interest of
the Marcos family.

It is clear from the foregoing discussion that
the burial would ultimately benefit only the
Marcos family. No general advantage is derived
by the public from the interment; as it stands,
divisiveness instead of unity has resulted from
the plan.
The circumstances surrounding the order of
the President to allow the burial likewise reveal
the political color behind the decision. In their
Comment, respondents admit that the President
ordered the burial to fulfill a promise made
during his presidential campaign.310 It must be
pointed out, however, that the President made
that pledge not at any
_______________
308 Yap v. Commission on Audit, supra note 294 at p.

188; pp. 166-167.
309 See Albon v. Fernando, supra note 297.
310 Consolidated Comment dated 22 August 2016, p. 16.

420

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
random location, but while campaigning in

Ilocos Norte,311 a known stronghold of the
Marcos family. During the oral arguments held

in this case, it was also revealed that the
preparations for the burial were prompted by a
letter sent by the Marcos heirs to Secretary
Lorenzana, urging him to issue the orders
required for the interment at the earliest
opportunity. 312
Needless to state, the private interest of the
Marcos family and the personal objective of the
President to fulfill a pledge to his political allies
will not justify the proposed public expenditure
for the burial.
Indeed, it is completely unseemly for the
Marcos family to expect the Filipino people
to bear the financial and emotional cost of
burying the condemned former President
even while this country has yet to recover
all the ill-gotten wealth that he, his family,
and unrepentant cronies continue to deny
them.313 It is wrong for this Government
and the Marcos family to refer human
rights victims to the financial reparation
provided by Republic Act 10386 as
recompense, which moneys will come, not
from the private wealth of the Marcos
family, but from the money they illegally
acquired while in office, and on which the
Philippine state spent fortunes to recover.
Every Filipino continues to suffer because
of the billions of unwarranted public debt
incurred by the country under the Marcos
leadership;314
______________
311 Id., supra note 51.

312 TSN, 7 September 2016, pp. 165, 234.
313 See Chavez v. Presidential Commission on Good

Government, 360 Phil. 133; 299 SCRA 744 (1998).
314 In Presidential Commission on Good Government v.
Peña, supra note 80 at p. 107; p. 566, the Court stated:
The rationale of the exclusivity of such jurisdiction is readily

understood. Given the magnitude of the past regime’s “organized
pillage” and the ingenuity of the plunderers and pillagers with the
assistance of the experts and best legal minds available in the
market, it is a matter of sheer necessity to restrict access to the
lower courts, which would have tied into knots and made impossible
the Commission’s gigantic task of recovering the plundered wealth
of the nation, whom the past regime in the process had

421
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 421

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
and every Filipino will incur more

expenses, no matter how modest, for the
proposed burial. No situation can be more
ironic indeed.

Epilogue

Stripped to its core, this case involves an
order by the President to bury a dictator — one
declared to have perpetrated human rights
violations and plundered the wealth of the
nation — with all the trappings of a hero’s
burial. It may not be an express declaration, as
respondents themselves concede that the
President does not have the power to declare any
individual a hero, but it is a pronouncement of

heroism nevertheless. It is far from being an
empty statement bereft of significance. As
respondents themselves recognize, the nature of
the office held by the President provides him the
opportunity to “profoundly influence the public
discourse x x x by the mere expediency of taking
a stand on the issues of the day.”315 Clearly, the
order of the President to allow the burial is, at
the very least, a declaration that Marcos is
worthy of a grave at a cemetery reserved for war
heroes, despite the objections of countless
victims of human rights violations during the
Martial Law regime. It is an executive
pronouncement that his memory may be
preserved and maintained using public funds.
Justice Isagani Cruz once stated: “liberty is
not a gift of the government but the rights of the
governed.”316 Throughout his regime, Marcos
trampled upon this statement by his own acts
and those of his subordinates, in a stampede
wrought by the fervor to supposedly protect the
nation from lawless elements. It pitted Filipino
against Filipino, masking each face in shades of
black or white and sowing fear and terror whilst
reaping a harvest of public treasure. The nation
was silenced. But people like petitioners
persevered, keeping in their hearts the essence
of Justice Cruz’s words. They fought, and the
people ultimately
_______________
saddled and laid prostrate with a huge $27 billion foreign debt that
has since ballooned to $28.5 billion.
315 Public Respondents’ Memorandum, p. 60.
316 Ordoñez v. Director of Prisons, G.R. No. 115576, 4

August 1994, 235 SCRA 152.

422

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
rose and won back the freedom we all now enjoy.

The statement continues:
Every person is free, save only for the fetters of the

law that limit but do not bind him unless he affronts
the rights of others or offends the public welfare.
Liberty is not derived from the sufferance of the
government or its magnanimity or even from the
Constitution itself, which merely affirms but does not
grant it. Liberty is a right that inheres in every one of
us as a member of the human family.317

To forget that Marcos took this right away
from the citizens of the Philippines would be the
peak of intellectual and moral complacency. As a
nation of laws, we cannot tolerate anything less
than the full remembrance of a dark past from
which we derive lessons that we imbue into the
legal firmament. We cannot tolerate another
instance in which our rights would be run to the
ground, in which we would lose sight of the
values held in our own Constitution, the symbols
we hold dear, the aspirations we cherish. The
LNMB is revered because of the symbolism it
carries. One treatise on geography and public

memory explains:
Cemeteries, as one type of memorial space, create a

symbolic encounter between the living and the dead in
the form of individual gravesites and the ritual
activities taking place in the burial space. In contrast
to communal cemeteries, national cemeteries are state
shrines that belong to the national narrative of the
people. The heroes buried there — most prominently
national leaders and fallen soldiers — are privileged
members of the national pantheon.318

A grave in the LNMB is a testament to the
honor and valor of the person buried therein.
The Marcos family has long sought a burial for
the dictator at this site for this exact reason.
The Court cannot order that a particular
event be remembered in a particular way, but it
can negate an act that whimsically ignores legal
_______________
317 Id.
318 Foote, Kenneth E. and Maoz Azaryahu, Toward a
Geography of Memory: Geographical Dimensions of Public
Memory, Journal of Political and Military Sociology, Vol. 35,
No. 1 (Summer), pp. 125-144 (2007).

423
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 423

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
truths. It can invalidate the arbitrary

distillation of the nation’s collective memory into
politically convenient snippets and moments of
alleged glory. The Court is empowered to do
justice, and justice in this case means
preventing a whitewash of the sins of Marcos
against the Filipino people.
The burial of Marcos in the earth from
whence he came is his right, despite all that he
did. However, his burial in the grave of heroes
on the impulse of one man would continue the
desecration of other citizens’ rights, a chilling
legacy of the Marcos regime that curiously
survives to this very day, long after the death of
the dictator.
Respondents may deny the implications of
their actions today,319 but the symbolism of the
burial will outlive even their most emphatic
refutations. Long after the clarifications made
by this administration have been forgotten, the
gravesite at the LNMB will remain. That is the
peculiar power of symbols in the public
landscape — they are not only carriers of
meaning, but are repositories of public memory
and ultimately, history.
For the Court to pretend that the present
dispute is a simple question of the entitlement of
a soldier to a military burial is to take a
regrettably myopic view of the controversy. It
would be to disregard historical truths and legal
principles that persist after death. As important,
it would be to degrade the state’s duty to
recognize the pain of countless
_______________
319 In Public Respondents’ Memorandum (p. 99), it was

declared:
Besides, the chapter of Philippine history on Martial Law is not

written in ordinary ink. Rather, its every word is written in the
blood and tears of recognized and unsung heroes; its every page is a
Shroud that has their bloodied but valiant faces on it; and each turn
of these pages echoes their cried for freedom.
The point here is simple: the interment of the remains of former
President Marcos at the Libingan is not tantamount to a
consecretion of his mortal remains or his image for that matter. No
amount of heartfelt eulogy, gun salutes, holy anointment, and
elaborate procession and rituals can transmogrify the dark pages of
history during Martial Law. As it is written now, Philippine history
is on the side of petitioners and everybody who fought and died for
democracy.

424

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
victims of Marcos and Martial Law. Regardless

of the promised national unity that the proposed
burial will bring, I cannot, in good conscience,
support such an expedient and shortsighted view
of Philippine history.
WHEREFORE, I vote to GRANT the
Petitions.

DISSENTING OPINION

CARPIO, J.:

The petitions seek to prevent the interment of
the remains of the late President Ferdinand E.
Marcos (Marcos) at the Libingan ng mga Bayani
(LNMB).
The LNMB was formerly known as the
Republic Memorial Cemetery. On 27 October
1954, then President Ramon Magsaysay issued
Proclamation No. 86, “changing the Republic
Memorial Cemetery at Fort WM McKinley, Rizal
Province, to Libingan ng mga Bayani.” More
than a decade later, then President Marcos
issued Proclamation No. 208 on 28 May 1967,
excluding approximately 1,428,800 square
meters from the Fort Bonifacio Military
Reservation for the site of the LNMB, and
reserving the same for national shrine purposes
under the administration of the National
Shrines Commission. The National Shrines
Commission was subsequently abolished and its
functions transferred to the Military Shrines
Service of the Philippine Veterans Affairs Office
of the Department of National Defense under
Presidential Decree No. 1076, issued by then
President Marcos on 26 January 1977.
On 11 September 2000, Acting Armed Forces
of the Philippines (AFP) Chief of Staff Jose M.
Calimlim, by order of the Secretary of National
Defense, issued AFP Regulation 161-375 (AFPR
G 161-375),1 on the allocation of cemetery plots
at the LNMB.
Under AFPR G 161-375, the deceased persons
who are qualified to be interred at the LNMB
are:
_______________
1 AFPR G 161-375 superseded AFPR G 161-374 dated 27

March 1998, which in turn superseded AFPR G 161-373
issued on 9 April 1986.

425
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 425

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
a. Medal of Valor Awardees;

b. Presidents or Commander-in-Chief, AFP;
c. Secretaries of National Defense;
d. Chiefs of Staff, AFP;
e. Generals/Flag Officers of the AFP;
f. Active and retired military personnel of the AFP to
include active draftees and trainees who died in line
of duty, active reservists and CAFGU Active Auxiliary
(CAA) who died in combat operations or combat
related activities;
g. Former members of the AFP who laterally entered
or joined the Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) and the
Philippine National Police (PNP);
h. Veterans of Philippine Revolution of 1890, WWI,
WWII and recognized guerillas;
i. Government Dignitaries, Statesmen, National
Artists and other deceased persons whose interment
or reinterment has been approved by the Commander-
in-Chief, Congress or the Secretary of National
Defense; and
j. Former Presidents, Secretaries of Defense,
Dignitaries, Statesmen, National Artists, widows of
Former Presidents, Secretaries of National Defense
and Chief[s] of Staff.

AFPR G 161-375 also enumerates those not
qualified to be interred at the LNMB,
namely:
a. Personnel who were dishonorably

separated/reverted/
discharged from the service; and
b. Authorized personnel who were convicted by final
judgment of an offense involving moral turpitude.
(Emphasis supplied)

In a Memorandum dated 7 August 2016, the
Department of National Defense (DND)
Secretary Delfin Lorenzana ordered the AFP
Chief of Staff Ricardo Visaya to undertake the
necessary preparations to facilitate the
interment of Marcos at the LNMB, in
compliance with the verbal order of President
Rodrigo Duterte on 11 July 2016.
The DND Memorandum resulted in the filing
of these petitions, which oppose the
implementation of the DND Memorandum for
the interment of Marcos at the LNMB.

426

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
I vote to grant the petitions on the ground

that Marcos is not qualified to be interred at the
LNMB, and thus the Memorandum dated 7
August 2016 of DND Secretary Lorenzana was

issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

Marcos is disqualified from
being interred at the LNMB

Assuming that Marcos was qualified to be
interred at the LNMB as a Medal of Valor
Awardee, and as a former President of the
Philippines and Commander-in-Chief, he ceased
to be qualified when he was ousted from the
Presidency by the nonviolent People Power
Revolution on 25 February 1986.
AFPR G 161-375, which respondents rely on
to justify the interment of Marcos at the LNMB,
specifically provides that “personnel who were
dishonorably
separated/reverted/discharged from the
service” are not qualified to be interred at the
LNMB. Marcos, who was forcibly ousted from
the Presidency by the sovereign act of the
Filipino people, falls under this disqualification.

Dishonorable discharge from office

In Marcos v. Manglapus,2 the Court described
Marcos as “a dictator forced out of office and
into exile after causing twenty years of
political, economic and social havoc in the
country.”3 In short, he was ousted by the Filipino
people. Marcos was forcibly removed from the
Presidency by what is now referred to as the
People Power Revolution. This is the strongest
form of dishonorable discharge from office
since it is meted out by the direct act of the
sovereign people.
The fact of Marcos’ ouster is beyond judicial

review. This Court has no power to review the
legitimacy of the People Power Revolution as it
was successfully carried out by the sovereign
people who installed the revolutionary
government of Corazon C. Aquino. The people
have spo-
_______________
2 258 Phil. 479; 177 SCRA 668 (1989).

3 Id., at p. 492; p. 682.

427
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 427

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
ken by ratifying the 1987 Constitution, which

was drafted under the Aquino government
installed by the People Power Revolution. The
Court has been steadfast in dismissing
challenges to the legitimacy of the Aquino
government, and has declared that its legitimacy
is not a justiciable matter that can be acted upon
by the Court.4
As the removal of Marcos from the Presidency
is no longer within the purview of judicial
review, we must accept this as an
incontrovertible fact which has become part of
the history of the Philippines. This ouster, which
was directly carried out by by the sovereign act
of the Filipino people, constitutes dishonorable
removal from service. Marcos was forcibly
removed from the position as President and

Commander-in-Chief by the Filipino people. In
Estrada v. Desierto,5 the Court reiterated the
legitimacy of the removal of Marcos and the
establishment of the Aquino government:
No less than the Freedom Constitution declared that

the Aquino government was installed through a
direct exercise of the power of the Filipino
people in defiance of the provisions of the 1973
Constitution, as amended. It is familiar learning that
the legitimacy of a government sired by a successful
revolution by people power is beyond judicial
scrutiny for that government automatically orbits
out of the constitutional loop.6 (Emphasis supplied)

The removal of Marcos from the Presidency,
therefore, was a direct exercise of the sovereign
act of the Filipino people that is “beyond
judicial scrutiny.” It cannot be said that this
removal was an “honorable” one. Truly, there is
nothing more dishonorable for a President than
being forcibly removed from office by the direct
sovereign act of the people.
_______________
4 Joint Resolution, Lawyers’ League for a Better

Philippines v. President Aquino, G.R. No. 73748; People’s
Crusade for the Supremacy of the Constitution v. Aquino,
G.R. No. 73972; Ganay v. Aquino, G.R. No. 73990, 22 May
1986 (unsigned Resolution).
5 406 Phil. 1; 353 SCRA 452 (2001).
6 Id., at pp. 43-44; pp. 490-492.

428

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Respondents argue that because Marcos was

not dishonorably discharged in accordance with
the procedures and guidelines prescribed in
Administrative Discharge Prior to Expiration of
Term of Enlistment (Circular 17, dated 2
October 1987, Series of 1987, of the Armed
Forces of the Philippines), Marcos was honorably
separated from service.
I disagree.
First, Marcos was separated from service with
finality, having been forcibly ousted by the
Filipino people on 25 February 1986. Circular
17, issued more than one year after such
separation from office, cannot be made to apply
retroactively to Marcos. When Circular 17 was
issued, Marcos had already been finally
discharged, terminated, and ousted — as
President and Commander-in-Chief — by the
Filipino people. Circular 17 requires certain
administrative procedures and guidelines in the
discharge of incumbent or serving military
personnel. There is a physical and legal
impossibility to apply to Marcos Circular 17
since it was issued long after Marcos had been
separated from office.
Second, even assuming that Circular 17 can
be given retroactive effect, Marcos was still
dishonorably discharged from service since
Circular 17 cannot prevail over the sovereign act
of the Filipino people. Marcos was ousted by the
direct act of the Filipino people. The sovereign

people is the ultimate source of all government
powers.7 The Constitution specifically declares
that “sovereignty resides in the people and all
government authority emanates from them.”8
Thus, the act of the sovereign people in
removing Marcos from the Presidency, which is
now beyond judicial review, and thus necessarily
beyond administrative review, cannot be
overturned by a mere administrative circular
issued by a department secretary. The reality is,
more than one year before Circular 17 was
issued, Marcos had already been removed with
finality from office by the sovereign people for
reasons that are far from honorable.
Circular 17, a mere administrative issuance
of a department secretary, cannot be applied
retroactively to undo a final act by the sovereign
people. The power of all government officials,
this Court included, ema-
_______________
7 See Negros Oriental II Electric Cooperative, Inc. v.

Sangguniang Panlungsod of Dumaguete, 239 Phil. 403; 155
SCRA 421 (1987).
8 Article II, Section 1, 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION.

429
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 429

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
nates from the people. Thus, any act that runs

afoul with the direct exercise of sovereignty by
the people, such as the removable of a dictator,
plunderer and human rights violator, cannot be
countenanced. The sovereign act of the Filipino
people obviously prevails over a mere
administrative circular issued by a department
secretary.

Equal Protection Clause

The respondents assert that the
disqualifications under AFPR G 161-375 are
inapplicable to former presidents as the
disqualifications under AFPR G 161-375 apply
only to military personnel and not to nonmilitary
personnel.
I disagree.
The disqualifications prescribed under AFPR
G 161-375 are reasonable per se considering that
the LNMB is a national shrine.9 Proclamation
No. 86 renamed the Republic Memorial
Cemetery to LNMB to make it more “symbolic of
the cause for which Filipino soldiers have died”
and “to truly express the nation’s esteem and
reverence for her war dead.” The
disqualifications are safeguards to ensure that
those interred at the LNMB indeed deserve such
honor and reverence.
However, to submit to respondents’ view that
the disqualifications under AFPR G 161-375
apply only to military personnel, and that the
President, even as Commander-in-Chief, is not a
military personnel subject to such
10
disqualifications, negates the purpose for
which the LNMB was originally established,
which is to honor Filipino soldiers who fought for
freedom and democracy for our country. Indeed,

Marcos is the very antithesis of freedom and
democracy because he was a dictator as declared
by this Court.
Respondents’ view will discriminate against
military personnel who are subject to the
disqualifications. Applying only to military
personnel the disqualifications will unduly favor
nonmilitary personnel who will always be
eligible, regardless of crimes committed against
the State or
_______________
9 Proclamation No. 208, issued on 28 May 1967.

10 Consolidated Comment (of public respondents) in G.R.
No. 225973, G.R. No. 225984, and G.R. No. 226097, pp. 54-
55.

430

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
humanity, to be interred at the LNMB as long as

they are included in the list of those qualified.
This will lead to the absurd situation where a
military officer who was dishonorably
discharged would be disqualified, while a
deposed President who was dishonorably
discharged through an act of the sovereign
people for committing plunder, human rights
violations, and other atrocious acts would still be

qualified to be interred at the LNMB.
The term “personnel” is not defined anywhere
in Circular 17 and thus, we must refer to its
common usage. Personnel is defined as “the
people who work for a particular company or
organization.”11 The enumeration of the people
qualified to be interred at the LNMB includes
both military (such as the Generals, Flag
Officers and Active and Retired Military
personnel of the AFP) and civilian (such as
Presidents, Secretaries of National Defense,
Government Dignitaries, Statesmen, National
Artists and widows of former Presidents)
personnel. Thus, the term “personnel” as used in
the provision for disqualifications should refer to
both military and civilian personnel.
Significantly, paragraph 4 of AFPR G 161-375,
the provision which enumerates those not
qualified to be interred at the LNMB, does not
use the word “military” to define personnel,
while for other provisions in the regulation, the
term “military” is specifically used to classify
“personnel.”
If as respondents argue, the disqualifications
should apply only to military personnel, then
AFPR G 161-375 would be a patent violation of
the Equal Protection Clause as it would
indiscriminately create unreasonable
classifications between civilian and military
personnel for purposes of interment at the
LNMB. Such classification serves no purpose
and is not germane to the purpose of interment
at the LNMB. The Equal Protection Clause
enshrined in Section 1, Article III of the 1987
Constitution states that: “No person shall be
deprived of life, liberty, or property without due
process of law, nor shall any person be denied

the equal protection of the laws.” The Equal
Protection Clause applies not
_______________
11 <http://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/personnel?
utm_campaign=sd&utm_medium=serp&utm_source=jsonld>
(last accessed 14 September 2016).

431
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 431

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
only to statutes or legislative acts but to all

official state actions.12 As explained in Bureau of
Customs Employees Associations (BOCEA) v.
Hon. Teves:13
Equal protection simply provides that all persons

or things similarly situated should be treated in a
similar manner, both as to rights conferred and
responsibilities imposed. The purpose of the equal
protection clause is to secure every person within a
state’s jurisdiction against intentional and arbitrary
discrimination, whether occasioned by the express
terms of a statute or by its improper execution
through the state’s duly constituted authorities. In
other words, the concept of equal justice under the
law requires the state to govern impartially, and it
may not draw distinctions between individuals solely
on differences that are irrelevant to a legitimate

governmental objective.14

To be valid, a classification must be
reasonable and based on real and substantial
distinctions. The Court, in the landmark case of
Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers’ Union,15
held:
All that is required of a valid classification is that it

be reasonable, which means that the classification
should be based on substantial distinctions which
make for real differences; that it must be germane to
the purpose of the law; that it must not be limited to
existing conditions only; and that it must apply
equally to each member of the class. This Court has
held that the standard is satisfied if the classification
or distinction is based on a reasonable foundation or
rational basis and is not palpably arbitrary.16

Thus, for a classification to be valid and
compliant with the Equal Protection Clause, it
must (1) be based on substantial distinctions, (2)
be
_______________
12 1-United Transport Koalisyon (1-UTAK) v.

Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 206020, 14 April 2015,
755 SCRA 441; Biraogo v. Philippine Truth Commission of
2010, 651 Phil. 374; 637 SCRA 78 (2010).
13 677 Phil. 636; 661 SCRA 589 (2011).
14 Id., at p. 660; pp. 609-610.
15 158 Phil. 60; 59 SCRA 54 (1974).
16 Id., at p. 87; pp. 77-78.

432

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
germane to the purpose of the law, (3) not be

limited to existing conditions only, and (4) apply
equally to all members of the same class.17
In this case, however, there is no substantial
distinction between the military and civilian
personnel, for purposes of interment at the
LNMB, that would warrant applying the
disqualifications to military personnel and not to
civilian personnel.
In Central Bank Employees Association, Inc.
v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas,18 the Court
found that the rank-and-file employees of the
Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) were unduly
discriminated against when all the rank-and-file
employees of other Government Financial
Institutions (GFIs) were exempted from the
Salary Standardization Law (SSL) while the
SSL continued to be applied to the rank-and-file
employees of the BSP. The Court held that while
the exemption from the applicability of the SSL
is a privilege that is within the prerogative of
the legislature to grant, the validity or legality of
the exercise is still subject to judicial review,
such that if it is exercised capriciously and
arbitrarily, the Court is duty bound to correct it.
The Court held:
It bears stressing that the exemption from the SSL

is a “privilege” fully within the legislative prerogative
to give or deny. However, its subsequent grant to the
rank-and-file of the seven other GFIs and continued
denial to the BSP rank-and-file employees breached
the latter’s right to equal protection. In other words,
while the granting of a privilege per se is a matter of
policy exclusively within the domain and prerogative
of Congress, the validity or legality of the exercise of
this prerogative is subject to judicial review. So when
the distinction made is superficial, and not based on
substantial distinctions that make real differences
between those included and excluded, it becomes a
matter of arbitrariness that this Court has the duty
and the power to correct. As held in the United
Kingdom case of Hooper v. Secretary of State for Work
and Pensions, once the State has chosen to confer
benefits, “discrimination” contrary to law may occur
where favorable treatment already afforded to one
group is refused to another, even though the State is
under no obligation to provide that favorable
treatment.
_______________
17 Tiu v. Court of Appeals, 361 Phil. 229; 301 SCRA 278
(1999).
18 487 Phil. 531; 446 SCRA 299 (2004).

433
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 433

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
The disparity of treatment between BSP rank-and-

file and the rank-and-file of the other seven GFIs
definitely bears the unmistakable badge of invidious
discrimination — no one can, with candor and
fairness, deny the discriminatory character of the
subsequent blanket and total exemption of the seven
other GFIs from the SSL when such was withheld
from the BSP. Alikes are being treated as unalikes
without any rational basis.
Again, it must be emphasized that the equal
protection clause does not demand absolute equality
but it requires that all persons shall be treated alike,
under like circumstances and conditions both as to
privileges conferred and liabilities enforced.
Favoritism and undue preference cannot be allowed.
For the principle is that equal protection and security
shall be given to every person under circumstances
which, if not identical, are analogous. If law be looked
upon in terms of burden or charges, those that fall
within a class should be treated in the same fashion;
whatever restrictions cast on some in the group is
equally binding on the rest.19 (Italicization in the
original)

Therefore, under the Equal Protection Clause,
persons who are in like circumstances and
conditions must be treated alike both as to the
privileges conferred and liabilities imposed. In
this case, as those enumerated in the AFPR G
161-375 are all granted the privilege of being
interred at the LNMB, consequently, the
disqualifications must also be made applicable to
all of them. There is no substantial or reasonable
basis for the disqualifications to be made
applicable to military personnel only when
civilians alike may be dishonorably dismissed

from service for the same offenses.
To sustain respondents’ view would give rise
to an absurd situation where civilians, eligible to
be interred at the LNMB would have the
absolute and irrevocable right to be interred
there, notwithstanding that military personnel,
likewise eligible to be interred at the LNMB,
may be disqualified. There is no real or
substantial basis for this distinction. The
conditions for disqualification should likewise be
applied to civilian personnel as the privileges
conferred on them — interment at the LNMB —
is the same privilege conferred on military
personnel.
_______________
19 Id., at pp. 582-583; pp. 369-370. Citations omitted.

434

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Marcos’ interment at the LNMB

is contrary to public policy

Jurisprudence defines public policy as “that
principle of the law which holds that no subject
or citizen can lawfully do that which has a
tendency to be injurious to the public or against
the public good.”20
The Constitution grants the Legislative

branch the power to enact laws and establish the
public policy behind the law. The public policy is
prescribed by the Legislature and is
implemented by the Executive. The Executive
must implement the law by observing the
highest standards of promoting the public policy.
These standards are embedded in the
Constitution, international law and municipal
statutes. By these standards, the DND
Memorandum ordering the interment of Marcos
at the LNMB is contrary to public policy.
Section 11, Article II of the 1987 Constitution
provides that the State values the dignity of
every human person and guarantees full respect
for human rights. This public policy is further
established in Section 12 of Article III which
prohibits the use of torture, force, violence,
threat, intimidation, or any other means which
vitiate free will and mandates the rehabilitation
of victims of torture or similar practices. Also,
following the doctrine of incorporation,21 the
Philippines adheres to the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights, and the Convention
Against Torture. Through the provisions of the
Constitution and international law, the State
binds itself to enact legislation recognizing and
upholding the rights of human rights victims.
Congress, by enacting Republic Act No. 10368
or “The Human Rights Victims Reparation and
Recognition Act of 2013,” established as a
“policy of the State” to recognize the heroism
and sacrifices of victims of (a) summary
execution; (b) torture; (c) enforced or involuntary
disap-
_______________
20 Gonzalo v. Tarnate, Jr., 724 Phil. 198, 207; 713 SCRA
224, 233 (2014), citing Avon Cosmetics, Incorporated v. Luna,
540 Phil. 389, 404; 511 SCRA 376, 393-394 (2006).
21 Article II, Section 2 states: “The Philippines x x x
adopts the generally accepted principles of international law
as part of the law of the land x x x.”

435
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 435

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
pearance; and (d) other gross human rights

violations during the Marcos regime. Section 2 of
R.A. No. 10368 states:
Consistent with the foregoing, it is hereby declared

the policy of the State to recognize the heroism and
sacrifices of all Filipinos who were victims of
summary execution, torture, enforced or
involuntary disappearance and other gross
human rights violations committed during the
regime of former President Ferdinand E.
Marcos covering the period from September 21, 1972
to February 25, 1986 and restore the victims’ honor
and dignity. The State hereby acknowledges its
moral and legal obligation to recognize and/or
provide reparation to said victims and/or their
families for the deaths, injuries, sufferings,
deprivations and damages they suffered under the
Marcos regime. (Emphasis supplied)

R.A. No. 10368 mandates that it is the “moral

and legal obligation” of the State to recognize the
sufferings and deprivations of the human rights
victims of Marcos’ martial law regime. Interring
Marcos on the hallowed grounds of the LNMB,
which was established to show “the nation’s
esteem and reverence” for those who fought for
freedom and democracy for our country, extols
Marcos and exculpates him from human rights
violations. This starkly negates the “moral and
legal obligation” of the State to recognize the
sufferings and deprivations of the human rights
victims under the dictatorship of Marcos.
The legislative declarations must be
implemented by the Executive who is sworn
under the Constitution to “faithfully execute the
law.” The Executive, in implementing the law,
must observe the standard of recognizing the
rights of human rights victims. Marcos’
interment at the LNMB will cause undue injury
particularly to human rights victims of the
Marcos regime, as well as the sovereign people
who ousted Marcos during the People Power
Revolution. Marcos’ interment at the LNMB is
thus contrary to public policy.
The sufferings and deprivations of the human
rights victims during the martial law era are
well documented. The United States District
Court of Hawaii in In Re Estate of Marcos22 held
Marcos guilty of wide-
_______________
22 910 F. Supp. 1460 (D. Haw., 1995).

436

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
spread human rights violations and awarded one

billion two hundred million U.S. Dollars
($1,200,000,000) in exemplary damages and
seven hundred sixty-six million U.S. Dollars
($766,000,000) in compensatory damages to
human rights victims. The judgment of the
district court was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals in Hilao v. Estate of Marcos.23
Finally, government funds or property shall
be spent or used solely for public purposes.24
Since Marcos was ousted by the sovereign act of
the Filipino people, he was dishonorably
discharged from office. Consequently, Marcos’
dishonorable discharge serves to convert his
burial into a private affair of the Marcos family.
Hence, no public purpose is served by interring
his remains at the LNMB.
ACCORDINGLY, I vote to GRANT the
petitions in G.R. Nos. 225973, 225984, 226097,
226116, 226117, 226120, and 226294 and to
DECLARE the DND Memorandum dated 7
August 2016 VOID for having been issued with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction.

SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION

BRION, J.:

I write this Separate Concurring Opinion to

express the reasons for my vote to dismiss the
petitions assailing President Rodrigo Duterte’s
order to inter the remains of former President
Ferdinand Marcos at the Libingan ng mga
Bayani (LNMB).
I opine that the Court cannot grant the
petitions as the petitioners presented issues that
are outside our judicial authority — as defined
by law and jurisprudence — to resolve.
I am not insensitive to the plight of victims of
human rights violations, nor am I unaware of
the allegations they raised against the Marcos
administration. But their emotions and beliefs
cannot and should
_______________
23 103 F.3d 767 (9th Cir., 1996).

24 Fort Bonifacio Development Corp. v. Commissioner of
Internal Revenue, 694 Phil. 7; 679 SCRA 566 (2012).

437
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 437

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
not influence the faithful discharge of my duties

as a Member of this Court.
The judicial power that the Court wields is
symbolized by a blindfolded lady carrying a set
of scales for a reason: it bases its decision, not on
who the litigants are, nor on the clout —
political, emotional, or financial — they may
carry; judicial adjudication is based on law and

evidence alone. Under this standard, I cannot
grant the petitions without knowingly crossing
the line separating judicial power from judicial
overreach.
To my mind, the present petitions, however
emotionally charged they might be, do not
present an actual case or controversy that
calls for the exercise of the power of judicial
review.
Without an actual case or controversy, we
cannot and should not exercise this exceptional
power; even our expanded jurisdiction under the
Constitution does not allow exceptions to this
deficiency. For us to indulge in this exercise
would not only amount to a judicial overreach,
but could possibly thrust this Court into a
political minefield that could not be traversed
without weakening the public’s trust and
confidence in our institution.
Ours is a power that emanates from the
authority, granted to us under the Constitution,
to interpret and apply the law in actual and live
disputes. We exercise this power through the
decisions we render in cases presented before us;
without the public’s respect and trust in the
legal soundness of our decisions, our
pronouncements would be no different from
meaningless doodles that children write on
throw away papers.
Even if we were to exercise our power of
judicial review in these petitions, the exercise of
our judgment should be limited by the following
considerations:
First, judicial review, even under our Court’s
expanded jurisdiction, does not empower the
Court to directly pass upon allegations involving

violations of statutes;
Second, the Constitution’s “faithful
execution” clause cannot be made the basis to
question the Executive’s manner of
implementing our laws;

438

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Third, the petitioners failed to specify any

treaty obligation prohibiting Marcos’ burial at
the LNMB;
Fourth, the Constitution, while built on the
ashes of the Marcos regime, should not be
interpreted in a way that would prevent
reconciliation and the country’s move towards
national unity; and
Finally, the necessity of Marcos’ burial at the
LNMB is a political question that the President
has decided, and is not without support from the
Filipino electorate.
I shall discuss these points in the order posed
above.

Judicial review, even under our
Court’s expanded jurisdiction,
does not empower the Court to
directly pass upon allegations
involving violations of statutes.

The petitions directly assail before this Court

the President’s decision allowing the interment
of the remains of former President Marcos at the
LNMB; they impute grave abuse of discretion on
President Duterte for this decision and seek,
under this Court’s expanded jurisdiction, the
nullification of his actions. By doing so, the
petitioners directly seek the exercise of our
power of judicial review.
After due consideration, I find that these
petitions failed to establish the necessity of the
Court’s direct exercise of its power of judicial
review, as their cited legal bases and arguments
largely involve violations of the law or its
misapplication. The remedy available to them,
given their objective, is not judicial review under
the Court’s expanded jurisdiction, but the
ordinary remedies available for errors of law
under the Rules of Court.
Thus, we cannot grant to the petitioners the
remedy they seek, as their desired remedy lies
outside this Court’s power to directly provide.
The petitions collectively assert that the
burial order violates several statutes and
implementing rules and regulations, among
them: AFP

439
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 439

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Regulations G 161-373,1 Republic Act (RA) No.

289,2 and RA 10368.3 The petitions further
assert that the President’s failure to interpret

these laws, together or in relation with one
another, to bar Marcos’ burial at the LNMB,
violates the faithful execution clause and the
spirit of the 1987 Constitution.
Indeed, our Court now possesses the duty to
determine and to act when “grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of . . . the government”
exists. This is a grant of power under the second
paragraph of Article VIII, Section 1 of the 1987
Constitution.
Under the expanded jurisdiction that the
Constitution granted this Court, our duty to
exercise judicial review runs broad and deep; it
exists even when an aspect of the case involves a
political question. We have in fact cited this duty
to justify the relaxation of the “standing”
requirement for judicial review when the case
presents a matter of transcendental importance,
a standard that the Court has formulated and
self-defined to allow for the exceptional
application of our jurisdiction.
Separately from all these, I have also been
pushing for an alternative approach in invoking
our expanded jurisdiction, by recognizing that a
prima facie showing of grave abuse of discretion
on the part of the government in cases involving
constitutional violations, should be sufficient to
give a Filipino citizen the standing to seek
judicial remedy.
The Court’s expanded jurisdiction, however,
affects only the means of invoking judicial
review, and does not change the nature of this
power at all. The power of judicial review
pertains to the power of the courts to
_______________
1 AFP Regulations G 161-373 Allocation of Cemetery

Plots at the LNMB, issued on 9 April 1986 by then AFP
Chief of Staff General Fidel V. Ramos and then President
Corazon Aquino.
2 AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NATIONAL
PANTHEON FOR PRESIDENTS OF THE PHILIPPINES, NATIONAL
HEROES, AND PANTHEON FOR PRESIDENTS OF THE PHILIPPINES,
NATIONAL HEROES, AND PATRIOTS OF THE COUNTRY, 16 June
1948. “Section 1. To perpetuate the memory of all the
Presidents of the Philippines, national heroes and patriots
for the inspiration and emulation of this generation and of
generations still unborn. x x x” (Emphasis by petitioner)
3 HUMAN RIGHTS VICTIMS REPARATION AND RECOGNITION ACT
OF 2013.

440

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
test the validity of executive and legislative acts

for their conformity with the Constitution.4 As a
requirement for its direct exercise by this Court,
the “grave abuse of discretion” that triggers the
Court’s expanded jurisdiction must necessarily
involve a violation of the Constitution.
In other words, the Court’s direct authority to
exercise its expanded jurisdiction is limited to
the determination of the constitutionality of a
governmental act. Grave abuse of discretion
arising from mere violations of statutes cannot,
as a rule, be the subject of the Court’s direct

exercise of its expanded jurisdiction. The
petitioners’ recourse in this situation lies with
other judicial remedies or proceedings, allowed
under the Rules of Court, that may arrive in due
course at the Court’s portals for review.
In the context of the present case, for the
Court to directly exercise its expanded
jurisdiction, the petitioners carry the burden of
proving, prima facie, that the President’s
decision to inter Marcos at the LNMB violates
the Constitution.
This view is not only in accord with existing
pronouncements on judicial review and the
exercise of judicial power; it is also the more
prudent and practicable option for the Court.
Opening the Court’s direct exercise of its
expanded jurisdiction to acts that violate
statutes, however grave the abuse of the statute
might be,
_______________
4 Garcia v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 157584, April 2,

2009, 583 SCRA 119, 128-129. Note, at this point, that
judicial review is an aspect of judicial power, which the
Constitution defines as the power to “settle actual
controversies involving rights which are legally demandable
and enforceable”; thus the Court necessarily exercises
judicial power when engaging in judicial review, but not all
exercises of judicial power includes, or needs, the exercise of
the judicial review power. Judicial review, when approached
through the traditional route, requires the existence of four
requirements, viz.: (1) an actual case or controversy calling
for the exercise of judicial power; (2) the person challenging
the act must have “standing” to challenge; he must have a
personal and substantial interest in the case such that he
has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of its

enforcement; (3) the question of constitutionality must be
raised at the earliest possible opportunity; and (4) the issue
of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case.

441
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 441

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
significantly dilutes the doctrines of hierarchy of

courts,5 primary jurisdiction,6 and exhaustion of
administrative remedies.7 In short, the necessity
for the application of these doctrines diminishes
when recourse to the Court is immediately and
directly made available.
_______________
5 Under the principle of hierarchy of courts, direct

recourse to this Court is improper because the Supreme
Court is a court of last resort and must remain to be so in
order for it to satisfactorily perform its constitutional
functions, thereby allowing it to devote its time and
attention to matters within its exclusive jurisdiction and
preventing the overcrowding of its docket. Republic v.
Caguioa, G.R. No. 174385, February 20, 2013, 691 SCRA
306.
6 The doctrine of primary jurisdiction holds that if a case
is such that its determination requires the expertise,
specialized training and knowledge of an administrative
body, relief must first be obtained in an administrative
proceeding before resort to the courts is had even if the
matter may well be within their proper jurisdiction. It
applies where a claim is originally cognizable in the courts

and comes into play whenever enforcement of the claim
requires the resolution of issues which, under a regulatory
scheme, have been placed within the special competence of
an administrative agency. In such a case, the court in which
the claim is sought to be enforced may suspend the judicial
process pending referral of such issues to the administrative
body for its view or, if the parties would not be unfairly
disadvantaged, dismiss the case without prejudice. Euro-
Med Laboratories Phil., Inc. v. Province of Batangas, G.R.
No. 148106, July 17, 2006, 495 SCRA 301.
7 The general rule is that before a party may seek the
intervention of the court, he should first avail of all the
means afforded him by administrative processes. The issues
which administrative agencies are authorized to decide
should not be summarily taken from them and submitted to
a court without first giving such administrative agency the
opportunity to dispose of the same after due deliberation.
Corollary to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
remedies is the doctrine of primary jurisdiction; that is,
courts cannot or will not determine a controversy involving a
question which is within the jurisdiction of the
administrative tribunal prior to the resolution of that
question by the administrative tribunal, where the question
demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion
requiring the special knowledge, experience and services of
the administrative tribunal to determine technical and
intricate matters of fact. Republic v. Lacap, G.R. No. 158253,
March 2, 2007, 517 SCRA 255, 265.

442

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
The practice of directly accessing this Court

could also possibly add petitions that are jointly
cognizable with the lower courts, to the Court’s
already clogged dockets, and deluge this Court
with matters that are highly technical in nature
or are premature for adjudication. Let it be
remembered that the Supreme Court is not a
trier of facts; this adjudicatory role belongs, as a
rule, to the lower courts.
In these lights, I find that the petitioners’
allegations equating President Duterte’s alleged
statutory violations (when he issued his burial
order) to grave abuse of discretion, are not the
proper subject of judicial review under the
Court’s direct exercise of its expanded
jurisdiction.
Assuming, hypothetically, that several
statutes have indeed been erroneously applied
by the President, the remedy for the petitioners
is not the direct and immediate recourse to this
Court for the nullification of the illegal acts
committed. Violations of statutes by the
Executive may be assailed through
administrative bodies that possess the expertise
on the applicable laws and that possess as well
the technical expertise on the information
subject of, or relevant to, the dispute.
For these statutory violations, recourse may
be made before the courts through an appeal of
the administrative body’s ruling, or by filing for
a petition for declaratory relief before the lower
court with jurisdiction over the matter. Only
when these lower courts have rendered their
decisions should these matters be elevated to
this Court by appeal or certiorari; even then, the
issues the petitioners may present are limited to

questions of law, not to questions of fact.

The faithful execution clause does not
allow the constitutionalization of issues
that, if proven to be true, would amount
to the violation of statutes.

Neither can I agree that the “faithful
execution” clause found in the Constitution may
be used to constitutionalize issues that primarily
involve the manner by which laws are
implemented.
The Constitution vests in the President the
power to execute laws under Section 1, Article
VII of the 1987 Constitution which provides:

443
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 443

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
SECTION 1. The executive power shall be vested

in the President of the Philippines.

The Constitution has apparently left out from
this provision a definition of what “executive
power” exactly is, in order to give the President
sufficient flexibility and leeway in the
implementation of laws. We thus have
jurisprudence recognizing the vast and plenary
nature of executive power,8 and the President’s
vast discretion in implementing laws.
_______________
8 In Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 159085,

February 3, 2004, 421 SCRA 656, for instance, the Court
noted:
In The Philippine Presidency A Study of Executive Power,
the late Mme. Justice Irene R. Cortes, proposed that the
Philippine President was vested with residual power and
that this is even greater than that of the U.S. President. She
attributed this distinction to the “unitary and highly
centralized” nature of the Philippine government. She noted
that, “There is no counterpart of the several states of the
American union which have reserved powers under the
United States constitution.” Elaborating on the
constitutional basis for her argument, she wrote:
. . . . The [1935] Philippine [C]onstitution establishes the
three departments of the government in this manner: “The
legislative power shall be vested in a Congress of the
Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and a House of
Representatives.” “The executive power shall be vested in a
President of the Philippines.” The judicial powers shall be
vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as
may be provided by law. These provisions not only establish
a separation of powers by actual division but also confer
plenary legislative, executive, and judicial powers. For as the
Supreme Court of the Philippines pointed out in Ocampo v.
Cabangis, “a grant of legislative power means a grant of all
the legislative power; and a grant of the judicial power
means a grant of all the judicial power which may be
exercised under the government.” If this is true of the
legislative power which is exercised by two chambers with a
combined membership [at that time] of more than 120 and of
the judicial power which is vested in a hierarchy of courts, it
can equally if not more appropriately apply to the executive
power which is vested in one official — the president. He
personifies the executive branch. There is a unity in the
executive branch absent from the two other branches of
government. The president is not the chief of many

executives. He is the executive. His direction of the executive
branch can be more immediate and direct than the United
States president because he is given

444

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
This immense executive power, however, is

not without limitations. The Constitution
provides clear and categorical limits and any
violation of these limits could amount to a grave
abuse of discretion on the part of the President.
The Constitution has as well defined how the
President is to relate to other officials within his
own department. Article VI, Section 17 of the
1987 Constitution provides that:
SECTION 17. The President shall have control of

all the executive departments, bureaus, and offices.
He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed.

Through jurisprudence, we have recognized that
this provision vests in the President the power of
control and supervision over all the executive
_______________
by express provision of the constitution control over all

executive departments, bureaus and offices.
The esteemed Justice conducted her study against the

backdrop of the 1935 Constitution, the framers of which,
early on, arrived at a general opinion in favor of a strong
Executive in the Philippines. Since then, reeling from the
aftermath of martial law, our most recent Charter has
restricted the President’s powers as Commander-in-Chief.
The same, however, cannot be said of the President’s powers
as Chief Executive.
In her ponencia in Marcos v. Manglapus, Justice Cortes put
her thesis into jurisprudence. There, the Court, by a slim 8-7
margin, upheld the President’s power to forbid the return of
her exiled predecessor. The rationale for the majority’s
ruling rested on the President’s . . . unstated residual powers
which are implied from the grant of executive power and
which are necessary for her to comply with her duties under
the Constitution. The powers of the President are not limited
to what are expressly enumerated in the article on the
Executive Department and in scattered provisions of the
Constitution. This is so, notwithstanding the avowed intent
of the members of the Constitutional Commission of 1986 to
limit the powers of the President as a reaction to the abuses
under the regime of Mr. Marcos, for the result was a
limitation of specific powers of the President, particularly
those relating to the commander-in-chief clause, but not a
diminution of the general grant of executive power.
[Underscoring supplied. Italics in the original]

445
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 445

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
departments, bureaus, and offices.9 The first

sentence pertains to the President’s power of
control, while the latter, to his power of

supervision. His duty to “ensure that the laws be
faithfully executed” pertains to his power (and
duty) of supervision over the executive branch,
and when read with Section 4, Article X of the
1987 Constitution, over local government
units.10 Notably, the provision on the President’s
supervision over autonomous regions follows a
similar language, thus:
SECTION 16. The President shall exercise

general supervision over autonomous regions to
ensure that the laws are faithfully executed.

How laws are to be “faithfully executed”
provides a broad standard generally describing
the expectations on how the President is to
execute the law. The nature and extent of the
constitutionally-granted presidential powers,
however, negate the concept that this standard
can be used as basis to constitutionally question
the manner by which the President exercises
executive power.
To hold otherwise is inconsistent with the
plenary nature of executive power that the
Constitution envisions. The Constitution intends
as well a tripartite system of government where
each branch is coequal and supreme in its own
sphere.
These intents could be defeated if the
standard of “faithfulness” in executing our laws
would be a constitutional standard measuring
the manner of the President’s implementation of
the laws. In the first place, it places the Court in
the position to pass upon the scope and
parameters of the vague and not-easily
determinable “faithfulness” standard. Putting
the Court in this position (especially when

considered with the Court’s expanded
jurisdiction) amounts to placing it in a higher
plane from where it can dictate how laws should
be implemented. In fact, it is hard to discern
how the Court can apply a standard for the
faithful
_______________
9 See De Leon v. Carpio, G.R. No. 85243, October 12,

1989, 178 SCRA 457, Blaquera v. Alcala, G.R. No. 109406,
September 11, 1998, 295 SCRA 366.
10 See Pimentel, Jr. v. Aguirre, G.R. No. 132988, July 19,
2000, 336 SCRA 201, Taule v. Santos, G.R. No. 90336,
August 12, 1991, 200 SCRA 512.

446

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
execution of the laws, without determining how

the law should be implemented in the first place.
Additionally, characterizing the failure to
ensure faithful execution of the laws as a
constitutional violation can prove to be an
unreasonably restricting interpretation. It could
possibly paralyze executive discretion, and
expose the Executive to constant lawsuits based
on acts of grave abuse of discretion he or she
allegedly committed.
Thus, the duty to “ensure that laws are

faithfully executed” should not be read as the
constitutional standard to test the legality of the
President’s acts so that a legal error in the
implementation of a law becomes a constitutional
violation of his faithful execution duty.
Incidentally, the interpretation that the
faithful execution clause refers to the President’s
power of control and supervision is in line with
US jurisprudence interpreting the “take care”
clause of the United States Constitution, which
— as everyone knows — served as the 1935
Philippine Constitution’s model from which our
later constitutions have not departed. Article II,
Section 3 of the United States Constitution
provides:
Section 3. He shall from time to time give to the

Congress Information of the State of the Union, and
recommend to their Consideration such Measures as
he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on
extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or
either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between
them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he
may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think
proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public
Ministers; he shall take care that the Laws be
faithfully executed, and shall Commission all
the Officers of the United States.

In the United States, the take care clause has
generally been accepted as imposing a
constitutional duty on the President not to
suspend or refuse the enforcement of laws,
particularly of statutes.11
_______________
11 See Garvey, Todd, The Take Care Clause and

Executive Discretion in the Enforcement of Law, September 4,
2014, available at
<https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43708.pdf>.

447
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 447

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
In Kendall v. United States ex rel. Stokes,12

for instance, the US Supreme Court
characterized a provision requiring the
Postmaster General to provide backpay to mail
courier providers as a ministerial duty that the
President had no authority to prevent. The US
Court arrived at this ruling in Kendall using the
take care clause as basis to prevent the
President from stopping the implementation of a
ministerial duty that Congress imposed.
On the flipside, the take care clause has
likewise been used to invalidate laws that rob
the President of his powers of control and
supervision over the Executive. In Buckley v.
Valeo,13 for instance, the US Court held that the
Congress cannot arrogate unto itself the power
to appoint officials to an independent
commission that exercises executive powers. The
reason for this ruling is the President’s duty to
ensure that the laws are faithfully executed.
While the two functions of the take care
clause in US jurisprudence could at times seem
to conflict with each other (one imposes a duty

on the President, the other recognizes his
authority)14 it has never been used to question
the manner by which the President’s executive
power is exercised.
Notably, the President’s duty to implement
laws under the take care clause is judicially
enforceable only where the statute in question
provides a clear and categorical directive to the
President. Where a statute leaves to the
executive the details of its implementation, the
latter should be given sufficient leeway in
exercising its duty.
In sum, the petitioners’ insistence that the
burial order’s violation of various laws amounts
to a constitutional violation involving the
faithful execution clause, rests on a very tenuous
interpretation of this clause that stretches it to
its breaking point. The faithful execution clause
does not allow litigants to question — as a
constitutional violation — the manner by which
the President implements a law. The Court, for
its part, has no authority to directly resolve the
alleged statutory violations that, in this case,
allegedly attended the burial order.
_______________
12 37 U.S. 524 (1838).

13 424 U.S. 1 (1970).
14 Supra note 6.

448

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
The burial order does not violate

international law obligations.

The petitioners’ international law arguments,
in my view, likewise fail to establish the
unconstitutionality of the President’s burial
order.
The petitioners argue that the burial order
violates several international law obligations,
based on the Philippines’ status as a signatory to
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(UDHR), the International Covenant for Civil
and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Rome Statute,
and Convention Against Torture and Other
Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment (CAT).
While I agree that these international
agreements (except for the UDHR, which is a
nonbinding document with provisions attaining
the status of customary international law) had
been ratified by the Philippine government and
hence have the force and effect of law in the
Philippines, the petitioners failed to point to any
specific treaty obligation prohibiting Marcos’
burial at the LNMB or at any other public
cemetery.
These treaties prohibit torture or cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or
15
punishment, and recognize these acts as
crimes against humanity16 falling within the
jurisdiction of the International Criminal
Court.17 State parties to CAT are likewise
obliged to criminalize torture and take effective
legislative, administrative, judicial, and other

measures to prevent torture.18 Parties also have
the obligation to investigate claims of torture19
and ensure that torture victims have an
enforceable right to fair and adequate
compensation.20
_______________
15 Article 7 of the ICCPR provides:

Article 7. No one shall be subjected to torture or to
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In
particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent
to medical or scientific experimentation.
16 Article 7, Section 1(g) of the Rome Statute.
17 Article 5, Section 1(b) of the Rome Statute.
18 Article 2, CAT.
19 Articles 12 and 13, CAT.
20 Article 14, CAT.

449
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 449

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Article 14 of the CAT, in particular, requires

state parties to “ensure in its legal system that
the victim of an act of torture obtains redress
and has an enforceable right to fair and
adequate compensation, including the means for
as full rehabilitation as possible. In the event of
the death of the victim as a result of an act of
torture, his dependents shall be entitled to
compensation.”
The petitioners assert that the burial order

amounts to a state-sanctioned narrative that
violates the Philippines’ duty to provide a “full
and effective reparation” for human rights
violations victims. The petitioners cite as legal
bases Principle 22 and Principle 23 of the Basic
Principles and Guidelines on the right to a
remedy; Reparation for Victims of Gross
Violations of International Human Rights Law
(IHRL); Serious Violations of International
Humanitarian Law (IHL); and Principle 2 and
Principle 3 of the Updated Set of Principles for
the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights
Through Action to Combat Impunity.
These principles, however, do not create
legally binding obligations. They are not
international agreements that states accede to
and ratify, as states have not agreed to formally
be bound by them. Declarations, principles,
plans of action and guidelines are considered
“soft law” because they do not bind states,
although they may carry considerable political
and legal weight. They are considered
statements of moral and political intent that, at
most, may subsequently ripen into international
norms.21
Paragraph 7 of the Preamble of The Basic
Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a
Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross
(IHRL), for instance, does not create new
international or domestic legal obligations, viz.:

international or domestic legal obligations but
identify mechanisms, modalities, procedures and
_______________
21 See The International Council on Human Rights

Policy, Human Rights Standards: Learning from Experience,
pp. 11, 14-18 (2006), available at
<http://www.ichrp.org/files/reports/31/120b_report_en.pdf>

450

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
methods for the implementation of existing legal

obligations under international human rights law and
international humanitarian law which are
complementary though different as to their norms.

That these principles do not create obligation
legally binding on the State means that they
cannot be interpreted as constraints on the
discretion of the President who acts, not only as
the government’s chief executive, but as its chief
architect in foreign affairs.
Without any specific and legally binding
prohibition limiting the President’s actions, no
basis exists to nullify his order and to disregard
the presumption of regularity that exists in the
performance of his duties.
Lastly, it must be considered that the burial
order does not have the effect of rewriting
jurisprudence and excusing the ills of the Marcos
administration; neither does it amend Republic
Act No. 10368 (“Human Rights Victims

Reparation and Recognition Act of 2013”), a law
that had been enacted as part of the Philippines’
compliance with its obligations in the ICCPR
and CAT.
RA 10368, among others, creates a Human
Rights Victims Claims Board tasked to recognize
victims of human rights violations and to
recommend their claims for reparation. RA
10368 even recognizes the “heroism and
involuntary disappearance, and other gross
regime of former President Ferdinand E. Marcos
covering the period from September 21, 1972 to
February 25, 1986.” The law makes it a policy to
“restore the victims’ honor and dignity” and
acknowledge the State’s moral and legal
obligation to recognize and/or provide reparation
to said victims and/or their families for the
deaths, injuries, sufferings, deprivations, and
damages they suffered under the Marcos regime.
These terms and provisions, however, while
critical of the Marcos regime hardly amount to a
prohibition barring the interment of his remains
in a resting place duly reserved by law for
soldiers; former President Marcos indisputably
was a soldier during his lifetime and was one
long before the human rights violations
attributed to him took place. To deny him now,
despite the law entitling him to a LNMB resting
place, may only lay the petitioners to the charge
that they are now doing to

451
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 451

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
another what they have accused former

President Marcos of doing — denying another of
the rule of law.

Divining the spirit of the Constitution
is acceptable only to clarify ambigui-
ties in its provisions, and not to create
entirely new provisions.

a. The Spirit of the 1987 Constitution
The petitioners further argue that Marcos’
interment at the LNMB violates the spirit of the
1987 Constitution which was crafted as a
reaction to the abuses during the Marcos regime.
Limitations and restrictions to the President’s
power, in particular, had been introduced
because of former President Marcos’ abuses
during his regime. Thus, to inter him at the
LNMB would amount to a violation of the
reasons underlying the Constitution.
In particular, the petitioners assert that
former President Marcos’ burial at the LNMB
violates two other principles enshrined in the
1987 Constitution: first, it violates Section 27,
Article II of the Constitution as the burial of a
dishonest and disgraced public official will not
promote honesty and integrity in public service;
second, it violates Section 1, Article XI of the
Constitution22 because it goes against the
precept that corruption is never forgotten.
Constitutional provisions, read by themselves

for the principles and precepts they embody,
hardly reveal the clear intents that drove the
constitutional framers to incorporate these
provisions in the Constitution. These intents,
however, are neither lost nor hidden as they can
be gleaned from the deliberations of the
Constitutional Commission which drafted the
Constitution.
In this Court, we use and have used these
deliberations as guides to interpret the
Constitution when there exist ambiguous or
seemingly conflicting provisions crucial to the
resolution of a case. We look to these
_______________
22 “Public office is a public trust. x x x”

452

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
deliberations to find the intent behind the

constitutional provisions to clarify how they
should be applied.
While constitutional intent serves as a
valuable guide in undertaking our adjudicatory
duties, it does not embody a right and, by itself,
is not a basis for the enforcement of a right.
Neither does it provide a standard on how the
President should act and enforce the laws,
without prior reference to specific provisions or

legislations applying the intent of the
Constitution.
In the context of the present petitions,
without any specific provision alleged to have
been violated by the burial order, the
constitutional intents that the petitioners
brought to light cannot be used as a measure to
resolve the issues that bedevil us in these cases.
Specifically, they cannot be used as basis to
determine the existence of grave abuse of
discretion under the Court’s expanded
jurisdiction. As we have done by long established
practice, we rely on intent only to settle
ambiguities that cross our paths in the course of
reading and considering constitutional
provisions.
To go to the concrete and the specific
demands of the issues at hand, we cannot use
the faithful execution clause as basis to question
the manner by which the Executive implements
a law.
Neither can we interpret Article II, Section 27
and Article XI, Section 1 to prohibit former
President Marcos’ interment at the LNMB. To
be sure, these are provisions that cannot be
faulted as they enshrine honesty, integrity, and
accountability in the public service, and require
government officials to exercise their functions
“with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty,
and efficiency; act with patriotism and justice,
and lead modest lives.”
Despite their high minded terms, however,
these provisions can hardly be claimed as basis,
in the absence of clear and concrete legislation
embodying actionable standards, for the
petitioners’ claims; these provisions can only
describe our aspirations for our government and

government officials, and could not have been
meant to dilute the President’s prerogatives in
making his political moves, among them, his
decision on the interment of a previously
deposed president.

453
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 453

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
It should be noted, too, that Article II, Section

27 does not appear to be a self-executing
provision. Its location, i.e., under Article II,
Declaration of State Principles, strongly hints of
its non-self-executing23 nature. The language
itself of the provision obligates the State to “take
positive and effective measures against graft
and corruption.” Under these terms and
circumstances, this provision merely reflects a
statement of an ideal that cannot be realized
independently of a concrete congressional
enactment. Its goal of maintaining honesty and
integrity in the public service cannot likewise be
implemented without laws defining and
promoting these values.

b. No Express Constitutional
Bar to Interment

The Constitution was undeniably forged out
of the ashes of the Marcos regime. Its enactment
after the Marcos regime collapsed, however, does
not suggest and cannot be translated into an

implied command preventing his burial at the
LNMB or in a shrine of national significance.
Had such prohibition been the intent, the
Constitution’s transi-
_______________
23 In Manila Prince Hotel v. Government Service

Insurance System, G.R. No. 122156, February 3, 1997, 267
SCRA 408, 431, the Court has distinguished between self-
executing and non-self-executing provisions of the
Constitution, viz.:
Admittedly, some constitutions are merely declarations of
policies and principles. Their provisions command the
legislature to enact laws and carry out the purposes of the
framers who merely establish an outline of government
providing for the different departments of the governmental
machinery and securing certain fundamental and inalienable
rights of citizens. A provision which lays down a general
principle, such as those found in Art. II of the 1987
Constitution, is usually not self-executing. But a provision
which is complete in itself and becomes operative without
the aid of supplementary or enabling legislation, or that
which supplies sufficient rule by means of which the right it
grants may be enjoyed or protected, is self-executing. Thus a
constitutional provision is self-executing if the nature and
extent of the right conferred and the liability imposed are
fixed by the constitution itself, so that they can be
determined by an examination and construction of its terms,
and there is no language indicating that the subject is
referred to the legislature for action.

454

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
tory provisions would have specifically so

provided in the manner these provisions
incorporated terms that the framers wanted to
implement within intended and foreseeable time
frames.24

c. Historical Perspectives

Unfortunately, both in the pleadings and in
the media, the Court majority has been accused
of being quick to forget the lessons of the Martial
Law Era. I see no point in directly answering
this charge as this Opinion has not been written
to consider historical perspectives except to the
extent that they bear on the immediate business
an concern of the Court — the interpretation
and application of the Constitution.
The Court, of course, is not blind to history
but is not a judge of history; it is a judge of the
interpretation and application of the terms of
the Constitution.25 When the time comes
therefore when we are tested by push and pull of
history and those of the Constitution, an answer
is not difficult to make even if we are dealing
with an exceptional historical figure.
The clear and simple response is that
concerns raised by the Constitution must first be
addressed; historical considerations follow
unless the constitutional concern is so affected or
intertwined with history that we cannot consider
one without the other. Fortunately for us in the
present case, no such consideration requires to
be taken as the way is clear: we rule based on

the standards of our Constitution.
Based on these considerations, I believe we
should not be charged with being blind to the
lessons of the past, in particular of what
transpired during the martial law era. Rather
than being blind, we simply do not look first to
history in resolving disputes before us; we look
to the law as our primary guide and
consideration.
_______________
24 The transitory provisions, for example, specifically

laid down the rule that after the expiration of the Military
Bases Agreement, military bases, troops and facilities shall
not be introduced into the Philippines except through a
treaty concurred in by the Senate.
25 Gudani v. Senga, G.R. No. 170165, August 15, 2006,
498 SCRA 671.

455
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 455

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Thus, if we do rule in favor of the burial of

former President Marcos at the LNMB, we do
not thereby dishonor those who believe they
suffered under his regime. Nor are we
unmindful of the laws crafted in their favor; we
considered these laws but they are simply not
the laws primarily relevant and applicable to the
issue before us — the interment of former

President Marcos at the LNMB.

d. Considerations of Policy

I do know as a matter of law and history that
the framers of our Constitution crafted it with
the intent of preventing another tyrant from
rising to power and from consolidating the
State’s might for himself. A stronger tripartite
government with a system of checks and
balances became the cornerstone of our new
democracy. Under this system, each of the three
branches of government performs specific,
distinct, and clearly delineated functions. The
intent is to prevent one branch from encroaching
on the prerogatives of another and to
characterize any usurpation as an act of
tyranny. These constitutional principles are the
policies that receive primary consideration from
us as a Court.
The Constitution vested the Supreme Court
with judicial power the power and duty to settle
actual controversies involving rights which are
legally demandable and enforceable, and to
instrumentality of the Government. Considering
that Justices of this Court are not elected by the
sovereign people, the framers did not see it fit to
give us dominion over matters of policy.
From these perspectives, this Court is clearly
not a court of public opinion; we are court of law.
With respect to matters of policy, we have no
right to substitute our wisdom over that of duly
elected political branches. They carry the

mandate of the popular will — we do not.
Under the impetus of these constitutional
realities, the wisdom of or need for the
interment of former President Marcos at the
LNMB is

456

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
a political question26 that our President decided

after an assessment of the thoughts and
sentiments of the people from all the regions in
our country; it is a policy determination that is
outside the Court’s jurisdiction to pass upon or
interfere with as a matter of law.
Separately from our consideration of the
Executive and its policy, we are also aware that
strong sentiments exist against the burial of
former President Marcos at the LNMB. We hear
the loud and strident voices that proclaim these
sentiments. But we are likewise aware that
against the pull by those who voice these
sentiments are counterforces pulling into other
directions, specifically, the pull of the law and
those of policy.
As I have already indicated, I again say that
the law must prevail under the unwavering
standard we observe. But we recognize at the
same time that policy has its own demands.
Ultimately, we recognize that vowing to the
raucous crowd may temporarily signify

harmony, but we do so at the expense of
disregarding Executive policy and weakening
the political branches, and indeed, the very
institution of government itself.
Thus, we have no choice if we are to truly
serve as guardians of the Constitution. In the
absence of any countervailing legal
considerations, we give primacy to the
Executive’s policy as this is the law — the
constitutional separation of power — that we
have to fully respect.
As my last point, that the burial of Marcos
had been a campaign promise strengthens the
nature of former President Marcos’ burial at the
LNMB as a political question. Voters knew of his
plan to bury Marcos at the LNMB at the time he
campaigned, and might have voted for him
because or regardless of this plan. President
Duterte’s victory in the polls signifies, at the
very least, the electorate’s tolerance of his
decision and, at most, the electorate’s support.
_______________
26 A political question refers to “those questions 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 Legislature
or executive branch of the Government. It is concerned with
issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality, of a
particular measure.” Tañada v. Cuenco, No. L-10520,
February 28, 1957, 103 Phil. 1051.

457
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 457

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
In sum and without hesitation, we must now

recognize that the petitioners have failed to
establish any clear constitutional breach
attendant to the President’s burial order. We
must therefore respect and abide by the
Executive’s decision to allow the interment of
former President Marcos at the LNMB.
WHEREFORE, I vote to DISMISS the
petitions, and to lift the status quo ante order
this Court issued to avoid rendering the
petitions moot and academic prior to our
decision.

CONCURRING OPINION

BERSAMIN, J.:

These consolidated special civil actions
(variously seeking the writs of certiorari,
mandamus and prohibition)1 concern the
question of whether or not the Chief Executive,
in verbally authorizing the interment of the
remains of the late President Ferdinand E.
Marcos in the Libingan ng mga Bayani (LNMB),
gravely abused his discretion.
I CONCUR with the MAIN OPINION so
eruditely penned for the Majority by Justice
Diosdado M. Peralta. I hereby only express my
reasons for voting to dismiss the petitions, and
thus to allow the interment to proceed.
President Rodrigo Roa Duterte was sworn to
office and assumed the Presidency at noontime
of June 30, 2016. In his campaign for the
Presidency, he had promised, among others, that
if elected he would authorize the interment of

the remains of the late President Marcos in the
LNMB. To deliver on this promise, he verbally
directed Secretary Delfin N. Lorenzana of the
Department of National Defense (DND) on July
11, 2016 to prepare the groundwork for the
interment. Secretary Lorenzana thus issued on
August 7, 2016 the assailed Memorandum
directing General Ricardo R. Visaya, Chief of
Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philip-
_______________
1 G.R. No. 225973, G.R. No. 226117, and G.R. No. 226120
are petitions for certiorari and prohibition; G.R. No. 225984
and G.R. No. 226097 are petitions for prohibition; and G.R.
No. 226116 prays for the issuance of the writs of mandamus
and prohibition.

458

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
pines (AFP), to “kindly undertake the necessary

coordination of all agencies concerned specially
the provisions for ceremonial and security
requirements” for the interment, and to
“[c]oordinate closely with the Marcos family
regarding the date of interment and the
transport of the late former President’s remains
from Ilocos Norte to the LNMB.” In turn,
General Visaya commanded Deputy Chief of

Staff of the AFP Rear Admiral Ernesto C.
Enriquez to implement the Memorandum, and
this Rear Admiral Enriquez did by transmitting
on August 9, 2016 his own directive to the
Commanding General of the Philippine Army to
proceed with the interment and to provide “all
necessary military honors accorded for a
President.”
These events expectedly invited protests from
various sectors. The petitioners herein then
initiated these consolidated special civil actions
in this Court to advance a common cause — to
prevent the interment of the remains of
President Marcos in LNMB because of the many
human rights violations committed during his
long regime that included the period when he
placed the whole country under Martial Law.
They mainly insisted that interring the remains
of President Marcos in the LNMB would
desecrate the shrine that was intended only for
heroes.
The following should explain my vote.
First of all, the foregoing antecedents render
it quite evident to me that the interment of the
remains of President Marcos in the LNMB is a
matter that exclusively pertains to the discretion
of President Duterte as the Chief Executive. The
character of the LNMB as the resting place for
the war dead and other military personnel under
the care and control of the AFP has placed the
LNMB under the control of the President.
Plainly enough, the President thereby exercised
such control through the AFP Chief of Staff.
In the context of the LNMB being a military
facility, the AFP has issued AFP Regulations G
161-375 to prescribe guidelines that enumerate
the persons whose remains may be interred

therein, to wit:


459
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 459

Ocampo vs. Enriquez

f. Active and retired military personnel of the AFP
to include active draftees and trainees who died
in the line of duty, active reservists and CAFGU
Active Auxiliary (CAA) who died in combat
operations or combat related activities;
g. Former members of the AFP who laterally
entered or joined the Philippine Coast Guard
(PCG) and the Philippine National Police (PNP);
WWII, and recognized guerillas;
interment or reinternment has been approved
by the Commander-in-Chief, Congress or the
Secretary of National Defense;
Dignitaries, Statesmen, National Artists,
widows of Former Presidents, Secretaries of
National Defense and Chief of Staff are
authorized to be interred at the LNMB.

Based on the foregoing, the exercise by
President Duterte of his discretion upon a
matter under his control like the interment of
the remains of President Marcos in the LNMB is
beyond review by the Court. He has not thereby
transgressed any legal boundaries. President
Marcos — being a former President of the
Philippines, a Medal of Valor awardee, a veteran
of World War II, a former Senator and Senate
President, and a former Congressman — is one
of those whose remains are entitled to be
interred in the LNMB under the terms of AFP
Regulations G 161-375. President Duterte was
far from whimsical or arbitrary in his exercise of
discretion. I believe that interment of any
remains in the LNMB is a political question
within the exclusive domain of the Chief
Executive. The Court must defer to his wisdom
and must respect his exercise of discretion. In
other words, his directive to Secretary
Lorenzana is unassailable.
I must observe that the factual milieu in
these cases is different from that in the case in
which the Court addressed and decided the
question of whether or not the President of the
Philippines had validly acted in

460

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
prohibiting the return of the family of President

Marcos to the country. In the latter case, the
Court ruled that when political questions were
involved, the Constitution limited the
determination to whether or not grave abuse of
respondent public official.2 The foremost
consideration then was that the return of the
Marcoses could dangerously impact on the
nation’s peace and security. That impact is not
imminent today.
Secondly, the several laws the petitioner have
invoked to prevent the interment are not
relevant to the LNMB. The main opinion fully
explains why this is so. I agree.
For instance, Republic Act No. 289, which all
the petitioners except the petitioners in G.R. No.
226120 rely upon, stipulated the establishment
of the National Pantheon as the final resting
place for former Presidents of the Philippines,
national heroes and patriots to perpetuate their
memory as sources of inspiration and emulation
for the future generations. On the basis of this
law, the petitioners concerned quickly assert
that the remains of the late President Marcos do
not deserve to be interred in the LNMB because
his gross human rights violations, massive
corruption and plunder of the government
coffers, and other abuses during his regime
rendered his memory unworthy of perpetuation
and because he could not be a source of
inspiration and emulation for future
generations. Yet, the Solicitor General has
clarified that the LNMB is not the National
Pantheon referred to by Republic Act No. 289.
Indeed, Proclamation No. 431 (Reserving as Site
for the Construction of the National Pantheon a
Certain Parcel of Land Situated in Quezon City)
would locate the National Pantheon in East

Avenue, Quezon City, but the establishment of
the National Pantheon was later on
discontinued. In contrast, the LNMB is the
former Republic Memorial Cemetery as
expressly provided in Executive Order No. 77
(Transferring the Remains of War Dead Interred
at Bataan Memorial Cemetery, Bataan Province
and at the Other Places in the Philippines to the
Republic Memorial Cemetery at Port WM
McKinley, Rizal Province). The Republic
Memorial Cemetery was reserved as the final
resting place for the war dead of World War II,
but President Magsaysay renamed it to LNMB
on Octo-
_______________
2 Marcos v. Manglapus, G.R. No. 88211, September 15,

1989, 177 SCRA 668, 696.

461
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 461

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
ber 27, 1954. The history of the LNMB refutes

the petitioners’ reliance on Republic Act No. 289.
Verily, the LNMB is not the same as the
National Pantheon.
Republic Act No. 10368 has also been cited by
the petitioners. This law recognizes the victims
of Martial Law and makes reparations for their
sufferings by appropriating P10,000,000,000.00
as compensation for them. How such law

impacts on the interment of the remains of
President Marcos has not been persuasively
shown.
The petitioners have not laid out any legal
foundation for directly testing the issuance of
the challenged executive issuances. They have
not cited any specific provision of either the
Constitution or other existing laws that would
expressly prohibit the interment in the LNMB of
the remains of one like President Marcos.
And, thirdly, AFP Regulations G 161-375 lists
those who are disqualified to have their remains
interred in the LNMB, to wit:
a. Personnel who were dishonorably

separated/reverted/discharged from the service.

b. Authorized personnel who were convicted by final
judgment of an offense involving moral turpitude.

None of the disqualifications can apply to the
late President Marcos. He had not been
dishonorably separated or discharged from
military service, or convicted by final judgment
of any offense involving moral turpitude. The
contention that he had been ousted from the
Presidency by the 1986 People Power revolution
was not the same as being dishonorably
discharged because the discharge must be from
the military service. In contrast, and at the risk
of being redundant, I remind that he had been a
two-term President of the Philippines, a Medal
of Valor awardee, a veteran of World War II, a
former Senator and Senate President, and a
former Congressman, by any of which he was
qualified to have his remains be interred in the

LNMB.

462

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
SEPARATE OPINION

PEREZ, J.:

The factual and procedural antecedents are
not in dispute.
On 25 February 1986, during the snap
election term of Ferdinand Marcos, Sr., the
EDSA People Power Revolution transpired. With
US aid, the Former President, together with his
family, was forced into exile. On 28 September
1989, he died in Honolulu, Hawaii. Two weeks
before his death, the Supreme Court upheld then
sitting President Corazon Aquino’s firm decision
to bar the return of the Marcos family.1 In a
statement, President Aquino said:
“In the interest of the safety of those who will take

the death of Mr. Marcos in widely and passionately
conflicting ways, and for the tranquility of the state
and order of society, the remains of Ferdinand E.
Marcos will not be allowed to be brought to our
country until such time as the government, be it
under this administration or the succeeding one, shall
otherwise decide.”2

Pursuant to a written agreement executed
between the Philippine Government, then
represented by Former President Fidel V.
Ramos, and the Marcos family, the remains of
the late strongman was returned to the
Philippines on 5 September 1993. The mortal
remains of Former President Marcos was
allowed to be returned to the Philippines, under
the following conditions:
1. The body of President Marcos would be flown

straight from Hawaii to Ilocos Norte province
without any fanfare;3
2. President Marcos would be given honors
befitting a major, his last rank in the AFP;4 and
3. The body of President Marcos will be buried in
Ilocos.5
_______________
1 Marcos v. Manglapus, G.R. No. 88211, 27 October 1989,

178 SCRA 760.
2 Id.
3 Alvarez Petition, p. 10.
4 Id.

463
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 463

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
The Former President was eventually interred

in a Mausoleum, with his remains currently
kept in a refrigerated crypt in Batac, Ilocos
Norte.
During his campaign for president in the
2016 national elections, candidate Rodrigo R.
Duterte publicly declared that he will cause the
burial of the former President in the Libingan
ng mga Bayani (LNMB). After his election as
president, President Rodrigo R. Duterte ordered
the implementation of his campaign declaration.
On 11 July 2016, President Duterte verbally
directed Marcos’ burial in the LNMB. In
compliance with the verbal order, Secretary of
National Defense Delfin N. Lorenzana issued a
Memorandum dated 7 August 2016, addressed
to General Ricardo R. Visaya, Chief of Staff of
the AFP, directing him to “undertake the
necessary planning and preparations to
facilitate the coordination of all agencies
concerned specially the provisions for ceremonial
and security requirements”6 and to “coordinate
closely with the Marcos family regarding the
date of interment and the transport of the late
former President’s remains from Ilocos Norte to
the LNMB.”7 Conforming to the 7 August 2016
Memorandum, AFP Chief of Staff General
Visaya instructed Deputy Chief of Staff for
Reservist and Retiree Affairs Rear Admiral
Ernesto C. Enriquez to issue a directive
addressed to the Philippine Army.8 According to
the 9 August 2016 Directive, the Army is
required to provide vigil, bugler/drummer, firing
party, military host/
pallbearers, escort and transportation, and
arrival and departure honors.9
Five different petitions, praying for a

Temporary Restraining Order to restrain
respondents from proceeding with the burial
were filed and consolidated. Petitioners likewise
sought the nullification of the 7 August 2016
Memorandum and the 9 August 2016 Directive,
and a permanent prohibition from allowing the
interment of the remains of Former President
Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani.
_______________
5 Ocampo Petition, p. 6.
6 Memorandum issued by Secretary of National Defense
Delfin N. Lorenzana dated 7 August 2016.
7 Id.
9 Id.

464

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
The first petition (Ocampo petition) was filed

on 15 August 2016 by Saturnino C. Ocampo,
Trinidad G. Repuno, Bienvenido Lumbera,
Bonifacio P. Ilagan, Neri Javier Colmenares,
Maria Carolina P. Araullo, all of whom alleged
that they were human rights violations victims
and members of the class suit in the human
rights litigation against the Estate of Ferdinand
Marcos in MDL No. 840, CA No. 88-0390 in the
US Federal District Court of Honolulu, Hawaii.

The Samahan ng Ex-Detainees Laban sa
Detensyon at Aresto (SELDA), an organization of
political prisoners and former political detainees
in the country, also took part in the petition.
The second petition (Lagman petition) was
also filed on 15 August 2016 by Rep. Edcel C.
Lagman, Rep. Teddy Brawner Baguilat, Jr., Rep.
Tomasito S. Villarin, Rep. Edgar R. Erice, Rep.
Emmanuel A. Billones, and the Families of
Victims of Involuntary Disappearance (FIND).
The incumbent members of the House of
Representatives sued as legislators with duties
including the protection of appropriated funds
from being misused for void, illegal and
improvident activities.
The third petition (Rosales petition) was filed
on 19 August 2016 by the former chairperson of
the Commission on Human Rights, Loretta Ann
Paragas-Rosales; Hilda B. Narciso; Aida F.
Santos-Maranan; Jo-Ann Q. Maglipon; Zenaida
S. Mique; Fe B. Mangahas; Ma. Cristina P.
Bawagan; Mila D. Aguilar; Minerva G. Gonzales;
Ma. Cristina V. Rodriguez; Francisco E. Rodrigo,
Jr.; Louie G. Crismo; Abdulmari De Leon Imao,
Jr.; and Liwayway D. Arce. All the petitioners
sued as victims of allegedly State-sanctioned
human rights violations during Martial Law.
The fourth petition (Alvarez petition) was
filed on 22 August 2016 by Former Senator
Heherson T. Alvarez; Joel C. Lamangan, a
martial law victim; Francis X. Manglapus;
Edilberto C. De Jesus; Belinda O. Cunanan;
Cecilia G. Alvarez; Rex De Garcia Lores; Arnold
Marie Noel Sr.; Carlos Manuel; Edmund S.
Tayao; Danilo P. Olivares; Noel F. Trinidad;
Jesus Dela Fuente; Rebecca M. Quijano; Fr.
Benigno Beltran, SVD; Roberto S. Verzola;

Augusto A. Legasto, Jr.; Julia Kristina P.
Legasto, all of whom came to court Filipino
citizens and taxpayers.

465
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 465

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
The fifth petition (Baniaga petition) was filed

on 22 August 2016 by Zaira Patricia B. Baniaga,
John Arvin Buenaagua, Joanne Rose Sace Lim,
and Juan Antonio, also as Filipino citizens and
taxpayers.
The Respondents are Honorable Salvador C.
Medialdea, in his capacity as the Executive
Secretary of the Republic of the Philippines;
Honorable Delfin N. Lorenzana, in his capacity
as the Secretary of the Department of National
Defense; General Ricardo R. Visaya, in his
capacity as Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of
the Philippines; Rear Admiral Ernesto C.
Enriquez, in his capacity as Deputy Chief of
Staff for Reservist and Retiree Affairs of the
Armed Forces of the Philippines; Lt. Gen.
Ernesto G. Carolina (Ret.), in his capacity as
Administrator of the Philippine Veterans Affairs
Office (PVAO); and the heirs of Marcos.
All the contentions espoused by the five
petitions pivot around the alleged grave abuse of
discretion committed by public respondents
when they allowed the burial of the remains of
the Former President Marcos at the Libingan ng

mga Bayani.
All the petitioners argue that the
Memorandum and Directive for the burial mock
and are in contravention of Republic Act No. 289
(An Act Providing for the Construction of a
National Pantheon for Presidents of the
Philippines, National Heroes and Patriots of the
Country), which petitioners argue created the
Libingan ng mga Bayani. They cite Section 1 of
the statute that the purpose of the construction
of the National Pantheon is “to perpetuate the
memory of all presidents of the Philippines,
national heroes and patriots for the inspiration
and emulation of this generation and of
generations still unborn.”10 The petitioners
contend that the Former President’s
transgressions against the Filipino people hardly
make him an inspiration and do not make him
worthy of emulation by this generation and the
next.11 The petitioners further aver that the
public respondents had no authority to allow the
burial, considering that only members of the
Board of the National Pantheon may cause to be
interred therein the mortal remains of all
presidents, na-
_______________
10 Section 1 of R.A. No. 289 (AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A NATIONAL PANTHEON FOR PRESIDENTS OF THE
PHILIPPINES, NATIONAL HEROES AND PATRIOTS OF THE COUNTRY).

11 Lagman Petition, p. 12; Alvarez Petition, p. 31.

466

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
tional heroes, and patriots.12 The Board is

composed of the Secretary of Interior, Secretary
of Public Works and Communications, and the
Secretary of Education, and two private citizens
to be appointed by the President of the
Philippines with the consent of the Commission
on Appointments.13
Petitioners who took part in the Ocampo,
Lagman and Rosales petitions maintain that the
Memorandum and the Directive are inconsistent
with Republic Act No. 10368 (Human Rights
Victims Reparation and Recognition Act of
2013), a law which serves as an indubitable
validation by the Legislative and Executive
departments of the widespread human rights
violations attributable to the late President
Marcos under his martial law regime.14 In their
petitions, great weight is attributed to Section 2
of the law, which reads:
“x x x [I]t is hereby declared the policy of the State to

recognize the heroism and sacrifices of all Filipinos
who were victims of summary execution, torture,
enforced or involuntary disappearance and other gross
human rights violations committed during the regime
of former President Ferdinand E. Marcos covering the
period from September 21, 1972 to February 25, 1986
and restore the victims’ honor and dignity. The State
hereby acknowledges its moral and legal obligation to
recognize and/or provide reparation to said victims
and/or their families for the deaths, injuries,
sufferings, deprivations and damages they suffered
under the Marcos regime.”15

Thus, for petitioners, allowing the burial is
inconsistent with the declared policy of the
State. The Lagman Petition in particular,
espouses the view that R.A. No. 10368 amended
the burial requirements and entitlements issued
by the Armed Forces of the Philippines
respecting the Libingan ng mga Bayani by
excluding the Former President from being
interred therein.16 Similarly, those who took
part in the Ocampo and the Lagman petitions
assert that a hero’s burial at the Libingan ng
_______________
12 Baniaga Petition, p. 10.

13 Sec. 2, R.A. No. 289.
14 Lagman Petition, p. 15.
15 Sec. 2 R.A. No. 10368.
16 Lagman Petition, p. 16.

467
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 467

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
mga Bayani for the Former President is contrary

to public policy, premised on the fact that he
committed crimes involving moral turpitude
against the Filipino People.17
The Ocampo, Rosales, and Alvarez petitions
attack the constitutionality of the Memorandum
and Directive. Petitioners therein contend that a
burial at the Libingan ng mga Bayani will
amount to a denial of the history of

authoritarian rule and a condonation of the
abuses committed by the Marcos Regime.18 For
those who took part in the Rosales petition,
burying the Former President at the Libingan
ng mga Bayani, a place supposedly for heroes
and patriots, is to desecrate the raison d’être of
the 1987 Constitution.19 That the burial of the
Former President at the Libingan ng Bayan
runs counter to judicial pronouncements is
another argument raised in the Rosales and the
Lagman petitions. In support of such argument,
judicial decisions of the Philippine Supreme
Court, as well as foreign courts, which
established the culpability of Former President
Marcos for human rights atrocities and plunder
were cited.20
The Baniaga and the Alvarez petitions
advance a related argument, with petitioners
therein maintaining that the Memorandum and
Directive are violative of the Faithful Execution
Clause of the 1987 Constitution.21 Citing Article
VII, Section 17 of the Constitution, petitioners
argue that President Duterte, acting through his
alter ego, respondent Sec. Lorenzana, would not
be faithfully executing R.A. No. 10368 and R.A.
No. 289 by burying Former President Marcos in
the Libingan ng mga Bayani.22 The Baniaga
petition likewise argues that the Memorandum
and Directive violate the equal protection
guaranteed by the Constitution,23 given that the
Former President is in a different class from the
other Presidents already buried in the Libingan
ng mga Bayani.
_______________
17 Ocampo Petition, p. 21, Lagman Petition, p. 12.

19 Id., at p. 29.
20 Lagman Petition, p. 17; Rosales Petition, pp. 37-44.
21 Baniaga Petition, p. 14.
22 Id., at p. 14; Alvarez Petition, p. 11.
23 Id., at p. 13.

468

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Tackling the issue from a broader perspective,

the parties who took part in the Rosales petition
maintain that a burial at the Libingan ng mga
Bayani violates the international duties of the
Philippines to combat impunity and to
guarantee non-repetition of violations of
international human rights law.24 Petitioners
insist that allowing the burial could potentially
hinder and violate human rights victims’
remedies and could lead to a distortion of the
findings of previous authorities thus, creating an
injustice to the victims rightly afforded a remedy
from the Former President’s actions.25 For the
petitioners, such injustice would put the
Philippines in violation of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
specifically Section 2 thereof, viz.:

freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall
have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that

the violation has been omitted by persons acting
in an official capacity;
remedy shall have his right thereto determined
by competent judicial, administrative or
legislative authorities, or by any other
competent authority provided for by the legal
system of the State, and to develop the
possibilities of judicial remedy;

At the core of all the controversy is AFP
Regulation G 161-373: Allocation of Cemetery
Plots at the LNMB, as amended by AFP
Regulation G 161-375. The regulation was
issued on 9 April 1986 by then AFP Chief of
Staff Fidel V. Ramos and then President
Corazon Aquino. The said Regulation provides
that the following deceased persons are qualified
to be interred in the Libingan ng mga Bayani:
1. Medal of Valor awardees;

2. Presidents or commanders-in-chief AFP;
3. Secretaries of National Defense;
_______________

25 Id., at p. 62.

469
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 469

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
4. Chiefs of staff, AFP;

5. Generals/flag officers of the AFP;
6. Active and retired military personnel of the
AFP;
7. Former AFP members who laterally
entered/joined the Philippine National Police
and the Philippine Coast Guard;
8. Veterans of Philippine Revolution of 1896,
World War I, World War II and recognized
guerillas;
9. Government dignitaries, statesmen, national
artists and other deceased persons whose
interment or re-interment has been approved by
the Commander-in-chief, Congress, or the
10. Former Presidents, secretaries of defense,
CSAFP, generals/flag officers, dignitaries,
statesmen, national artists, widows of former
presidents, secretaries of national defense and
chief of staff.

In the same vein, the regulation disallows the
interment in the Libingan ng mga Bayani of the
following:
1. Personnel who were dishonorably separated,

reverted, and/or discharged from the service;
2. Authorized personnel who were convicted by
final judgment of an offense involving moral
turpitude.
Petitioners who took part in the Ocampo,

Rosales, and Baniaga petitions submit that
notwithstanding the fact that Ferdinand E.
Marcos was a Former President, he is
disqualified from being buried in the Libingan
ng mga Bayani because he falls under the
category of “personnel who were dishonorably
separated or discharged from the service.”26
Therein petitioners emphasize that the Former
President was deposed and removed from the
presidency because of the atrocities he
committed during his tenure. Insisting that such
facts are matters of judicial notice, petitioners
maintain that such removal through revolution
is tantamount to being dishonorably separated
or discharged from the service,
_______________
26 Baniaga Petition, p. 11; Rosales Petition, p. 37;

Ocampo Petition, p. 15.

470

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
thereby effectively disqualifying him from being

buried at the Libingan ng mga Bayani.
Alternatively, the Ocampo petition attacks the
legality and constitutionality of the AFP
Regulation. Petitioners therein submit that the
AFP Regulation unduly expands the parameters
of R.A. No. 289 by allowing one unworthy to be

considered an inspiration and unworthy of
emulation by generations to be buried at the
Libingan ng mga Bayani.27
Finally, for those who took part in the
Ocampo, Lagman, and Rosales petitions, even if
it be conceded that Former President Marcos is
qualified under the law and the AFP Regulation,
whatever benefits and courtesies due him have
already been waived and contracted away by the
Marcos family when they agreed to bury him in
Batac, Ilocos Norte pursuant to their agreement
with then President Fidel V. Ramos. It was
likewise submitted that the 1993 Agreement
should be treated as a compromise agreement
that was voluntarily entered into by the
Philippine Government and the Marcos family,
making it the law between the parties.28 Stated
otherwise, petitioners contend that respondents
are bound to observe the terms of the Agreement
as it is a binding contract between the parties.
Petitioners insist that the High Court should
take judicial notice of such Agreement as it was
an official act of the Executive Department.29
Moreover, it is averred that an abandonment of
the Agreement, a reboot of the entire process, by
allowing the burial at the Libingan ng mga
Bayani is tantamount to reliving the terror and
horrors of the victims.30
I join the opinion to dismiss the consolidated
petitions for the issuance in their favor and
against the respondents, of the special writ of
certiorari. President Rodrigo R. Duterte did not
gravely abuse his discretion, was neither
whimsical nor capricious when upon assumption
of the office to which he was elected he forthwith
proceeded to implement his election promise to
have the remains of the late President

Ferdinand E. Marcos buried in the Libingan ng
mga Bayani.
_______________

29 Id., at p. 67.

471
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 471

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
This position is fixed and firmed by the

origins of the petitions so impressively presented
in the petition itself in G.R. No. 225973:
“10. During the campaign period for the 2016

Presidential Elections then candidate Rodrigo Duterte
publicly announced that he will allow the burial of
former President Ferdinand Marcos at the Libingan
ng mga Bayani. He reiterated this public
pronouncement when he became president without
giving details on how this will be implemented,
leaving the Marcoses to process the same with the
proper authorities.
11. These pronouncements were met with
opposition by various sectors including victims or
relatives of human rights violations of torture, illegal
arrest, arbitrary detention, disappearances and
summary executions during martial law. Family
members of the thousands who died during martial

law also protested these public pronouncements with
the hope that the plan will not push through.”

As judicial admissions,31 petitioners state as
fact that the burial of former President Marcos
as the Libingan ng mga Bayani is a matter
about which the Filipino public was consulted as
a campaign promise of candidate Duterte who,
when he became president redeemed the pledge.
Significantly, petitioners further admitted
that they, as “the various sectors” participated in
the election of options and met with opposition
the pronouncements favoring the Libingan as
burial of Marcos’ remains and protested the
public pronouncements of the promisor.
Thus did the petitioners admit that the
determination of the issue can be, if not ought to
be, left to the will of the people. True to the ad-
_______________
31 Section 4, Rule 129 of the Revised Rules of Court:

Section 4. Judicial admissions.—An admission,
verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the
proceedings in the same case, does not require proof.
The admission may be contradicted only by showing
that it was made through palpable mistake or that no
such admission was made.
A party may take judicial admissions in (a) the
pleadings, (b) during the trial, either by verbal or
written manifestations or stipulations, or (c) in other
stages of the judicial proceeding. (Binarao v. Plus
Builders, Inc., G.R. No. 154430, June 16, 2006, 491
SCRA 49)

472

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
mission, petitioners sought to forge that will into

the shape they hoped for. The petitioners
objected against the publicly announced Marcos
Libingan burial; they protested the
pronouncement. Indeed the issue was made
public and was resolved through a most political
process, a most appropriate process: the election
of the President of the Republic.32 A
juxtaposition of two concepts, people and
suffrage, show this. In his treatise, as old as it is
respected, Dean Vicente Sinco expounds:
The same meaning, that of all the Citizens

considered as a collective unit acting under a majority
rule, is given to the term people in an Illinois decision
which states that “in a representative government all
powers of government belong ultimately to the people
in their sovereign corporate capacity.” Obviously it is
in this sense that the term people is used in the
Constitution of the Philippines when it declares in its
Article II thus: The Philippines is a republican state.
Sovereignty resides in the people and all
governmental authority from them.33

xxxx

Suffrage, or the right to vote, is a political right.
Different views have been expressed about its nature.
One is that it is merely a privilege to be given or
withheld by the law-making power in the absence of

constitutional limitations. Another view considers it
as a natural right included among the liberties
guaranteed to every citizen in a republican form of
government, and may not therefore be taken away
from him except by due process of law. A third view
maintains that the right of suffrage is one reserved by
the people to a definite portion of the population
possessing the qualifications prescribed in the
constitution. This view is based on the theory that the
_______________
32 Rodrigo R. Duterte garnered a total of 16,601,997

votes; 6,623,822 votes more than his closest rival Mar Roxas
who got 9,978,175 votes. The rest of the candidates got the
following votes:
Jojo Binay – 5,416,140 votes;
Miriam Defensor-Santiago – 1,455,532 votes;
Grace Poe – 9,100,991 votes;
Roy Señeres – 25,779 votes;
33 Sinco, Philippine Political Law: Principles and
Concepts, pp. 8-9; 10th edition; Article II in the 1935
Constitution is now Sec. 1 of Article II of the 1987
Constitution.

473
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 473

Ocampo vs. Enriquez

sovereign political power in a democratic state

remains with the people and is to be exercised only in
the manner indicated by the constitution.
Consequently, a person who belongs to the class to
whom the constitution grants this right may not be
deprived of it by any legislative act except by due
process of law. It is in this sense that suffrage may be
understood in the Philippines at present.34
(Underscoring supplied)

The people or the qualified voters elected as
president of the Philippines the candidate who
made the election pronouncement, objected to by
the persons who are now the petitioners, that he
will allow the burial of former President
Ferdinand Marcos at the Libingan ng mga
Bayani.
As things are, it is hardly debatable that, by
word and deed, petitioners have accepted that
the issue they now, after losing the vote, present
before the Court is a political issue, defined over
and over again, by variations of phrases that
have one meaning:
“. . . What is generally meant, when it is said that a

question is political, and not judicial, is that it is a
matter which, is to be exercised by the people in their
primary political capacity, or that it has been
specifically delegated to some other department or
particular officer of the government, with
discretionary power to act. See State v. Cunningham,
81 Wis. 497, 51 L. R. A. 561; In Re Gunn, 50 Kan. 155;
32 Pac. 470, 948, 19 L. R. A. 519; Green v. Mills, 69
Fed. 852, 16, C. C. A. 516, 30 L. R. A. 90; Fletcher v.
Tuttle, 151 Ill. 41, 37N. E. 683, 25 L. R. A. 143, 42 Am.
St. Rep. 220. Thus the Legislature may in its
discretion determine whether it will pass a law or
submit a proposed constitutional amendment to the

people. The courts have no judicial control over such
matters, not merely because they involve political
question, but because they are matters which the
people have by the Constitution delegated to the
Legislature. The Governor may exercise the powers
delegated to him, free from judicial control, so long as
he observes the laws and acts within the limits of the
power conferred. His discretionary acts cannot be
controllable, not primarily because they are of a
political nature, but because the Constitution and
laws have placed the particular matter under his
control. But every officer under a constitutional
government must
_______________
34 Id., at pp. 402-403.

474

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
act according to law and subject him to the

restraining and controlling power of the people, acting
through the courts, as well as through the executive
or the Legislature. One department is just as
representative as the other, and the judiciary is the
department which is charged with the special duty of
determining the limitations which the law places
upon all official action. The recognition of this
principle, unknown except in Great Britain and
America, is necessary, to the end that the government

may be one of laws and not men’-words which
Webster said were the greatest contained in any
written constitutional document.” (pp. 411, 417;
emphasis supplied)
In short, the term “political question” connotes, in
legal parlance, what it means in ordinary parlance,
namely, a question of policy. In other words, in the
language of Corpus Juris Secundum (supra), it refers
to “those questions 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 Legislature or executive branch
of the Government.” It is concerned with issues
dependent upon the wisdom, not legality, of a
particular measure.35

There were ripostes. They were feeble though;
and notably they concern not the political nature
of the issue but rather the indications of the
electoral response.
There was reference to the nitpicked
significance of “majority” in the definition of
“people” the argument being that the 16,601,997
votes in favor of the promising candidate is not
the majority of the total number of those who
voted for the position. What makes the
observation specious is the fact that it was only
candidate Duterte who made the serious and
specific promise of a Libingan burial for Marcos.
The other four candidates for president were
unclear about their preference. The votes for the
four cannot be definitely counted as against the
burial.
Referring to the variety of the electoral
issues, there were those who submit that not all
those who voted for Duterte did so because they

favored the burial of Marcos at the Libingan. It
is contended that the votes for Duterte were
determined by items in his platform other than
_______________
35 Tañada v. Cuenco, No. L-10520, 28 February 1957,

103 Phil. 1051.

475
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 475

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
the burial issue. That may be plausible; but

what cannot be questioned is that Duterte did
not lose because of his burial pronouncement.
It was urged that the Libingan allowance was
not a commitment to the nation, not a principled
promise, a mere propaganda pitch. Thus, was
the issue sought to be reduced as a promise
made to be broken, treacherous trap for
undiscerning electors. That the allegations are
unfounded is clearly shown by the prefatory
phrase in the memorandum36 of respondent
Secretary of National Defense Delfin N.
Lorenzana to respondent Gen. Ricardo R.
Visaya, AFP:
In compliance to the verbal order of the President

to implement his election campaign promise to have
the remains of the late former President Ferdinand E.
Marcos be interred at the Libingan ng mga Bayani,
kindly undertake the necessary planning and

preparations to facilitate the coordination of all
agencies concerned specially the provisions for
ceremonial and security requirements. Coordinate
closely with the Marcos family regarding the date of
interment and the transport of the late former
President’s remains from Ilocos Norte to the LNMB.
The overall OPR for this activity will the PVAO
since the LNMB is under its supervision and
administration. PVAO shall designate the focal person
for this activity who shall be the overall overseer of
the event.
Submit your Implementing Plan to my office as
soon as possible.

The Marcos internment at Libingan,
borrowing the petitioners’ words, was a
principled commitment which President Duterte
firmly believed was so when he offered it to the
Filipino voters whom he considered capable of
intelligent choice such that upon election he had
to “implement his election promise.” That,
precisely, resulted in the filing of the
consolidated petitions before the Court.
Quite obviously, the petitions were submitted
because the petitioners did not prevail in the
political exercise that was the National Elections
of 2016. Right away, we have the reason why the
petitions should be dismissed. The petitions with
premises and prayer no different from
_______________
36 Annex “A” (Petition in G.R. No. 225984).

476

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
those that were publicly debated, for or against,

between and among the people including
petitioners themselves proceeding to a
conclusion unacceptable to them, cannot be
pursued in lieu of the failed public submission.
Adamant in their position, petitioners
nonetheless went to Court with their cause now
in legal clothing. Still, petitioners cannot
thereby bring the matter within the adjudication
of the Court.
There was heavy reference to R.A. No. 10368,
titled “An Act Providing for Reparation and
Recognition of Victims of Human Rights
Violations during the Marcos Regime,
Documentations of Said Violations,
Appropriating Funds Therefor and for Other
Purposes.” Notably, the petitioners, as they
described themselves, are the same persons for
whose favor the statute was enacted; the reasons
they mention in their petition consisting of the
provisions of the Constitution and of the
international agreement are the same reasons
mentioned in Section 2 of the statute in the
“Declaration Policy.” Quite specifically the
statute defines “Human Rights Violation” as any
act or omission committed during the period
from September 21, 1972 to February 25, 1986
carried out pursuant to the declaration of
Martial Law by former President Ferdinand E.
Marcos including warrantless arrest, ASSO,
PCO, PDA, torture, killing, involuntary

disappearances, illegal takeover of business,
confiscation of property, sexual offenses and
“analogous” abuses. And, it is provided that
Human Rights Violations Victim (HRVV) refers
to a person whose human rights were violated by
persons acting in an official capacity and to
qualify for reparations “the human rights
violation must have been committed during the
period from September 21, 1972 to February 25,
1986.”
Clearly, as proclaimed human rights victims,
they squarely fall under the definition of R.A.
No. 10368. For the same reasons and basis that
they are now before this Court, petitioners have
already, by the proper political body, been given
the recognition and reparation due them, in
specific, direct and detailed provisions that even
include the creation of a Human Rights Victims’
Claims Board to implement the recognition and
reparation granted to them by statute.
R.A. No. 10368 is a complete law. It has
defined their rights, not just for reparation for
damages suffered as HRV’s but also they will

477
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 477

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
have by the law their names enshrined in a Roll

of Human Rights Victims. A
Memorial/Museum/Library shall be established
in their Honor. A compendium of their sacrifice
shall be prepared and be readily viewed in the

internet. There will even be a Human Rights
Violations Victims’ Memorial Commission. The
definition of what their rights are limits any
further inclusions except, perhaps, through the
same legislative action. There too is significance
in the “sunset clause” of the law which states
that the Human Rights Victims’ Claims Board
shall complete its work within two years from
the effectivity of the IRR promulgated by it, after
which it shall become functus officio. By its
concrete and definite terms, R.A. No. 10368 is a
completed exercise of legislative wisdom. The
Court cannot allow the collected petitions at bar
to interfere with that wisdom.
The urgings for judicial action inspite of the
limits of R.A. No. 10368 can be gleaned from the
presentation by petitioners during the oral
arguments. They testified on the details of their
suffering during the term of President
Ferdinand E. Marcos and pleaded that the
burial of Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani
would “retraumatize” them. They supported the
claim and prayer with the submission that their
suffering accompanied by the other commission
of Marcos, was a national experience that
became sovereign contempt culminating in a
revolt against Marcos and eventually the
“constitutionalization” of both sin and sinner.
Hence, the prayer that the allowance of the
burial at the Libingan ng mga Bayani of the
constitutionalized offender is in grave abuse of
discretion.
Relative to the petitioners’ prayer, an
explanation was made by the Solicitor General:
Justice Caguioa:
Was this a unilateral act on the part of the President

or was this a request from the Marcos family?
Solicitor General Calida:
I do not know the circumstances in which this

promise was made, Your Honor, but if I know
President Duterte, he already had a plan for the
Philippines, a plan to unite all the Filipinos of
different persuasions, ideologist, in fact, this policy of
recon-

478

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
ciliation is now manifested in the recent Oslo,

Norway talks, Your Honor. He wants an inclusive
government, Your Honor.
Justice Caguioa:
So, what are we saying here that the testimonials

made by human rights victims and other people like
them which the Claims Board has numbered at
around seventy-five thousand (75), those pain, the
pain that they feel they do not reflect the national
phyche today, is that what you’re saying?
Your Honor, I’m human being I feel their pain, but

we are in a Court of law, Your Honor. And there are
venues where that pain will be expressed by the
victims, and as far as I know, making them recount

their horrible experience is a form of
retraumatization.
Justice Caguioa:
I understand from their testimonies and the

summation made by the human rights, what is
retraumatizing them is the act of burying President
Marcos, do you dispute that?
I do not agree with that, Your Honor.
Justice Caguioa:
When the President made this decision to allow the

interment of President Marcos in the Libingan, did
they also considered the injury that the Marcos
family would suffer if the burial did not take place?
x x x x
Well, the urgency, Your Honor, is that President

Duterte has already stated that among his policies,
Your Honor, is the policy of reconciliation, national
healing, and any day that is, shall I rephrase if Your
Honor. This is the policy that he has adopted: the
remains of Marcos should now be interred at the
Libingan even the 218 Congressmen, Your Honor, of
the 15th Congress agreed that this place is the most
fitting place where former President Marcos will be
buried, Your Honor.

479
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 479

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Justice Caguioa:
And this wisdom, this decision is over and above the

pain and sufferings of the human rights victims do I
understand that correctly as a political decision that
he made?
Well, the President will take every matter into

consideration, Your Honor, and I assume he
considered that too.
Justice Caguioa:
Alright, thank you.37

Whether the policy of healing and
reconciliation “over and above the pain and
suffering of the human rights victims” 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
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. To go back, a Libingan Burial for
Marcos was a promise made by President
Duterte, which promise was opposed by

petitioners, inspite of which opposition,
candidate Duterte was elected President.
All in all, the redemption of an election pledge
and the policy which has basis in the result of
the election, cannot be tainted with grave abuse
of discretion. As things are the issue presented
by the petitioners should not even be touched by
the Court since it is a political question already
resolved politically.
I vote to DISMISS the consolidated petitions
before this Court.
_______________
37 TSN of Oral Arguments, Wednesday, 7 September

2016, 10:00 a.m.

480

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
SEPARATE OPINION

MENDOZA, J.:

The Court should not take sides in this
political controversy.
The questions being truly political, there is
simply no justiciable controversy. Hence, the
petitions should be dismissed.
Ferdinand Edralin Marcos (President Marcos)

was not, and will never be, a hero. His interment
in the Libingan ng mga Bayani (LNMB) will not
erase the atrocities committed during his
authoritarian rule. His place in history will
ultimately be judged by the people.
His worthiness as a hero, however, is not the
issue at hand. The current controversy revolves
around the decision of the administration of
President Rodrigo Roa Duterte (President
Duterte) to allow the burial of the remains of
President Marcos in the LNMB in the exercise of
his discretion as Chief Executive.
In the course of his campaign for the May
2016 national elections, President Duterte
promised to have the remains of the late
president buried in the LNMB as a step towards
national conciliation or healing. After winning
the elections, he followed through on his
campaign promise. Pursuant thereto, the public
respondents began to take steps to implement
his verbal order.
Herein petitioners, majority of whom are
either victims or kin of victims of human rights
violations committed during the regime of the
deposed dictator, assert that the interment is
contrary to the Constitution, laws and
regulations, and international law. The
petitioners claim that a recognized dictator,
plunderer and human rights violator has no
place in the LNMB, which is reserved for
persons who are worthy of emulation or a source
of inspiration.

Issues involved are truly
political questions which
are nonjusticiable

The Court has refused to take cognizance of
cases which do not present any justiciable
controversy, such as when the issue presented is
a

481
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 481

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
truly political question. In the landmark case of

Tañada v. Cuenco,1 the Court expounded on the
concept of political question, viz.:
As already adverted to, the objection to our

jurisdiction hinges on the question whether the issue
before us is political or not. In this connection,
Willoughby lucidly states:
“Elsewhere in this treatise the well-known

and well-established principle is considered that
it is not within the province of the courts to pass
judgment upon the policy of legislative or
executive action. Where, therefore,
discretionary powers are granted by the
Constitution or by statute, the manner in
which those powers are exercised is not
subject to judicial review. The courts,
therefore, concern themselves only with the
question as to the existence and extent of these
discretionary powers.

x x x

In short, the term “political question”

connotes, in legal parlance, what it means
in ordinary parlance, namely, a question of
policy. In other words, in the language of
Corpus Juris Secundum (supra), it refers to
“those questions 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 Legislature
or executive branch of the Government.” It is
concerned with issues dependent upon the
wisdom, not legality, of a particular
measure. [Emphases supplied]

It is true that under the present
constitutional milieu, the scope of judicial power
has been expanded. Under Section 1, Article VIII
of the Constitution, “[j]udicial power includes
the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual
controversies involving rights which are legally
demandable and enforceable, and to determine
whether or not there has been a grave abuse of
instrumentality of government.”
_______________
1 No. L-10520, February 28, 1957, 103 Phil. 1051.

482

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
The expanded judicial power bestowed by the

Constitution is an offshoot of the prevalence,
during the Marcos regime, of invoking the
political question doctrine every time
government acts were questioned before the
courts. The present Constitution, thus,
empowered the courts to settle controversies if
there would be grave abuse of discretion.
Notwithstanding the expanded power of the
courts, the political question doctrine remains
operative. The present provision on judicial
power does not mean to do away with the
political question doctrine itself, and so “truly
political questions” are still recognized.2 In
Francisco, Jr. v. HRET,3 the Court explicitly
recognized the political question doctrine and
explained how the same was determined:
From the foregoing record of the proceedings of the

1986 Constitutional Commission, it is clear that
judicial power is not only a power; it is also a duty, a
duty which cannot be abdicated by the mere specter of
this creature called the political question doctrine.
Chief Justice Concepcion hastened to clarify, however,
that Section 1, Article VIII was not intended to
do away with truly political questions. From
this clarification it is gathered that there are
two species of political questions: (1) truly
political questions and (2) those which “are not
truly political questions.”
Truly political questions are thus beyond
judicial review, the reason for respect of the
doctrine of separation of powers to be
maintained. On the other hand, by virtue of
Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution,
courts can review questions which are not truly

political in nature.

x x x

Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution does not
define what are justiciable political questions and
non-justiciable political questions, however.
Identification of these two species of political
questions may be problematic. There has been no
clear standard. The American case of Baker v. Carr
attempts to provide some:
_______________
2 Bernas, Joaquin G., The 1987 Constitution of the

Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary (2003).
3 460 Phil. 830; 415 SCRA 44 (2003).

483
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 483

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
. . . Prominent on the surface of any case held to

involve a political question is found a textually
demonstrable constitutional commitment of the
issue to a coordinate political department; or a
lack of judicially discoverable and manageable
standards for resolving it; or the impossibility of
deciding without an initial policy determination
of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion; or
the impossibility of a court’s undertaking
independent resolution without expressing lack
of the respect due coordinate branches of

government; or an unusual need for questioning
adherence to a political decision already made;
or the potentiality of embarrassment from
multifarious pronouncements by various
departments on one question.
Of these standards, the more reliable have been the

first three: (1) a textually demonstrable constitutional
commitment of the issue to a coordinate political
department; (2) the lack of judicially discoverable and
manageable standards for resolving it; and (3) the
impossibility of deciding without an initial policy
determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial
discretion. These standards are not separate and
distinct concepts but are interrelated to each in that
the presence of one strengthens the conclusion that
the others are also present.
The problem in applying the foregoing standards is
that the American concept of judicial review is
radically different from our current concept, for
Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution provides our
courts with far less discretion in determining whether
they should pass upon a constitutional issue.
In our jurisdiction, the determination of a
truly political question from a nonjusticiable
political question lies in the answer to the
question of whether there are constitutionally
imposed limits on powers or functions
conferred upon political bodies. If there are, then
our courts are duty-bound to examine whether the
branch or instrumentality of the government properly
acted within such limits.4 x x x. [Emphases and
underscoring supplied]

Thus, a political question will not be
considered justiciable if there are no
constitutionally imposed limits on powers or

functions conferred
_______________
4 Id., at pp. 910-912; pp. 149-151.

484

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
upon the political bodies.5 Nonetheless, even in

cases where matters of policy may be brought
before the courts, there must be a showing of
grave abuse of discretion on the part of any
branch or instrumentality of the government
before the questioned act may be struck down.
“If grave abuse is not established, the Court
will not substitute its judgment for that of
the official concerned and decide a matter
which by its nature or by law is for the
latter alone to decide.”6 “We cannot, for
example, question the President’s recognition of
a foreign government, no matter how premature
or improvident such action may appear. We
cannot set aside a presidential pardon though it
may appear to us that the beneficiary is totally
undeserving of the grant. Nor can we amend the
Constitution under the guise of resolving a
dispute brought before us because the power is
reserved to the people.”7
Guided by the foregoing, it is my considered

view that the decision of President Duterte to
allow President Marcos to be interred in the
LNMB is beyond the ambit of judicial review.

Interment of President Marcos
in the LNMB is a discretionary
act of President Duterte

Executive power is vested in the President of
the Philippines.8 Inherent in the executive
power is the duty to faithfully execute the laws
of the land and is intimately related to the other
executive functions.9 Section 17, Article VII of
the Constitution10 embodies the faithful
execution clause. The Executive is given much
leeway in ensuring that our
_______________

G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015, 747 SCRA 1, 57.
6 Marcos v. Manglapus, 258 Phil. 479, 506-507; 177
SCRA 668, 696 (1989).
7 Id., at p. 506; pp. 695-696.
8 Section 1, Article VII of the CONSTITUTION.
9 Saguisag v. Ochoa, Jr., G.R. No. 212426, January 12,
2016, 779 SCRA 241, 339.
10 The President shall have control of all the executive
departments, bureaus, and offices. He shall ensure that the
laws be faithfully executed.

485
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 485

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
laws are faithfully executed.11 Thus, any act

pursuant to the faithful execution clause should
be deemed a political question as the President
is merely executing the law as it is. There is no
question as to the legality of the act but on its
wisdom or propriety.
Indeed, the duty to execute the laws of the
land is not discretionary on the part of the
President, in the same manner that it is not
discretionary on the part of the citizens to obey
the laws. In Spouses Marquez v. Spouses
Alindog,12 the Court drew a fine line between a
discretionary act and a ministerial one.
A clear line demarcates a discretionary act from a

ministerial one. Thus:
The distinction between a ministerial and
discretionary act is well-delineated. A purely
ministerial act or duty is one which an officer or
tribunal performs in a given state of facts, in a
prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of a
legal authority, without regard to or the exercise of
his own judgment upon the propriety or impropriety
of the act done. If the law imposes a duty upon a
public officer and gives him the right to decide
how or when the duty shall be performed, such
duty is discretionary and not ministerial. The
duty is ministerial only when the discharge of the
same requires neither the exercise of official
discretion or judgment. [Emphasis and underscoring
supplied]
The President may also exercise his judgment

in the manner of implementing the laws. For as
long as he faithfully executes the law, any issue
on the wisdom or propriety of his acts is deemed
a political question.
Moreover, the authority of President Duterte
to allow the interment of President Marcos in
the LNMB is derived from the residual powers
of the executive. In the landmark case of Marcos
v. Manglapus,13 the Court had expounded on the
residual powers of the President, to wit:
_______________

Phil. 394, 449; 637 SCRA 78, 159 (2010).
12 G.R. No. 184045, January 22, 2014, 714 SCRA 460,
472.
13 Supra note 6 at pp. 504-505; pp. 694, 723-724.

486

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
To the President, the problem is one of balancing

the general welfare and the common good against the
exercise of rights of certain individuals. The power
involved is the President’s residual power to
protect the general welfare of the people. It is
founded on the duty of the President, as
steward of the people. To paraphrase Theodore
Roosevelt, it is not only the power of the President but
also his duty to do anything not forbidden by the

Constitution or the laws that the needs of the
nation demand. [See Corwin, supra, at p. 153] It is a
that the laws are faithfully executed [see Hyman, The
American President, where the author advances the
view that an allowance of discretionary power is
unavoidable in any government and is best lodged in
the President].
More particularly, this case calls for the exercise of
the President’s powers as protector of the peace.
[Rossiter, The American Presidency] The power of the
President to keep the peace is not limited merely to
exercising the commander-in-chief powers in times of
emergency or to leading the State against external
and internal threats to its existence. The President
is not only clothed with extraordinary powers
in times of emergency, but is also tasked with
attending to the day-to-day problems of
maintaining peace and order and ensuring
domestic tranquillity in times when no foreign
foe appears on the horizon. Wide discretion, within
the bounds of law, in fulfilling presidential duties in
times of peace is not in any way diminished by the
relative want of an emergency specified in the
commander-in-chief provision. For in making the
President commander-in-chief the enumeration of
powers that follow cannot be said to exclude the
President’s exercising as Commander-in-Chief powers
short of the calling of the armed forces, or suspending
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or declaring
martial law, in order to keep the peace, and maintain
public order and security. [Emphases and
underscoring supplied]

To reiterate, President Duterte’s rationale in
allowing the interment of President Marcos in
the LNMB was for national healing,
reconciliation and forgiveness amidst our
fragmented society, so that the country could
move forward in unity far from the spectre of the
martial law regime.

487
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 487

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
To this, however, the petitioners vehemently

disagree. Thus, in their petitions, they challenge
the wisdom of the decision of the President. They
bewail, and understandably so, that Marcos was
not a hero who deserved to be buried in the
hallowed grounds of the LNMB. They view him
as not worthy of being buried alongside those
who were true heroes, as they hold him
responsible for the illegal detention, arrest,
torture, disappearances, and summary
executions of those who opposed his regime.
The Court should not comment on those
points for now. It is not unaware of the
sufferings of the victims of human rights during
martial law. The Court, however, should defer
exercising jurisdiction when the acts of the State
are challenged based on their wisdom or
propriety. It should be stressed, however, that
the interment of President Marcos in the LNMB
will not bestow upon him the title of a hero. It
will not erase from the memories of the victims

what have been etched in their minds — that
President Marcos was a heartless dictator and
rapacious plunderer of our national economy and
patrimony.

No Grave Abuse of Discretion

Granting that the discretionary act of
President Duterte was covered by the expanded
scope of judicial power, the petitions would still
lack merit. There is absolutely no showing that
the acts of the public respondents are tainted
with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction.
Grave abuse of discretion is a capricious and
whimsical exercise of judgment so patent and
gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive
duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty
enjoined by law, as where the power is exercised
in an arbitrary and despotic manner because of
passion or hostility.14
In the situation at hand, no grave abuse of
discretion is manifest as there is no violation of
any constitutional provision or law. In fact, the
public respondents were guided by, and complied
with, the law. Under
_______________
14 Intec Cebu, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 189851,

June 22, 2016, 794 SCRA 266.

488

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
AFP Regulation G 161-375, the following are

eligible for interment in the LNMB:
1. Medal of Valor Awardees;

2. Presidents or Commanders-in-Chief;
3. Secretaries of National Defense;
4. Chiefs of Staff;
5. General/Flag Officers of the AFP;
6. Active and retired military personnel of the AFP
to include active draftees and trainees who died in
line of duty, active reservists and CAFGU Active
Auxiliary (CAA) who died in combat operations or
combat related activities;
7. Former members of the AFP who laterally entered
or joined the PCG and the PNP;
8. Veterans of Philippine Revolution of 1890,
WWI, WWII and recognized guerrillas;
9. Government Dignitaries, Statesmen, National
interment or reinterment has been approved by the
Commander-in-Chief, Congress, or the Secretary of
National Defense; and
10. Former Presidents, Secretaries of Defense,
Dignitaries, Statesmen, National Artists, widows of
Former Presidents, Secretaries of National defense
and Chief of Staff.

In the absence of any law to the contrary,
AFP Regulation G 161-375 remains to be the
sole legal basis in determining who are qualified
to be buried in the LNMB.
When the public respondents based their

decision on the applicable laws and regulations,
they cannot be said to have committed grave
abuse of discretion. Besides, it is not for the
Court to determine who is worthy of inspiration
or emulation.
It is true that the present Constitution was
crafted to prevent the occurrence of abuse
prevalent during the Marcos Regime. This is
evident in numerous provisions of the
Constitution such as the Bill of Rights and the
provisions under the Executive Department
limiting the power

489
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 489

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
to declare Martial Law. Nevertheless, the

Constitution neither expressly nor impliedly
prohibits the interment of President Marcos in
the LNMB.
Moreover, the decision to allow the interment
of President Marcos in the LNMB is not contrary
to R.A. No. 289 and R.A. No. 10368. As
explained by the public respondents, the
National Pantheon mentioned in R.A. No. 289
was quite different from the LNMB. As such, the
standards claimed by the petitioners in R.A. No.
289 are not applicable to the LNMB.
Likewise, the interment of President Marcos
in the LNMB is not repugnant to the avowed
policy of R.A. No. 10368, which seeks to
recognize the heroism of human rights violation

victims (HRVV) during martial law. First, R.A.
No. 10368 neither expressly nor impliedly
prohibits his burial in the LNMB. Second, his
interment is not incongruous with honoring
HRVVs considering that the burial is not
intended to confer upon him the title of a hero.
Third, the State can continue to comply with its
obligation under R.A. No. 10368 to provide
recognition and reparation, monetary or
nonmonetary, to the HRVVs, notwithstanding
his burial in the LNMB.

A Final Note

Lest it be misunderstood, the Court is not
passing judgment on whether President Marcos
truly deserves to be buried in the LNMB. It is
merely exercising judicial restraint as the issues
at hand are truly political in nature and,
therefore, are best left to the discretion of the
President.
The Court sympathizes with the HRVVs and
acknowledges the harrowing ordeals they
suffered in the hands of government forces
during martial law. The stigma left by the
martial law regime will never be forgotten by the
Filipino people and the burial of President
Marcos in the LNMB will not rewrite history.
On the matter, however, the Supreme Court
should not have a hand. It should not resolve the
issues in this truly political controversy.
Accordingly, I vote to dismiss these petitions
and move on.

490

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
DISSENTING OPINION

“. . . They tore my dress and then even-
tually they let me lay down to sleep but
then early in the morning the two soldiers
who stayed near me started torturing me
again and by today’s definition, it is rape
because they fondled my breast and they
inserted a long object into my vagina and
although I screamed and screamed with
all my might, no one seemed to hear ex-
cept that I heard the train pass by . . .”
– Ma. Cristina Pargas Bawagan,
Petitioner and Human Rights
Victim of the Marcos Regime

“My mother is still alive but she was
also . . . she also undergone . . . she
underwent torture and sexual abuse and
I hope my sister is not listening right
now because she does not know this.”
– Liwayway Arce,
Petitioner and Human Rights
Victim of the Marcos Regime

LEONEN, J.:

I dissent.
Under our constitutional order, Presidents,
unlike kings, earn their honors. As Presidents
are public servants, their position in itself

should not be the basis to glorify them. Neither
should their place in history be determined by a
succeeding President. Only the sovereign
Filipino People deserve to determine a
President’s place in history.
Given the present state of our Constitution,
our laws, and our jurisprudence, it is illegal for
the remains of Ferdinand E. Marcos to be
interred at the Libingan ng mga Bayani. The
Filipino People do not deserve such a symbolism.

491
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 491

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Former President Ferdinand E. Marcos

presided over a regime that caused untold
sufferings for millions of Filipinos. Gross
violations of human rights were suffered by
thousands. The public coffers contributed to by
impoverished Filipinos were raided. Ferdinand
E. Marcos stood by as his family, associates, and
cronies engaged in systematic plunder. The
national debt ballooned during his regime.
He was eventually ousted by a public
uprising. His regime and the abuses he
committed during that time led to a complete
rethinking of our constitutional order. The 1987
Constitution embeds most of our experiences
during Martial Law. It was a reaction to the
failures of governance of Ferdinand E. Marcos
and his cohorts.
Ferdinand E. Marcos is no hero. He was not

even an exemplary public officer. He is not
worthy of emulation and inspiration by those
who suffer poverty as a result of the opportunity
lost during his administration, by those who
continue to suffer the trauma of the violations to
the human dignity of their persons and of their
families. He is certainly not worthy of emulation
and inspiration by those in public service,
including the lawyers, judges, and justices who
simply want to do what is right, protect others,
and conscientiously and diligently protect public
funds entrusted to them.
If we are true to the text and spirit of our
Constitution and our laws as well as our history,
Ferdinand E. Marcos cannot be buried at the
Libingan ng mga Bayani. The proposal that he
be accorded public honor is contrary to law. It is
a betrayal of the Filipino spirit.
Rodrigo Roa Duterte’s discretion as President
is “not unconfined and vagrant” but always
“canalized within banks that keep it from
overflowing.”1 His alleged verbal orders to cause
the interment of the remains of Ferdinand E.
Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani were
whimsical, capricious, a grave abuse of
discretion, and issued only to please a single
family. Ferdinand E. Marcos invented most of
his medals as a soldier. He was one of our worst
Presidents.
_______________

The Executive Secretary, 714 Phil. 127, 163; 701 SCRA 269,
309 (2013), citing the dissent of J. Cardozo in Panama
Refining Co. v. Ryan, 293 U.S. 388 (1935) [Per J. Leonardo-

De Castro, En Banc].

492

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
National healing cannot simply come when

the President pronounces it. It can only come
through a process that leads to social justice.
Justice requires accountability. Justice does not
come with just forgetting. Accountability
involves the recognition of the place of the
perpetrator and the victim.
The victims of Martial Law, who stood by
their principles and spoke to power, who were
detained, made to disappear, tortured, killed,
molested, and raped, were the heroes. They are
the “bayani.” By law, they are our heroes.
Ferdinand E. Marcos was the perpetrator. He
is not the “bayani.” The perpetrator cannot be a
hero at the same time that his victims are
heroes. This is cruel and illogical. This is
impunity. This is an assurance that our People
will suffer the same gross violations of human
rights and plunder.
Our laws are not illogical. If they are, then
they will be the cause of injustice. If our laws are
unreasonable, then they will violate the “due
process of law.” Certainly, this Court cannot be
party to an illogical and unreasonable
interpretation of the law.
Our laws do not allow the burial of the

remains of the perpetrator at the Libingan ng
mga Bayani for any or all of the following
reasons:
First, the President’s verbal orders, which
were the basis for the issuance of the questioned
orders of public respondents, are invalid because
they violate Republic Act No. 289. Republic Act
No. 289 was never repealed. The law covers the
subject of AFP Regulations No. 161-373 (1986),2
AFP Regulations No. 161-374 (1998),3 and AFP
Regulations No. 161-375 (2000) (collectively,
AFP Regulations).4 Yet, these AFP Regulations
ignore the requirements of Republic Act No. 289.
Therefore, the basis of the Memorandum5 of
Secretary of National Defense Delfin Lorenzana
(Lorenzana Memorandum) and the Directive6 of
Rear Admiral Ernesto Enriquez (Enriquez
Orders) are ultra vires and, therefore, are null,
void, and inexistent.
_______________
2 OSG Comment, Annex 5.

3 Id., Annex 6.
4 Id., Annex 7.
5 OSG Memorandum, p. 20.
6 Id.

493
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 493

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Second, assuming without accepting that AFP

Regulations were valid when issued, still
President’s verbal orders, the Lorenzana
Memorandum, and the Enriquez Orders all
violate the requirement in Section 1 of Republic
Act No. 289 that those buried must have led
lives worthy of “inspiration and emulation.”
Third, assuming without accepting that the
AFP Regulations were valid when issued, public
respondents gravely abused their discretion
when they failed to show that there was an
examination of the sufficiency of the facts that
would reasonably lead them to believe that the
burial of the remains of Ferdinand E. Marcos at
the Libingan ng mga Bayani would be in
accordance with Republic Act No. 289 or the
various Proclamations that identified the
location of the Libingan, considering the
findings of the National Historical Commission
of the Philippines (National Historical
Commission), the provisions of our laws
including Republic Act No. 10368, and this
Court’s jurisprudence.
The President’s verbal orders do not provide
for a definite and complete reason for
transferring the remains of Former President
Ferdinand E. Marcos from its originally
intended site as shown in the agreement signed
by Former Secretary Rafael Alunan III (Former
Secretary Alunan) and Imelda Marcos to the
Libingan ng mga Bayani. It was whimsical,
capricious, and an abuse of discretion, and could
have been done only to accommodate the private
interest of the Heirs of Marcos.
Fourth, the President’s verbal orders, the
Lorenzana Memorandum, and the Enriquez
Orders were issued with grave abuse of
discretion because they violate Republic Act No.

10368, otherwise known as the Human Rights
Victims Reparation and Recognition Act of 2013.
Fifth, the President’s verbal orders, the
Lorenzana Memorandum, and the Enriquez
Orders cannot be justified even under the
provisions of the Administrative Code of 1987.
Given the established circumstances of the
Marcos regime and the participation of
Ferdinand E. Marcos, there remains no public
purpose to the interment of the remains of
Ferdinand E. Marcos at the Libingan ng mga
Bayani.
Sixth, the actions of public respondents are
contrary to the President’s oath of office because
they encourage impunity. Impunity is the

494

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
result of rewarding the person who presided over

human rights violations and who personally
participated in the plunder of the public
treasury.

I

This case resolves Petitions for certiorari,7
prohibition,8 and mandamus:9 (i) questioning the
validity of the verbal orders of President Rodrigo
Roa Duterte (President Duterte) to bury

Bayani; (ii) seeking to nullify the Memorandum
dated August 7, 2016 issued by Secretary of
National Defense Delfin Lorenzana (Secretary
Lorenzana) and the Directive dated August 9,
2016 of Rear Admiral Ernesto Enriquez (Rear
Admiral Enriquez) implementing President
Duterte’s verbal orders; and (iii) praying for the
issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or
preliminary injunction.
The facts that frame these consolidated cases
are as follows:
After World War II, the Republic Memorial
Cemetery was established in Fort William
McKinley10 as a burial place for Filipino soldiers
who died during the war.11 On October 23, 1954,
Executive Order No. 7712 was issued by Former
President Ramon Magsaysay (Former President
Magsaysay). The Executive Order directed the
remains of all Filipino soldiers who died in the
war be removed from their places of burial and
transferred to the Republic Memorial Cemetery,
since “in the national observance of the occasion
honoring the memory of those war dead, it is
_______________
7 Petition (G.R. No. 225973), Petition (G.R. No. 226117)

and Petition (G.R. No. 226120).
8 Petition (G.R. No. 225973), Petition (G.R. No. 225984),
Petition (G.R. No. 226097), Petition (G.R. No. 226116),
Petition (G.R. No. 226117) and Petition (G.R. No. 226120).
9 Petition (G.R. No. 226116).
11 Memorandum (G.R. No. 226097), p. 8.
12 TRANSFERRING THE REMAINS OF WAR DEAD INTERRED AT
BATAAN MEMORIAL CEMETERY, BATAAN PROVINCE AND AT OTHER
PLACES IN THE PHILIPPINES TO THE REPUBLIC MEMORIAL CEMETERY

AT FORT WM MCKINLEY, RIZAL PROVINCE (1954).

495
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 495

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
fitting and proper that their remains be interred

in one national cemetery.”13
On October 27, 1954, through Proclamation
No. 86, Former President Magsaysay renamed
the Republic Memorial Cemetery to Libingan ng
mga Bayani as the name “Republic Memorial
Cemetery . . . is not symbolic of the cause for
which our soldiers have died, and does not truly
express the nation’s esteem and reverence for
her war dead.”14
On May 28, 1967, Former President
Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Proclamation No.
208, reserving a portion of land in the Fort
Bonifacio Military Reservation for national
shrine purposes.15
On January 24, 1973, Ferdinand E. Marcos
issued Presidential Decree No. 105, declaring
national shrines to be hallowed places and
punishing their desecration, which included the
acts of “disturbing their peace and serenity by
digging, excavating, defacing, causing
unnecessary noise and committing unbecoming
acts within the premises of said National
Shrines[.]”16
On April 9, 1986, the Armed Forces of the
Philippines issued AFP Regulations No. 161-
373,17 which prescribed the allocation of

cemetery plots at the Libingan ng mga Bayani.
This was amended on March 27, 1998 by AFP
Regulations No. 161-374,18 and then again on
September 11, 2000 by AFP Regulations No.
161-375.19 Both amendments were issued by the
Former Secretaries of National Defense.20
In 1989, Ferdinand E. Marcos passed away in
Hawaii while in exile.21 Thereafter, in 1992,
Former President Fidel V. Ramos (Former
President Ramos), on behalf of government,
signed an agreement with the Marcos Family
pertaining to the return of Ferdinand E. Marcos’
re-
_______________
13 Exec. Order No. 77 (1954), 4th whereas clause.

14 Proc. No. 86 (1954).
15 Proc. No. 208 (1967).
16 Pres. Decree No. 105 (1973).
18 Id., Annex 6.
19 Id., Annex 7.
21 Id., at p. 11.

496

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
mains.22 Under this agreement, the Marcos

Family was allowed to fly Ferdinand E. Marcos’
remains to the Philippines from Hawaii, subject
to the following conditions: (1) that Ferdinand E.
Marcos’ remains would be flown straight from
Hawaii to Ilocos Norte; (2) that Ferdinand E.
Marcos would only be given honors befitting a
major of the Armed Forces of the Philippines; (3)
that his remains would not be permitted to be
paraded around Metro Manila; and (4) that the
burial would be done in Ilocos Norte, and not at
the Libingan ng mga Bayani.23
However, before signing the agreement, and
without informing any representative of
government, Imelda R. Marcos crossed out the
word “buried” and replaced it with the words
“temporarily interred.”24 Former Secretary
Alunan, during the Oral Arguments on August
31, 2016, stated that this was viewed by Former
President Ramos as a sign of bad faith:
SECRETARY ALUNAN:

The official agreement is what I personally, I officially
submitted to the President of the Philippines on
August 19 which was altered by Imelda Marcos. The
following day, she sent her version of the
Memorandum of Agreement that she signed without
my signature but which was disregarded by the
President. In fact, if I may share, the comment of the
President when he saw the words temporarily
interred was that, this was a sign of bad faith.25

During a press conference in May 2016, then
President-elect Duterte stated he would allow
the burial of Marcos at the Libingan ng mga
Bayani:
“Look, there is the courts. Pumunta kayo ng korte

kasi yung taong hinahabol niyo, cadaver na (Go to the
courts because the person you’re after is already a
cadaver). What do you want more from the guy? Patay
nga (He’s already dead) . . . . Sabi niyo si Marcos,
hindi dapat diyan (ilibing) (You said that Marcos
should not be buried there). That is (on) the question
of his abuses. It is something
_______________
22 Id.
23 Id., at pp. 11-12.
24 Id., at p. 12.
25 Id., at p. 13.

497
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 497

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
that is attached to his persona forever. Marcos might

not really be a hero, I accept that proposition, maybe.
But certainly he was a soldier,” Duterte said.

. . . .

“In addition to being a president, he was a soldier.
So yung sinabi mo noong dinakip ng martial law,
nandiyan ang korte (So those who were arrested
during the martial law, the courts are there for you).
It’s just a matter of distributing the award. So anong
problema? Patay na yung tao. Anong gusto niyo? (So
what is the problem? The guy is already dead. What
do you want?) You want the cadaver to be burned?

Will that satisfy your hate?” he added.

. . . .

“Alam mo kapag nagbitaw ako ng salita, yun na
yun. Magpakamatay na ako diyan (If I have already
uttered the words, that’s it already. I am willing to
stake my life on it). I will do things that I promised to
do. I will not die if I do not become President. I will
stake my honor, my life, and the presidency itself.
Bantayan niyo ang salita ko (Pay attention to my
words),” Duterte said.26

President Duterte reiterated his position on
Ferdinand E. Marcos’ burial sometime in August
2016, stating that “[a]s a former soldier and
former [P]resident of the Philippines, [he] [saw]
nothing wrong in having Marcos buried at the
Libingan ng mga Bayani.”27
On July 11, 2016, President Duterte gave
verbal orders to respondent Secretary Lorenzana
to carry out the interment of Ferdinand E.
Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani.28
In response to President Duterte’s
pronouncements, the National Historical
Commission published a study entitled “Why
Ferdinand Marcos Should Not Be Buried at the
Libingan ng mga Bayani”29 on July 12,
_______________
26 Id., at pp. 13-14.

27 Id., at p. 14.
29 National Historical Commission of the Philippines,

Why Ferdinand Marcos Should Not Be Buried at the
Libingan ng mga Bayani, July 12, 2016
<https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9c6mrxI4zoYS2I0UWFENEp6TkU/view>
(visited November 7, 2016).

498

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
2016.30 The National Historical Commission

reported that Ferdinand E. Marcos’ military
records were not deserving of the honors that
would be bestowed upon him should he be buried
at the Libingan ng mga Bayani as they were
“fraught with myths, factual inconsistencies, and
lies.” In particular, the National Historical
Commission found that:
1. Mr. Marcos lied about receiving U.S. medals:

Distinguished Service Cross, Silver Star, and Order of
the Purple Heart, which he claimed as early as about
1945.
2. His guerilla unit, the Ang Mga Maharlika, was
never officially recognized and neither was his
leadership of it.
3. U.S. officials did not recognize Mr. Marcos’s rank
promotion from Major in 1944 to Lt. Col. by 1947.
4. Some of Mr. Marcos’s actions as a soldier were
officially called into question by upper echelons of the
U.S. military, such as his command over the Alias
Intelligence Unit (described as usurpation), his
commissioning of officers (without authority), his

abandonment of USAFIP-NL presumably to build an
airfield for Gen. Roxas, his collection of money for the
airfield (described as “illegal”), and his listing of his
name on the roster of different units (called a
“malicious criminal act”).31

Despite the National Historical Commission’s
report, on August 7, 2016, Secretary Lorenzana
issued the Lorenzana Memorandum directing
respondent Armed Forces of the Philippines
Chief of Staff General Ricardo R. Visaya
(General Visaya) “to undertake the necessary
coordination of all agencies concerned” and to
“coordinate closely with the Marcos family” as to
the transfer of Marcos’ remains to the Libingan
ng mga Bayani.32 Secretary Lorenzana
designated the Philippine Veterans Affairs
Office as the office of primary responsibility for
the Marcos burial.33 Reportedly, under this
directive, General Visaya gave instructions to
Rear Admiral
_______________

31 Id., at p. 15.
32 Memorandum (G.R. No. 225973), p. 7; OSG
Memorandum, p. 20.

499
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 499

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Enriquez, Deputy Chief of Staff for Reservist

and Retiree Affairs, pertaining to the Marcos
burial.34
Thus, on August 12, 2016, the Armed Forces
of the Philippines, through its Army Chief of
Public Affairs, issued a press release entitled
“Army receives interment directive for former
Pres. Marcos.” The press release stated that the
Philippine Army had received a directive from
Rear Admiral Enriquez under the command of
General Visaya for the Marcos burial at the
Libingan ng mga Bayani.35 It stated that under
this directive, the Army was required to provide
vigil, bugler/drummer, firing party, military
host/pallbearers, escort and transportation, as
well as arrival and departure honors.36 It also
stated that the Army had designated a protocol
officer to coordinate laterally with the Marcos
Family regarding the details of the Marcos
burial.37
President Duterte confirmed in various
interviews that he had allowed Ferdinand E.
Marcos’ interment at the Libingan ng mga
Bayani, as this was a promise he had made
during his campaign for the presidency.38
Thus, petitioners separately filed the present
Petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and
mandamus, mainly seeking that the execution of
the Executive Department’s decision to allow the
burial of Ferdinand E. Marcos at the Libingan
ng mga Bayani be reversed, set aside, and
enjoined.39 After respondents filed their
respective Comments, oral arguments were held
on August 31 and September 7, 2016. The

parties then filed their respective Memoranda.

II

The AFP Regulations are ultra vires. They
violate Republic Act No. 289, which is still an
existing law. Therefore, the verbal orders of the
_______________

35 Id., at p. 7.
36 Id., at p. 8.
37 Id.
38 Id.
39 Id.

500

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
President, the Lorenzana Memorandum, and the

Enriquez Orders based on the AFP Regulations
are null and void.
Republic Act No. 28940 creates a National
Pantheon “to perpetuate the memory of all the
Presidents of the Philippines, national heroes
and patriots for the inspiration and emulation of
this generation and of generations still
unborn[.]”41 The National Pantheon is, by law,
intended to be the “burial place of their mortal

remains.”42 Thus:
SECTION 1. To perpetuate the memory of all the

patriots for the inspiration and emulation of this
generation and of generations still unborn, there shall
be constructed a National Pantheon which shall be
the burial place of their mortal remains.

The clear intention of the legislature in
enacting Republic Act No. 289 was to create a
burial place to perpetuate the memory of the
Presidents of the Philippines, national heroes,
and patriots, for the inspiration and emulation
of generations of the Filipino People.43 An
examination of the evolution of what is now
known as the Libingan ng mga Bayani shows
that it is precisely the burial ground covered by
Republic Act No. 289.
The Libingan ng mga Bayani, similar to the
National Pantheon, is there to hold the remains
and “perpetuate the memory of all the
Presidents of the Philippines, national heroes
and patriots for the inspiration and emulation of
this generation and generations still unborn.”
Republic Act No. 289 does not specify what
the name of the National Pantheon shall be. The
Libingan ng mga Bayani may not be called the
“National Pantheon,” but nothing in Republic
Act No. 289 prohibits naming the National
Pantheon as the Libingan ng mga Bayani.
Republic Act No. 289 does not specify where
the National Pantheon is to be located. Under
Republic Act No. 289, the suitable site is yet to
be determined by a Board, who has the duty:
_______________
40 AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NATIONAL

PANTHEON FOR PRESIDENTS OF THE PHILIPPINES, NATIONAL HEROES
AND PATRIOTS OF THE COUNTRY.
41 Id., Sec. 1.
42 Id.
43 Id.

501
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 501

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
(a) To determine the location of a suitable site for the

construction of the said National Pantheon, and to
have such site acquired, surveyed and fenced for
this purpose and to delimit and set aside a portion
thereof wherein shall be interred the remains of all
Presidents of the Philippines and another portion
wherein the remains of heroes, patriots and other
great men of the country shall likewise be
interred[.]44 (Emphasis supplied)

Wherever the mortal remains of Presidents of
the Philippines, national heroes, and patriots
are buried is, thus, the burial place envisioned
by the legislature, subject to the provisions of
The space where the Libingan ng mga Bayani
is now located was once the Republic Memorial
Cemetery, which initially served as burial
grounds for the war dead.45
Prior to the law’s enactment, in 1947, the

Republic Memorial Cemetery was established as
a burial ground for soldiers who died during
World War II.
While Republic Act No. 289 was effective and
apparently without the action of the Board of
National Pantheon, Former President
Magsaysay issued Executive Order No. 77,
transferring the remains of the war dead to the
Republic Memorial Cemetery:
WHEREAS, the Armed Forces of the Philippines is

maintaining the Bataan Memorial Cemetery in the
province of Bataan and the Republic Memorial
Cemetery in Fort Wm McKinley, Rizal Province,
thereby splitting the expenses of maintenance and
upkeep therefor;

WHEREAS, there are other remains of our war dead
interred at other places throughout the Philippines
which are not classified as cemeteries;

WHEREAS, the said cemetery in Bataan province and
the other places in the Philippines where our dead
war heroes are interred are
_______________
44 Id., Sec. 2(a).


502

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
not easily accessible to their widows, parents,

children, relatives and friends; and

WHEREAS, in the national observance of the occasion
honoring the memory of those war dead, it is fitting
and proper that their remains be interred in one
national cemetery;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, RAMON MAGSAYSAY,
President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers
vested in me by law, do hereby order that the remains
of the war dead interred at the Bataan Memorial
Cemetery, Bataan province, and at other places in the
Philippines, be transferred to, and reinterred at, the
Republic Memorial Cemetery at Fort Wm McKinley,
Rizal Province.

This change — relocating the nation’s war
dead to one national cemetery — created a
burial ground that, by its express purpose,
necessarily glorifies and honors those buried as
war heroes. This reinterment of all of the dead
war heroes to the Republic Memorial Cemetery
transformed it the National Pantheon, covered
by Republic Act No. 289.
On October 27, 1954, Former President
Magsaysay issued Proclamation No. 86,
changing the name of the Republic Memorial
Cemetery to express the nation’s esteem and
reverence for those buried in the cemetery, the
war dead:
WHEREAS, the name “Republic Memorial Cemetery”

at Fort Wm McKinley, Rizal province, is not symbolic
of the cause for which our soldiers have died, and does
not truly express the nation’s esteem and reverence
for her war dead;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, Ramon Magsaysay, President
of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in
me by law, do hereby declare that the “Republic
Memorial Cemetery” shall henceforth be called
“LIBINGAN NG MGA BAYANI.”

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my
hand and caused the seal of the Republic of the
Philippines to be affixed.

Proclamation No. 86 purposefully and
expressly altered the nature of the Republic
Memorial Cemetery. The name was changed
specifically to honor those who died in the war,
as “bayani,” the heroes of war.

503
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 503

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
On July 12, 1957, Former President Carlos P.

Garcia issued Proclamation No. 423, which
reserved for military purposes, under the
administration of the Chief of Staff of the Armed
Forces of the Philippines, certain parcels of land
in Pasig, Taguig, Parañaque, Province of Rizal,
and Pasay City.46 Under this Proclamation, the
Armed Forces of the Philippines issued various
regulations expanding the scope of the types of
individuals who could be buried at the Libingan

ng mga Bayani. Thus, the nature of what once
was the Republic Memorial Cemetery changed
further. The most recent AFP Regulations, AFP
Regulations No. 161-375 (2000), invoked by
public respondents, reads:
1. General: This regulation prescribes the allocation

of cemetery plots and construction of grave markers at
the Libingan ng mga Bayani (LNMB).

. . . .

3. Who are qualified to be interred in the Libingan
ng mga Bayani: The remains of the following deceased
persons are qualified and, therefore, authorized to be
interred in the Libingan ng mga Bayani:
f. Active and retired military personnel of the AFP
to include active draftees and trainees who died
in line of duty, active reservists and CAFGU
Active Auxiliary (CAA) who died in combat
operations or combat related activities;
g. Former members of the AFP who laterally
entered or joined the Philippine Coast Guard
(PCG) and the Philippine National Police (PNP);
WWII and recognized guerrillas;
_______________
46 Proc. No. 423 (1957).

504

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez

interment or reinterment has been approved by
the Commander-in-Chief, Congress or the
Dignitaries, Statesmen, National Artists,
widows of Former Presidents, Secretaries of
National Defense and Chief of Staff are
authorized to be interred at the LNMB.47

Again, the Republic Memorial Cemetery was
created specifically as a burial place for the war
dead,48 and then renamed to Libingan ng mga
Bayani with the express purpose of revering the
nation’s war dead.49 Now, progressing from the
renaming, and under AFP Regulations, the
cemetery is no longer primarily a cemetery for
the nation’s war dead. Remains of individuals
who have nothing to do with the military —
much less any war — have been interred there.
This includes, among others, three (3) former
Chief Justices of this Court,50 as well as Former
Presidents Elpidio R. Quirino and Diosdado P.
Macapagal.51
As admitted by the Solicitor General, the
Armed Forces of the Philippines has determined
that those who have contributed to society,

despite not having served as soldiers, may be
buried at the Libingan ng mga Bayani:
JUSTICE LEONEN:
If the Libingan ng mga Bayani is a military

cemetery, why is it that there is “national artist” also
included in the order?
SOLICITOR GENERAL CALIDA:
Because they fall under the classification of

probably dignitaries, Your Honors.
_______________

48 Exec. Order No. 77 (1954).
49 Proc. No. 86 (1954).
50 TSN, Oral Arguments, September 7, 2016, p. 142.
51 Id., at p. 57.

505
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 505

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
JUSTICE LEONEN:
Why single out national artists?
Because they have contributed something to

society, Your Honor.
JUSTICE LEONEN:
Maybe I will tell you because there is a law that

actually allows national artists to be interred in the
Libingan ng mga Bayani, is that not correct?52

Unlike for national artists, the expansion of
the coverage of the Libingan ng mga Bayani is
without cover of law and, in some cases, contrary
to Republic Act No. 289. For instance, the
inclusion of widows of Former Presidents or
widows of Former Secretaries of National
Defense at the Libingan ng mga Bayani has no
purpose and is contrary to the nature of the
Libingan.
The change of its name from Republic
Memorial Cemetery to Libingan ng mga Bayani
and the scope of individuals that could be buried
through subsequent AFP Regulations are
operative facts that put the cemetery under the
coverage of Republic Act No. 289. What once
may have been a military cemetery has been
converted, over time, into what is the National
Pantheon envisioned by the legislature when it
passed Republic Act No. 289.
It is true that in 1953, Proclamation No. 431,
entitled Reserving as Site for the National
Pantheon a Certain Parcel of Land Situated in
Quezon City, reserved a parcel of land in Quezon
City for the construction of the National
Pantheon. However, this was subsequently
revoked by Proclamation No. 42, entitled
Revoking Proclamation Nos. 422 and 431, both
Series of 1953, and Reserving the Parcels of
Land Embraced Therein Situated in Quezon
City for National Park Purposes to be Known as
Quezon Memorial Park. There is no National

Pantheon in Quezon City.
The revoked attempt to locate the National
Pantheon in Quezon City does not amend
Republic Act No. 289. Quezon City is not a
definitive
_______________
52 Id., at p. 152.

506

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
part of the National Pantheon, and Proclamation

No. 431 is wholly irrelevant to the validity of
The ponencia suggests that the lack of
appropriation from Congress for the creation of a
National Pantheon shows a “legislative will not
to pursue” the establishment of a National
Pantheon. It further suggests that “[p]erhaps,
the Manila North Cemetery, the Manila South
Cemetery, and other equally distinguished
private cemeteries already serve the noble
purpose but without cost to the limited funds of
the government.”53
The failure to provide appropriation for a law
does not repeal the law. Moreover, the failure to
provide the appropriate budget for the execution
of a law is a violation of the President’s duty to
faithfully execute all laws. Certainly, the lack of

appropriation does not suspend standards laid
down by the legislature in a valid and subsisting
law.
The legislative policy in Republic Act No. 289
includes delegating the powers related to the
National Pantheon to a specially constituted
board composed of the Secretary of the Interior,
the Secretary of Public Works and
Communications, the Secretary of Education,
and two (2) private citizens appointed by the
President, with the consent of the Commission
on Appointments (Board).54 Under Republic Act
No. 289, it is the Board — not the President
directly nor the Secretary of National Defense —
that has the power to perform all the functions
necessary to carry out the purposes of the law.55
The Board is statutorily empowered to,
among others:
(a) To determine the location of a suitable site. . . .

(b) To order and supervise the construction thereon of
uniform monuments, mausoleums, or tombs. . . .
[and]
(c) To cause to be interred therein the mortal remains
of all Presidents of the Philippines, the national
heroes and patriots[.]
_______________
53 Ponencia, p. 271.

54 Rep. Act No. 289, Sec. 2.
55 Id.

507
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 507

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
However, the Lorenzana Memorandum and

the Enriquez Orders to have the remains of
Ferdinand E. Marcos transferred to the
Libingan ng mga Bayani, today’s National
Pantheon, were made without the authority of
the Board. Consequently, the Lorenzana
Memorandum and the Enriquez Orders are void
for being ultra vires. There is no showing that
the Board recommended to the President the
burial of the remains of Ferdinand E. Marcos at
the Libingan. The issuances of public
respondents are ultra vires and have no effect
whatsoever. The continued implementation of
these issuances would be an act beyond their
jurisdiction, or grave abuse of discretion,
because they violate existing law.
In public respondents’ opening statement, the
Solicitor General argues that the provisions of
Republic Act No. 289 do not apply to the
Libingan ng mga Bayani because Republic Act
No. 289 is a “defunct law,” established by the
clear expressions of the legislative and executive
will to abandon Republic Act No. 289 altogether,
namely: (1) the inaction on the part of Congress,
(2) the withdrawal of the reservation of land for
the Pantheon by President Magsaysay.56
This is not a valid legal argument.
A law cannot be repealed by inaction or
tradition. Neither can a law be repealed by a
President. A President who does not follow a law
is a President that violates his or her duties
under the Constitution.
Article 7 of the Civil Code provides that laws
are repealed only by subsequent ones, and their
violation or nonobservance shall not be excused

by disuse, custom, or practice to the contrary.
This Court has repeatedly held that only a law
can repeal another law,57 and a law subsists
when it has not been repealed nor expressly
amended by any other law.58 Likewise, “repeals
by implication are not favored and will not be
decreed, unless it is manifest that the legislature
so intended.”59
_______________
56 TSN, Oral Arguments, September 7, 2016, p. 14.

57 Palanca v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 106685,
December 2, 1994, 238 SCRA 593, 601 [Per J. Quiason, En
Banc].
58 See United States v. Chan Tiao, 37 Phil. 78, 84 (1917)
[Per J. Torres, En Banc].
59 National Power Corporation v. Province of Lanao del
Sur, 332 Phil. 303, 323; 264 SCRA 271, 290 (1996) [Per J.
Panganiban, En Banc].

508

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
No law has been passed amending or

repealing Republic Act No. 289, and no manifest
intention on the part of the legislature to repeal
Republic Act No. 289 has been shown. It cannot
be disputed; therefore, Republic Act No. 289 is a

valid and binding law.
Further, the effectivity of a law cannot be
made to depend on a future event or act.
Otherwise, it would “rob the Legislature of the
power to act wisely for the public welfare
whenever a law is passed relating to a state of
affairs not yet developed, or to things future and
impossible to fully know.” In Securities and
Exchange Commission v. Interport Resources
Corporation:60
It is well-settled that every law has in its favor the

presumption of validity. Unless and until a specific
provision of the law is declared invalid and
unconstitutional, the same is valid and binding for all
intents and purposes. The mere absence of
implementing rules cannot effectively invalidate
provisions of law, where a reasonable construction
that will support the law may be given. In People v.
Rosenthal, this Court ruled that:
In this connection we cannot pretermit

reference to the rule that “legislation should not
be held invalid on the ground of uncertainty if
susceptible of any reasonable construction that
will support and give it effect. An Act will not be
declared inoperative and ineffectual on the
ground that it furnishes no adequate means to
secure the purpose for which it is passed, if men
of common sense and reason can devise and
provide the means, and all the instrumentalities
necessary for its execution are within the reach
of those intrusted therewith.”
In Garcia v. Executive Secretary, the Court

underlined the importance of the presumption of
validity of laws and the careful consideration with
which the judiciary strikes down as invalid acts of the

legislature:
The policy of the courts is to avoid ruling on

constitutional questions and to presume that
the acts of the political departments are valid in
the absence of a clear and
_______________
60 588 Phil. 651; 567 SCRA 354 (2008) [Per J. Chico-
Nazario, En Banc].

509
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 509

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
unmistakable showing to the contrary. To doubt

is to sustain. This presumption is based on the
doctrine of separation of powers which enjoins
upon each department a becoming respect for
the acts of the other departments. The theory is
that as the joint act of Congress and the
President of the Philippines, a law has been
carefully studied and determined to be in
accordance with the fundamental law before it
was finally enacted.
The necessity for vesting administrative

authorities with power to make rules and regulations
is based on the impracticability of lawmakers
providing general regulations for various and varying
details of management. To rule that the absence of
implementing rules can render ineffective an act of

Congress, such as the Revised Securities Act, would
empower the administrative bodies to defeat the
legislative will by delaying the implementing rules. To
assert that a law is less than a law, because it is made
to depend on a future event or act, is to rob the
Legislature of the power to act wisely for the public
welfare whenever a law is passed relating to a state of
affairs not yet developed, or to things future and
impossible to fully know. It is well-established that
administrative authorities have the power to
promulgate rules and regulations to implement a given
statute and to effectuate its policies, provided such
rules and regulations conform to the terms and
standards prescribed by the statute as well as purport
to carry into effect its general policies. Nevertheless, it
is undisputable that the rules and regulations cannot
assert for themselves a more extensive prerogative or
deviate from the mandate of the statute. Moreover,
where the statute contains sufficient standards and
an unmistakable intent, as in the case of Sections 30
and 36 of the Revised Securities Act, there should be
no impediment to its implementation.61 (Emphasis
supplied)

The effectivity of Republic Act No. 289 does
not depend on a Board being constituted or on
the naming of a plot of land as the ‘‘National
Pantheon.” If a government agency creates a
burial place that clearly and factually comprises
the burial place contemplated in Republic Act
No. 289, the legislative policy must still govern.
_______________
61 Id., at pp. 673-675; pp. 379-380, citing 25 R.C.L., pp.

810, 811.

510

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
The majority’s position is that Republic Act

No. 289 can be simply ignored by the President.
The President, however, will gravely abuse his
discretion when he does.
The Solicitor General insists that the
disparate histories of the site of the Libingan ng
mga Bayani and Republic Act No. 289 reveal
that the two are unrelated. Hence, the
provisions of Republic Act No. 289 do not apply
to the Libingan ng mga Bayani.62
The Solicitor General starts with a narration
of the history of the land where the Libingan ng
mga Bayani, as nothing but a renamed Republic
Memorial Cemetery,63 intended only to be a
national military cemetery for the interment of
those who died during the war.64 He then
proceeds to insist that the Libingan ng mga
Bayani has been operating as a military shrine
and cemetery.65 In his view, the National
Pantheon, on the other hand, was never
constructed.66 Its intended site was in Quezon
City under Proclamation No. 431.67 However, in
1954, this site was later withdrawn under
Proclamation No. 42.68
The Solicitor General implies that simply

because Proclamation No. 431 was later
withdrawn by another presidential
proclamation, the law has ceased to become
effective.
The Solicitor General then argues that the
standards laid down in Republic Act No. 289 do
not apply to the Libingan ng mga Bayani. Public
respondents point out that the standards under
Republic Act No. 289 are not stated in any of the
issuances pertinent to the Libingan ng mga
Bayani, namely: Proclamation No. 208,
Presidential Decree No. 1076, or Executive
Order No. 292.69 Thus, as the National Pantheon
was never constructed, public respondents claim
that “the clear inference is that former President
Marcos and President Corazon Aquino did not
intend
_______________

63 Id.
64 Id., at p. 55.
65 Id.
66 Id.
67 Id., at p. 54.
68 Id.
69 Id., at p. 56.

511
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 511

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
to adopt said standards for those to be interred

at the Libingan ng mga Bayani.”70
The position of the Solicitor General is legally
untenable and logically unsound. Presidents who
do not follow the law do not repeal that law.
Laws can only be repealed by a subsequent law.
Again, that Republic Act No. 289 was ignored in
the past does not give legal justification for the
present administration to likewise violate the
law.
Republic Act No. 289 does not specify the
location of the National Pantheon. It could be
anywhere. The defining characteristic of the
National Pantheon is that it shall be the burial
place of the Presidents of the Philippines,
national heroes, and patriots.71
The AFP Regulations, on the other hand,
provide that the remains of the following may be
buried at the Libingan ng mga Bayani: (1)
Medal of Valor Awardees; (2) Presidents or
Commanders-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of
the Philippines; (3) Secretaries of National
Defense; (4) Chiefs of Staff of the Armed Forces
of the Philippines; (5) General flag officers of the
Armed Forces of the Philippines; (6) Active and
retired military personnel of the Armed Forces
of the Philippines; (7) Veterans of the Philippine
Revolution of 1896, World War I, World War II,
and recognized guerrillas; (8) government
dignitaries, statesmen, national artists, and
Commander-in-Chief, Congress, or the Secretary
of National Defense; and (9) Former Presidents,
Secretaries of Defense, CSAFP, generals/flag
officers, dignitaries, statesmen, national artists,
widows of former Presidents, Secretaries of

National Defense, and Chiefs of Staff.72
A plain reading of the AFP Regulations
reveals that although it does not refer to
Republic Act No. 289, it nonetheless provides for
the burial of individuals who would properly be
covered by Republic Act No. 289. The AFP
Regulations define a burial place, which is the
burial place provided for under Republic Act No.
289.
_______________
70 Id.
71 Rep. Act No. 289, Sec. 1.

512

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
The executive cannot avoid carrying out a

valid and subsisting law by passing regulations
substantially covering a matter that is already a
law and excuse itself from complying with the
law on the premise that it — a law that the
executive never implemented — is now defunct.
Under Republic Act No. 289, only the Board is
authorized to set aside portions of the National
Pantheon where the remains of the Presidents of
the Philippines, national heroes, and patriots
shall be interred,73 to cause to be interred in the
National Pantheon the mortal remains of

Presidents of the Philippines, national heroes,
and patriots,74 and to perform such other
functions as may be necessary to carry out the
purposes of this law.75
Having been issued by Secretary Lorenzana,
General Visaya, and Rear Admiral Enriquez
without the authority of the Board, the General
Lorenzana Memorandum and the Enriquez
Orders are void for being ultra vires.

III

Assuming without accepting that respondents
Secretary Lorenzana, General Visaya, and Rear
Admiral Enriquez had the authority to
determine who may be interred at Libingan ng
mga Bayani, the Lorenzana Memorandum and
the Enriquez Orders are nonetheless invalid.
Under Section 1 of Republic Act No. 289,
those buried at the Libingan ng mga Bayani
must have led lives worthy of “inspiration and
emulation.”
Ferdinand E. Marcos does not meet this
standard.
Our jurisprudence clearly shows that
Ferdinand E. Marcos does not even come close to
being one who will inspire. His example should
not be emulated by this generation, or by
generations yet to come.
_______________
73 Rep. Act No. 289, Sec. 2(a).

74 Id., Sec. 2(c).
75 Id., Sec. 2(e).

513
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 513

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Ferdinand E. Marcos has been characterized

as an authoritarian by this Court in nine (9)
Decisions76 and 9 Separate Opinions.77 He was
called a dictator in 19 Decisions78 and 16
Separate Opinions.79 That he
_______________
76 Marcos v. Manglapus, 258 Phil. 479; 177 SCRA 668

(1989) [Per J. Cortes, En Banc]; Galman v. Sandiganbayan,
228 Phil. 42; 144 SCRA 43 (1986) [Per CJ. Teehankee, En
Banc]; Fortun v. Macapagal-Arroyo, 684 Phil. 526; 668 SCRA
504 (2012) [Per J. Abad, En Banc]; People v. Pacificador, 406
Phil. 774; 354 SCRA 310 (2001) [Per J. De Leon, Jr., Second
Division]; Buscayno v. Enrile, 190 Phil. 7; 102 SCRA 7 (1981)
[Per CJ. Fernando, En Banc]; Republic v. Sandiganbayan,
453 Phil. 1059; 406 SCRA 190 (2003) [Per J. Corona, En
Banc]; Republic v. Villarama, Jr., 344 Phil. 288; 278 SCRA
736 (1997) [Per J. Davide Jr., Third Division]; Salazar v.
Achacoso, 262 Phil. 160; 183 SCRA 145 (1990) [Per J.
Sarmiento, En Banc]; Biraogo v. Philippine Truth
Commission of 2010, 651 Phil. 374; 637 SCRA 78 (2010) [Per
J. Mendoza, En Banc].
77 J. Gutierrez, Jr., Dissenting Opinion in Marcos v.
Manglapus, id., at pp. 513-526; pp. 702-714; J. Francisco,
Concurring and Dissenting Opinion in Dans, Jr. v. People,
349 Phil. 434, 477-513; 285 SCRA 504, 571-579 (1998) [Per J.
Romero, Third Division]; J. Puno, Concurring and Dissenting

Opinion in Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on
Behest Loans v. Desierto, 375 Phil. 697, 748-754; 317 SCRA
272, 323-327 (1999) [Per CJ. Davide, Jr., En Banc]; J. Vitug,
Dissenting Opinion in Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party
v. Commission on Elections, 412 Phil. 308, 347-356; 359
SCRA 698, 733-741 (2001) [Per J. Panganiban, En Banc]; J.
Sarmiento, Dissenting Opinion in Umil v. Ramos, 279 Phil.
266, 332-344; 202 SCRA 251, 297-309 (1991) [Per Curiam,
En Banc]; J. Davide, Separate Opinion in People’s Initiative
for Reform, Modernization and Action v. Commission on
Elections, G.R. No. 129754, September 23, 1997 [Unsigned
Resolution, En Banc]; J. Puno, Separate Opinion in Republic
v. Sandiganbayan, 454 Phil. 504, 551-630; 407 SCRA 10, 61-
134 (2003) [Per J. Carpio, En Banc]; J. Sarmiento,
Dissenting Opinion in Baylosis v. Chavez, Jr., 279 Phil. 448,
470-483; 202 SCRA 405, 421-433 (1991) [J. Narvasa, En
Banc]; J. Teehankee, Concurring Opinion in Tan v.
Commission on Elections, 226 Phil. 624, 648-651; 142 SCRA
727, 752-754 (1986) [Per J. Alampay, En Banc].
78 Marcos v. Manglapus, id.; Republic v. Sandiganbayan,
565 Phil. 172; 540 SCRA 431 (2007) [Per J. Quisumbing,
Second Division]; Republic v. Estate of Hans Menzi, 512 Phil.
425; 476 SCRA 20 (2005) [Per J. Tinga, En Banc]; Fortun v.
Macapagal-Arroyo, supra; Frivaldo v. Commission on
Elections, 255 Phil. 934; 174 SCRA 245 (1989) [Per J. Cruz,
En Banc]; First Philippine Holdings Corp. v. Trans Middle
East (Phils.) Equities, Inc., 622 Phil. 623; 607 SCRA 605
(2009) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division]; Associated
Bank v. Montano, Sr., 619 Phil. 128;

514

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
_______________
604 SCRA 134 (2009) [Per J. Nachura, Third Division];

National Development Company v. Philippine Veterans
Bank, 270 Phil. 349; 192 SCRA 257 (1990) [Per J. Cruz, En
Banc]; Dizon v. Eduardo, 242 Phil. 200; 158 SCRA 470
(1988) [Per CJ. Teehankee, En Banc]; People v. Pacificador,
supra note 76; Philippine National Construction Corporation
v. Pabion, 377 Phil. 101; 320 SCRA 188 (1999) [Per J.
Panganiban, Third Division]; Frivaldo v. Commission on
Elections, 327 Phil. 521; 257 SCRA 727 (1996) [Per J.
Panganiban, En Banc]; Carpio-Morales v. Court of Appeals
(Sixth Division), G.R. No. 217126, November 10, 2015, 774
SCRA 431 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, En Banc]; Heirs of
Gregorio Licaros v. Sandiganbayan, 483 Phil. 510; 440 SCRA
483 (2004) [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division]; Philippine
Free Press, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 510 Phil. 411; 473 SCRA
639 (2005) [Per J. Garcia, Third Division]; Taruc v. Ericta,
250 Phil. 65; 168 SCRA 63 (1989) [Per J. Paras, En Banc];
Marcos v. Sandiganbayan (First Division), 357 Phil. 762; 297
SCRA 95 (1998) [Per J. Purisima, En Banc]; Republic v.
Sandiganbayan, supra note 76; Biraogo v. Philippine Truth
Commission, supra note 76.
79 J. Cruz, Dissenting Opinion in Marcos v. Manglapus,
258-A Phil. 547, 555; 178 SCRA 760, 765-766 (1989) [Per
Curiam, En Banc]; J. Padilla, Dissenting Opinion in Marcos
v. Manglapus, id., at pp. 556-558; pp. 767-768; J. Sarmiento,
Dissenting Opinion in Marcos v. Manglapus, id., at pp. 559-
560; pp. 722-729; CJ. Teehankee, Concurring Opinion in
Olaguer v. Military Commission No. 34, 234 Phil. 144, 164-
179; 150 SCRA 144, 166-180 (1987) [Per J. Gancayco, En
Banc]; J. Davide, Dissenting Opinion in Tabuena v.

Sandiganbayan, 335 Phil. 795, 878-886; 268 SCRA 332, 404-
414 (1997) [Per J. Francisco, En Banc]; J. Panganiban,
Dissenting Opinion in Tabuena v. Sandiganbayan, id., at pp.
911-913; pp. 438-441; J. Kapunan, Dissenting Opinion in
Lacson v. Perez, 410 Phil. 78, 95-107; 357 SCRA 756, 767-779
(2001) [Per J. Melo, En Banc]; J. Cruz, Separate Opinion in
Umil v. Ramos, supra note 77 at pp. 306-311; pp. 280-284; J.
Sarmiento, Dissenting Opinion in Umil v. Ramos, supra note
77 at pp. 332-344; pp. 297-309; J. Sandoval-Gutierrez,
Dissenting Opinion in Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary, 466
Phil. 482, 534-548; 421 SCRA 656, 690-702 (2004) [Per J.
Tinga, En Banc]; J. Sandoval-Gutierrez, Concurring Opinion
in Lambino v. Commission on Elections, 536 Phil. 1, 154-186;
505 SCRA 160, 384-415 (2006) [Per J. Carpio, En Banc]; J.
Puno, Separate Opinion in Republic v. Sandiganbayan,
supra note 77; J. Cruz, Dissenting and Concurring Opinion
in Umil v. Ramos, 265 Phil. 325, 355; 187 SCRA 311, 334-
335 (1990) [Per Curiam, En Banc]; J. Sarmiento, Dissenting
Opinion in Umil v. Ramos, id., at pp. 355-365; pp. 337-346;
CJ. Panganiban, Concurring Opinion in David v. Macapagal-
Arroyo, 522 Phil. 705, 812-813; 489 SCRA 160, 276-277
(2006) [Per J. Sandoval-

515
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 515

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
was unceremoniously deposed as President or

dictator by a direct act of the People was
stressed in 16 Decisions80 and six (6) Separate
Opinions.81
_______________
Gutierrez, En Banc]; J. Cruz, Dissenting Opinion in

Sarmiento, III v. Mison, 240 Phil. 505, 541-546; 156 SCRA
549, 577-581 (1987) [Per J. Padilla, En Banc].
80 Marcos v. Manglapus, id.; Republic v. Marcos-
Manotoc, 681 Phil. 380; 665 SCRA 367 (2012) [Per J. Sereno,
Second Division]; E. Razon, Inc. v. Philippine Ports
Authority, 235 Phil. 223; 151 SCRA 233 (1987) [Per J.
Fernan, En Banc]; Presidential Commission on Good
Government v. Peña, 243 Phil. 93; 159 SCRA 556 (1988) [Per
CJ. Teehankee, En Banc]; Liwayway Publishing, Inc. v.
PCGG, 243 Phil. 864; 160 SCRA 716 (1988) [Per CJ.
Teehankee, En Banc]; Quisumbing v. Sandiganbayan (Fifth
Division), 591 Phil. 633; 571 SCRA 7 (2008) [Per J. Carpio-
Morales, Second Division]; Samahang Manggagawa ng Rizal
Park v. NLRC, G.R. No. 94372, June 21, 1991, 198 SCRA 480
[Per J. Cruz, First Division]; Republic v. Sandiganbayan,
499 Phil. 138; 460 SCRA 146 (2005) [Per J. Sandoval-
Gutierrez, Third Division]; Philippine Coconut Producers
Federation, Inc. (COCOFED) v. Presidential Commission on
Good Government, 258-A Phil. 1; 178 SCRA 236 (1989) [Per
J. Narvasa, En Banc]; Cuenca v. Presidential Commission on
Good Government, 561 Phil. 235; 535 SCRA 102 (2007) [Per
J. Velasco, Jr., Second Division]; Romualdez v. RTC, Br. 7,
Tacloban City, G.R. No. 104960, September 14, 1993, 226
SCRA 408 [Per J. Vitug, En Banc]; Sison v. People, 320 Phil.
112; 250 SCRA 58 (1995) [Per J. Puno, Second Division];
Philippine Overseas Telecommunications Corporation
(POTC) v. Africa, G.R. No. 184622, July 3, 2013, 700 SCRA
453 [Per J. Bersamin, First Division]; Vinzons-Magana v.
Estrella, 278 Phil. 544; 201 SCRA 536 (1991) [Per J. Paras,
En Banc]; Republic v. Sandiganbayan (First Division), 310
Phil. 402; 240 SCRA 379 (1995) [Per CJ. Narvasa, En Banc];
Secretary of Finance v. Ilarde, 497 Phil. 544; 458 SCRA 218
(2005) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, En Banc].
81 CJ. Teehankee, Concurring Opinion in Bataan

Shipyard & Engineering Co., Inc. v. Presidential Commission
on Good Government, 234 Phil. 180, 238-249; 150 SCRA 181,
241-252 (1987) [Per J. Narvasa, En Banc]; J. Bersamin,
Concurring Opinion in Republic v. Cojuangco, Jr., 689 Phil.
149, 173-179; 674 SCRA 492, 509-516 (2012) [Per J. Abad,
En Banc]; CJ. Teehankee, Concurring Opinion in Tuason v.
Register of Deeds, Caloocan City, 241 Phil. 650, 663-665; 157
SCRA 613, 623-625 (1988) [Per J. Narvasa, En Banc]; J.
Kapunan, Dissenting Opinion in Lacson v. Perez, supra note
79 at pp. 95-107; pp. 767-779; J. Teehankee, Concurring
Opinion in Agcaoili v. Enrile, 226 Phil. 611, 622-624; 142
SCRA 714, 724-727 (1986) [Per J. Narvasa, En Banc]; J.
Cruz, Dissenting Opinion in Development Bank of the
Philippines v. Pundogar, G.R. No. 96921, January 29, 1993,
218 SCRA 118 [Per J. Romero, En Banc].

516

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
This Court has also declared that the amount of

US$658,175,373.60, in Swiss deposits under the
name of the Marcoses, was ill-gotten wealth that
should be forfeited in favor of the State.82
For instance, a powerful portrait of the
despotic power exercised by Marcos during
Martial Law was presented in Dizon v.
Eduardo:83
Senator Diokno passed away a year ago last

February 27th. He, together with the martyred
Senator Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino Jr. were the first
victims of martial law imposed in September 1972 by
then President Ferdinand E. Marcos, destroying in
one fell swoop the Philippines’ 75 years of stable
democratic traditions and established reputation as
the showcase of democracy in Asia. They were the
first to be arrested in the dark of the night of
September 22, 1972, as the military authorities
spread out through the metropolis upon orders of the
President-turned-dictator to lock up the opposition
together with newspaper editors, journalists and
columnists and detain them at various army camps.
What was the martial law government’s justification
for the arrest and detention of Diokno and Aquino?
The government’s return to their petitions for habeas
corpus claimed that they were “regarded as
participants or as having given aid and comfort ‘in the
conspiracy to seize political and state power and to
take over the government by force.’” The fact is that
they just happened to be the foremost contenders for
the Presidency of the Republic in the scheduled
November 1973 presidential elections, at which time
Mr. Marcos would have finished his second 4-year
term and barred under the prevailing 1935
Constitution from running for a third term. . . .

. . . .

Senator Ninoy Aquino underwent an even more
tortuous ordeal. He was charged on August 11, 1973
with murder, subversion and illegal possession of
firearms and found guilty and sentenced to death by a
military commission, notwithstanding his being a
civilian and the fact that said general offenses were
allegedly committed before the imposition of martial
law, and could not fall within the jurisdiction of

military commissions, which are not courts but mere
ad-
_______________
82 Memorandum (G.R. No. 225973), p. 98, citing Republic

v. Sandiganbayan, supra note 77.
83 242 Phil. 200; 158 SCRA 470 (1988) [Per J.
Teehankee, En Banc].

517
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 517

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
juncts of the Commander-in-Chief to enforce military

discipline. Mr. Marcos had publicly pronounced the
evidence against Ninoy as “not only strong but
overwhelming” in a nationwide press conference on
August 24, 1971 following the Plaza Miranda bombing
three days earlier of the LP proclamation meeting, yet
had not charged him before the civil courts. Ninoy had
contended correctly but in vain that he had been
publicly indicted and his guilt prejudged by Mr.
Marcos, and he could not possibly get due process and
a fair trial before a group of Mr. Marcos’ military
subordinates[.]84

In Mijares v. Ranada,85 despite the passing of
years, this Court acknowledged the continuing
difficulties caused by the dark years of the
Marcos regime:
Our martial law experience bore strange unwanted

fruits, and we have yet to finish weeding out its bitter
crop. While the restoration of freedom and the
fundamental structures and processes of democracy
have been much lauded, according to a significant
number, the changes, however, have not sufficiently
healed the colossal damage wrought under the
oppressive conditions of the martial law period. The
cries of justice for the tortured, the murdered, and the
desaparecidos arouse outrage and sympathy in the
hearts of the fairminded, yet the dispensation of the
appropriate relief due them cannot be extended
through the same caprice or whim that characterized
the ill wind of martial rule. The damage done was not
merely personal but institutional, and the proper
rebuke to the iniquitous past has to involve the award
of reparations due within the confines of the restored
rule of law.
The petitioners in this case are prominent victims
of human rights violations who, deprived of the
opportunity to directly confront the man who once
held absolute rule over this country, have chosen to do
battle instead with the earthly representative, his
estate[.]86
_______________
84 Id., at pp. 202-204; pp. 475-477.

85 495 Phil. 372; 455 SCRA 397 (2005) [Per J. Tinga,
Second Division].
86 Id., at p. 375; pp. 399-400.

518

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
In Presidential Commission on Good

Government v. Peña,87 this Court recognized the
gargantuan task of the Philippine Commission
on Good Governance in recovering the ill-gotten
wealth of the Marcoses and the “organized
pillage” of his regime:
Having been charged with the herculean task of

bailing the country out of the financial bankruptcy
and morass of the previous regime and returning to
the people what is rightfully theirs, the Commission
could ill afford to be impeded or restrained in the
performance of its functions by writs or injunctions
emanating from tribunals coequal to it and inferior to
this Court. Public policy dictates that the Commission
be not embroiled in and swamped by legal suits before
inferior courts all over the land, since the loss of time
and energy required to defend against such suits
would defeat the very purpose of its creation.

. . . .

The rationale of the exclusivity of such jurisdiction
is readily understood. Given the magnitude of the
past regime’s ‘organized pillage’ and the ingenuity of
the plunderers and pillagers with the assistance of the
experts and best legal minds available in the market,
it is a matter of sheer necessity to restrict access to
the lower courts, which would have tied into knots
and made impossible the Commission’s gigantic task
of recovering the plundered wealth of the nation,
whom the past regime in the process had saddled and
laid prostrate with a huge $27 billion foreign debt

that has since ballooned to $28.5 billion.88

The many martyrs produced by Martial Law
were recognized in Bisig ng Manggagawa sa
Concrete Aggregates, Inc. v. National Labor
Relations Commission:89
Hence, on June 17, 1953, Congress gave statutory

recognition to the right to strike when it enacted RA
875, otherwise known as the Industrial Peace Act. For
nearly two (2) decades, labor enjoyed the
_______________
87 Presidential Commission on Good Government v. Peña,

supra note 80.
88 Id., at pp. 106-107; pp. 565-566, 585.
89 G.R. No. 105090, September 16, 1993, 226 SCRA 499
[Per J. Puno, Second Division].

519
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 519

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
right to strike until it was prohibited on September

12, 1972 upon the declaration of martial law in the
country. The 14-year battle to end martial rule
produced many martyrs and foremost among them
were the radicals of the labor movement. It was not a
mere happenstance, therefore, that after the final
battle against martial rule was fought at EDSA in
1986, the new government treated labor with a

favored eye. Among those chosen by then President
Corazon C. Aquino to draft the 1987 Constitution
were recognized labor leaders like Eulogio Lerum,
Jose D. Calderon, Blas D. Ople and Jaime S. L. Tadeo.
These delegates helped craft into the 1987
Constitution its Article XIII entitled Social Justice
and Human Rights. For the first time in our
constitutional history, the fundamental law of our
land mandated the State to “. . . guarantee the rights
of all workers to self-organization, collective
bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted
activities, including the right to strike in accordance
with law.” This Constitutional imprimatur given to
the right to strike constitutes signal victory for labor.
Our Constitutions of 1935 and 1973 did not accord
constitutional status to the right to strike. Even the
liberal US Federal Constitution did not elevate the
right to strike to a constitutional level[.]90

Widespread “acts of torture, summary
execution, disappearance, arbitrary detention,
and numerous other atrocities” were also
recognized in other jurisdictions. In a class
action suit that served as a serious precedent for
other jurisdictions, the United States District
Court of Hawaii in In Re Estate of Marcos
Human Rights Litigation91 pronounced:
“Proclamation 1081 not only declared martial law, but

also set the stage for what plaintiffs alleged, and the
jury found, to be acts of torture, summary execution,
disappearance, arbitrary detention, and numerous
other atrocities for which the jury found MARCOS
personally responsible.

MARCOS gradually increased his own power to such

an extent that there were no limits to his orders of the
human rights violations suffered by plaintiffs in this
action. MARCOS promulgated General Order No. 1
which stated he was the Commander-in-Chief of the
Armed
_______________
90 Id., at pp. 511-512.

91 910 F. Supp. 1460 (D. Haw. 1995).

520

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Forces of the Philippines. The order also stated that

MARCOS was to govern the nation and direct the
operation of the entire Government, including all its
agencies and instrumentalities. By General Orders 2
and 2-A, signed by MARCOS immediately after
proclaiming martial law, MARCOS authorized the
arrest, by the military, of a long list of dissidents. By
General Order 3, MARCOS maintained, as captive,
the executive and judicial branches of all political
entities in the Philippines until otherwise ordered by
himself personally.

. . . .

Immediately after the declaration of martial law the
issuance of General Orders 1, 2, 2A, 3 and 3A caused
arrests of persons accused of subversion, apparently

because of their real or apparent opposition to the
MARCOS government. These arrests were made
pursuant to orders issued by the Secretary of Defense
Juan Ponce Enrile (‘ENRILE’) or MARCOS himself.

The arrest orders were means for detention of each of
the representatives of the plaintiff class as well as
each of the individual plaintiffs. During those
detentions the plaintiffs experienced human rights
violations including, but not limited to the following:
1. Beatings while blindfolded by punching,

kicking and hitting with the butts of rifles;

2. The ‘telephone’ where a detainee’s ears were
clapped simultaneously, producing a ringing
sound in the head;

3. Insertion of bullets between the fingers of a
detainee and squeezing the hand;

4. The ‘wet submarine,’ where a detainee’s
head was submerged in a toilet bowl full of
excrement;

5. The ‘water cure’ where a cloth was placed
over the detainee’s mouth and nose, and water
poured over it producing a drowning sensation;

6. The ‘dry submarine,’ where a plastic bag
was placed over the detainee’s head producing
suffocation;

7. Use of a detainee’s hands for putting out
lighted cigarettes;

8. Use of flat-irons on the soles of a detainee’s

feet;

9. Forcing a detainee while wet and naked to
sit before an air conditioner often while sitting
on a block of ice;

521
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 521

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
10. Injection of a clear substance into the body

of a detainee believed to be truth serum;

11. Stripping, sexually molesting and raping
female detainees; one male plaintiff testified he
was threatened with rape;

12. Electric shock where one electrode is
attached to the genitals of males or the breast of
females and another electrode to some other
part of the body, usually a finger, and electrical
energy produced from a military field telephone
is sent through the body;

13. Russian roulette; and

14. Solitary confinement while handcuffed or
tied to a bed.
All these forms of torture were used during ‘tactical

interrogation,’ attempting to elicit information from
detainees concerning opposition to the MARCOS
government. The more the detainees resisted,

whether purposefully or out of lack of knowledge, the
more serious the torture used.92

US$1.2 billion in exemplary damages, as well
as US$770 million in compensatory damages,
was awarded to the victims of the Marcos
regime.93 The federal appeals court upheld the
Decision of the Honolulu court and held the
estate of Marcos liable for the gross and massie
human rights abuses committed. In Hilao v.
Marcos,94 the United States 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals used the principle of “command
responsibility” for the violations committed by
the agents of a political leader, thus:
“The district court had jurisdiction over Hilao’s cause

of action. Hilao’s claims were neither barred by the
statute of limitations nor abated by Marcos’ death.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in
certifying the class. The challenged evidentiary
rulings of the district court were not in error. The
district court properly held Marcos liable for human
rights abuses which occurred and which he knew
about and failed to use his power to prevent. The jury
instruc-
_______________
92 Id., at pp. 4-5.

93 Rosales Memorandum, p. 104.
94 103 F. 3d 762 (9th Cir. 1996).

522

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
tions on the Torture Victim Protection Act and on

proximate cause were not erroneous. The award of
exemplary damages against the Estate was allowed
under Philippine law and the Estate’s due process
rights were not violated in either the determination of
those damages or of compensatory damages.”95

The Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland,
through the Decision dated December 10, 1997,96
affirmed the ruling of the District Attorney of
Zurich granting the Philippine government’s
request for transfer of funds held in multiple
accounts by various foreign foundations in Swiss
banks. This was transferred to an escrow
account.
Then, in Republic v. Sandiganbayan,97 this
Court declared that the funds were proven to
belong to the Marcos Family and were
consequently ill-gotten wealth:
We agree with petitioner that respondent Marcoses

made judicial admissions of their ownership of the
subject Swiss bank deposits in their answer, the
General Supplemental Agreements, Mrs. Marcos’
Manifestation and Constancia dated May 5, 1999, and
the Undertaking dated February 10, 1999. We take
note of the fact that the Associate Justices of the
Sandiganbayan were unanimous in holding that
respondents had made judicial admissions of their
ownership of the Swiss funds.
In their answer, aside from admitting the existence
of the subject funds, respondent likewise admitted
ownership thereof. Paragraph 22 of respondents’

answer stated:
22. Respondents specifically DENY

PARAGRAPH 23 insofar as it alleges that
respondents clandestinely stashed the country’s
wealth in Switzerland and hid the same under
layers and layers of foundations and corporate
entities for being false, the truth being that
respondents’ aforesaid properties were lawfully
acquired.
_______________
95 Id. as cited in Memorandum (G.R. No. 225973), p. 105.

96 Federal Office for Police Matters v. Aguamina Corp.,
1A.87/1994/err (Swiss Federal Court, 10 December 1997),
cited in Memorandum (G.R. No. 225973), p. 106.
97 Republic v. Sandiganbayan, supra note 76.

523
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 523

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
By qualifying their acquisition of the Swiss bank

deposits as lawful, respondents unwittingly admitted
their ownership thereof.

. . . .

Petitioner Republic presented not only a schedule
indicating the lawful income of the Marcos spouses
during their incumbency but also evidence that they
had huge deposits beyond such lawful income in Swiss

banks under the names of five different foundations.
We believe petitioner was able to establish the prima
facie presumption that the assets and properties
acquired by the Marcoses were manifestly and
patently disproportionate to their aggregate salaries
as public officials. Otherwise stated, petitioner
presented enough evidence to convince us that the
Marcoses had dollar deposits amounting to US$356
million representing the balance of the Swiss accounts
of the five foundations, an amount way, way beyond
their aggregate legitimate income of only $304,372.43
during their incumbency as government officials.
Considering, therefore, that the total amount of the
Swiss deposits was considerably out of proportion to
the known lawful income of the Marcoses, the
presumption that said dollar deposits were unlawfully
acquired was duly established.98 (Emphasis supplied)

This cursory review of our jurisprudence
relating to the consequences of the Marcos
regime establishes a climate of gross human
rights violations and unabated pillage of the
public coffers. It also reveals his direct
participation, leadership, and complicity.

IV

In Republic Act No. 10368, a legislative
determination was made regarding the gross
Marcos regime:
Section 2. Declaration of Policy.—. . . .


summary execution, torture, enforced or invol-
_______________
98 Id., at pp. 1131-1143; pp. 258-268.

524

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
untary disappearance and other gross human rights

violations committed during the regime of former
President Ferdinand E. Marcos covering the period
from September 21, 1972 to February 25, 1986 and
restore the victims’ honor and dignity. The State
under the Marcos regime.
Similarly, it is the obligation of the State to
acknowledge the sufferings and damages inflicted
upon persons whose properties or businesses were
forcibly taken over, sequestered or used, or those
whose professions were damaged and/or impaired, or
those whose freedom of movement was restricted,
and/or such other victims of the violations of the Bill
of Rights.
Section 17 even declares a conclusive

presumption as to particular victims and, at the
same time, recognizes the complicity of
Ferdinand E. Marcos:
Sec. 17. Conclusive Presumption That One is an

HRVV Under This Act.—The claimants in the class
suit and direct action plaintiffs in the Human Rights
Litigation Against the Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos
(MDL No. 840, CA No. 88-0390) in the US Federal
District Court of Honolulu, Hawaii wherein a
favorable judgment has been rendered, shall be
extended the conclusive presumption that they are
[victims of human rights violations]: Provided, That
the [victims of human rights violations] recognized by
the Bantayog Ng Mga Bayani Foundation shall also
be accorded the same conclusive presumption[.]

Conclusive presumptions are “inferences
which the law makes so peremptory that it will
not allow them to be overturned by any contrary
proof however strong.”99 Thus, the existence of
Marcos regime and the recognition of victims
explicitly stated in the provision cannot be
denied.
_______________
99 Mercado v. Santos and Daza, 66 Phil. 215, 222 (1938)

[Per J. Laurel, En Banc].

525
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 525

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
The human rights victims and the violations

under the Marcos regime are so numerous that
the legislature created a Human Rights Victims’
Claims Board, dedicated to effectively attain the
objectives of Republic Act No. 10368. The Board
is now adjudicating 75,730 claims of human
rights victims for reparation and/or recognition
under Republic Act No. 10368.100

V

Petitioner Algamar A. Latiph points out that
among the many gross human rights violations
perpetrated under the Marcos regime were those
inflicted on the Moro civilian population. These
atrocities were committed by government forces,
as well as by state-affiliated armed groups. The
more infamous of these are: (1) the Jabidah
Massacre, where government forces allegedly
executed at least 23 Muslim recruits;101 (2) the
Burning of Jolo, where the massive aerial and
naval bombardments and a ground offensive
against the MNLF forces resulted in the
destruction of two-thirds of Jolo and, thus,
thousands of refugees;102 (3) the Malisbong
Massacre, where paramilitary forces were
responsible for killing about 1,500 Moro men
and boys who were held in a local mosque and
killed, an unknown number of women and girls
were raped offshore on a naval vessel, and
around 300 houses were burned.103
Lesser known but equally deplorable
atrocities alleged to have been committed by
government forces during the Marcos regime
included the Tran Incident and the Tong

Umapuy Massacre. These were reported by the
Transitional Justice and Reconciliation
Commission:104
_______________
100 TSN, Oral Arguments, August 31, 2016, p. 206,

Statement of Chairperson Lina Castillo Sarmiento of the
Human Rights Victims’ Claims Board.
101 Report of the Transitional Justice and Reconciliation
Commission, p. 31
<http://www.tjrc.ph/skin/vii_tjrc/pdfs/report.pdf> (visited
November 7, 2016).
102 Id.
103 Id.
104 Id. The Transitional Justice and Reconciliaton
Commission was created through the GPH-MILF negotiation
process. It was mandated to undertake a study and, among
others, propose appropriate mechanism to address legitimate
grievances of the Bangsamoro People, as well as address
human rights violations.

526

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
The “Tran Incident” refers to a large-scale military

campaign against the MNLF in central Mindanao in
June-August 1973. In the Listening Process session,
participants spoke of the massacre of Moro civilians
from the Barangay Populacion in the town of
Kalamansig, Sultan Kudarat province by military

forces during that campaign. The soldiers separated
the men and women; the men were confined in a
military camp, interrogated, and tortured, while the
women with their children were taken aboard naval
vessels and raped. In the end, the men as well as the
women and children were killed. At a Listening
Process session in Tawi-Tawi, participants shared
their memory of what they called the “Tong Umapuy
massacre.” In 1983, a Philippine Navy ship allegedly
opened fire on a passenger boat and killed 57 persons
onboard. The passengers were reportedly on their way
to an athletic event in Bongao.105

As regards the atrocities committed by groups
that maintained ties with the government under
Marcos, the Transitional Justice and
Reconciliation Commission reports:
The campaign of the Ilaga in Mindanao in 1970-

1971 involved indiscriminate killings and burning of
houses with the intention of terrorizing and expelling
the Moro and indigenous population from their homes
and ancestral territories. Violent incidents took place
chronologically in a progressive fashion over a
widespread area, occurring among other places in Upi,
Maguindanao (March and September 1970); Polomok,
South Cotabato (August 1970); Alamada, Midsayap,
and Datu Piang, Cotabato (December 1970);
Bagumbayan and Alamada, Cotabato (January 1971);
Wao, Lanao del Sur (July and August 1971);
Ampatuan, Cotabato (August 1971); Kisolan,
Bukidnon (October 1971); Siay, Zamboanga del Sur
(November 1971); Ipil, Zamboanga del Sur (December
1971); and Palembang, South Cotabato (January
1972).
The armed bands of Christian paramilitaries,

primarily Ilongga settlers, that comprised the Ilaga,
maintained ties with state authorities, including local
and national politicians, the Philippine Constabulary,
and the military. In most cases, the paramilitaries
acted on their own initiative; on other occasions,
however, it is believed that their attacks were
conducted in close coordination with
_______________
105 Id., at p. 32.

527
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 527

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
government authorities. This was allegedly the

circumstance in the case of the mass killings of Moro
villagers that took place in a mosque and outlying
houses in a rural Barangay of Carmen, (North)
Cotabato on June 19, 1971. Known as the “Manili
massacre,” this event spurred the Moro armed
resistance and was one of the few incidents that
received attention in international media.

. . . .

. . . During the height of Ilaga atrocities, women’s
bodies were mutilated by cutting off their nipples and
breasts, ripping babies out of pregnant women’s
wombs, and disfiguring their reproductive organs. . . .
. . . [D]uring the TJRC Listening Process, there

were accounts of women being raped by Ilaga and
soldiers in front of their families or of women forced to
have sex with their husbands in front of and for the
amusement of soldiers. Many Moro women and young
girls who were abducted and raped were never seen
again; others were allowed to return home. According
to the TJRC Listening Process report, incidents of
sexual violence took place during the period of Martial
Law that amount to military sexual slavery.
. . . [B]etween 1972 and 1974, Ilaga and soldiers
alike made Bangsamoro women in Labangan and Ipil,
Sibugay become “sex slaves” of navy men, whose boat
was docked at Labangan and Ipil ports. For more than
a week, soldiers rounded up a group of at least ten
women from Labangan and forced them to the naval
boats to serve the “sexual needs” of the navy men. The
following day, they were released; only to be replaced
with another group of women, and so on. . . . More
than 200 women were [believed to be] enslaved in this
way.106

Petitioners also gave this Court their
firsthand accounts of the human rights
violations they suffered under the Marcos
regime. Petitioner Loretta Ann P. Rosales
recounted that she was raped and tortured with
the Russian roulette and a modified water cure,
among others:
_______________
106 Id., at pp. 31-37.

528

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
MRS. ROSALES:
My name is Loretta Ann P. Rosales. I am a

torture victim under the Marcos regime. I was
sexually molested and according to the latest Rape
Act, I was actually raped, that is the definition. I had
electric shock; I suffered from Russian roulette,
modified water cure and several other ways of
harassing me. So I’m a torture victim and so I
applied before the Claims Board compensation for
the violations committed by the Marcos regime
during my time.
CHIEF JUSTICE SERENO:
By Russian roulette, what is it, Ms. Rosales?
MRS. ROSALES:
They had a gun and they threatened me to answer

the questions otherwise they would shoot. So that
was a psywar. So I said if I would give in to them,
they’ll shoot me then they won’t . . . then they won’t
be able to get confession from me cause I’ll be dead
by then. So that was all psywar so I just kept on with
my position and they finally gave up. So they went
into other methods of torture in order to try to draw
confession, exact confession from me. And the worst
part, of course, was that sexual molestation and
electric shock and the modified water cure.
How long did these incidents transpire, the entire

duration? You don’t have to count the number of
days . . . (interrupted)
MRS. ROSALES:
No, no, in fact, I don’t know. I mean it was just a

continuing thing like twenty-four (24) hours
continuing torture. There was no sleeping, there was
no eating. It just went on and on because until . . .
such time, it was after the electric shock I suffered
. . . I was traumatized, physically traumatized so I
couldn’t control the tremor in my body and they
finally stop[ped]. I pretended I was dying but they
knew I wasn’t dying. So that’s all psywar throughout.
Anyway, after the electric part, which was the worst
part, that was the last part, they finally pushed me
and put me somewhere and I don’t know how long
that took.107

Her sister, petitioner Ma. Cristina Pargas
Bawagan, testified that she was beaten, raped,
and sexually abused:
_______________
107 TSN, Oral Arguments, August 31, 2016, pp. 200-201.

529
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 529

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
MS. BAWAGAN:
I am Ma. Cristina Pargas Bawagan. I am the

sister of Etta. I was arrested May 27, 1981 in Munoz,
Nueva Ecija on charges of possession of subversive
documents. There was no arrest order; I was simply
arrested, handcuffed and blindfolded, my mouth
gagged then they brought me to a safe house. And in
the safe house they started interrogating and
torturing me and they hit on my thighs until my
thighs turned black and blue; and they also
threatened me with so many things, pinompyang
ako, that’s what they call sa ears and then they put a
sharp object over my breast, etcetera. They tore my
dress and then eventually they let me lay down to
sleep but then early in the morning the two soldiers
who stayed near me started torturing me again and
by today’s definition, it is rape because they fondled
my breast and they inserted a long object into my
vagina and although I screamed and screamed with
all my might, no one seemed to hear except that I
heard the train pass by . . .108

Petitioner Hilda Narciso testified that she
was raped and sexually abused:
MS. NARCISO:
I am Hilda Narciso. I was incarcerated in Davao

City in 1983. It was a rape, multiple rape that I have
undergone through my captures. I was placed in a
safe house where the militaries are safe and I was
actually being sexually abused for about two days.
It’s quite difficult to me in the hands of the militaries
because I was handcuffed, blindfolded and actually
they have mashed all my body. And . . . (At this
juncture, Ms. Narciso is already in tears) they
handcuffed me and then a lot of hands were all over
my body and they also put their penises one at a time
on my mouth, finger your vagina and all that for

several hours without . . . you have been even taken
your food. Actually it was quite a long period of time
under the safe house for about two days with all
those kinds of process that I have gone through . . .109

Petitioner Liwayway Arce testified that
during the Marcos regime, her father was killed,
and her mother was tortured and sexually
abused:
_______________
108 Id., at pp. 203-204.

109 Id., at p. 203.

530

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
MS. ARCE:
I’m Liwayway Arce, Your Honors. I’m the

daughter of Merardo Tuazon-Arce; he was a UP
student and he founded Panday Sining, which was a
cultural group. Later on he fought for his beliefs and
on February 5, 1985, he was gunned down in Mabolo
Street in Cebu City. In 2005, he was heralded as one
of the martyrs at the Bantayog ng mga Bayani
Foundation and his name is inscribed also together
with two hundred sixty plus martyrs and heroes in
Bantayog ng mga Bayani. I am a claimant-

beneficiary under the Republic Act 10368. And my
mother is also a claimant; she was incarcerated also
in a camp in Fort Bonifacio. I don’t really know much
details about my parents because I was not raised by
them and there are many other beneficiaries like me
who were orphaned. My mother is still alive but she
was also . . . she also undergone . . . she underwent
torture and sexual abuse and I hope my sister is not
listening right now because she does not know this.
Thank you.110

Petitioner Atty. Neri Colmenares recounted
having lost four (4) years of his life as a young
student leader to imprisonment, during which
various forms of torture were used on him:
ATTY. COLMENARES:
And for the record, Your Honor, I’m also

conclusively presumed under the law as a human
rights victim being in the Hawaii case for my torture
of seven days and four years of imprisonment when I
was eighteen years old, Your Honor. Thank You.
You were eighteen years old. You were a student

leader at that time, Congressman . . . ?
ATTY. COLMENARES:
Yes, I was the chairman of the student catholic

action and we were demanding the return of student
council and student papers when I was arrested. And
I was tortured, Your Honor, the usual, they . . .
cigarette butts, the electric shocks, the M16 bullets
in between your fingers, the Russian roulette and so
on, Your Honor. So under the law, human rights

victims who are in Hawaii, the Hawaii
_______________
110 Id.

531
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 531

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
case are conclusively presumed to be human rights

violation victims Your Honor.111

Petitioner Trinidad Herrera Repuno testified
that she was a member of the informal settlers’
sector and was also a victim of torture:
Magandang hapon po sa inyong lahat mga

Justices. Ako po si Trinidad Herrera Repuno. Ako ay
isang biktima ng kapanahunan ng martial law. Ako
po ay isang leader ng organisasyon ng mga mahirap
sa Tondo. Ang pinaglalaban po namin ay merong
batas para doon sa magkaroon kami ng lupa at yung
iba pang mga karapatan namin. Subalit noong
nagdeklara si Marcos ng martial law, nawala ho lahat
ng saysay iyon. . . . Ako po’y isa sa mga judges na
pupunta sana sa international competition para
architectural competition sa Vancouver para doon sa
pabahayan na gagawin dito sa Pilipinas. Subalit
hindi po ako binigyan nang pagkakataon na
makaalis. Sa halip na ako’y makaalis, ako po ay
hinuli noong April 27, 1977 at ako’y dinala dooon sa

. . . ang humuli ho sa akin intelligence ng Manila
Police. At ako’y kinahapunan tinurn-over sa Crame sa
pangunguna po ni Eduardo Matillano. Nang ako’y
napasok doon sa maliit na kuwarto, ako’y tinanong
kung ano ang pangalan ko, sinabi ko ang pangalan ko
at ako’y . . . pinaalis ang aking sapatos, pinaalis lahat
iyong aking bag at sinabi sa akin na tumayo ako.
Merong parang telepono doon sa may lamesa na
meroong kuryente. Iyon po ang inilagay dito sa aking
dalawang daliri at inumpisahan ho nila akong
tinatanong kung sinu-sino ang nalalaman ko. Ang
alam ko lang ho ang pinaglalaban namin, na
karapatan namin para sa aming mga maralita.
Subalit hindi naniniwala si Matillano at sinasabi nya
na meron akong kinalaman sa mga kumunista na
wala naman akong kinalaman. Iyon ang pinipilit po
nila hanggang dumudugo na po ang dalawang daliri
ko dito sa . . . iyong mga malalaking daliri ko,
tumutulo na po ang dugo, hindi pa ho nila
tinatantanan. Mamaya-maya nang hindi na po nila
naanuhan, pinaalis ho ang aking blusa at iyong wire
po inilagay po dito sa aking dalawang suso at muli
inulit-ulit pagtuturn po nang parang telepono
pumapasok po ang kuryente sa katawan ko na hindi
ko na ho nakakayanan hanggang sa ako y sumigaw
nang sumigaw subalit wala naman hong nakakarinig
sapagkat maliit na kwarto, nilagyan pa ho ng tubig
iyong sahig para
_______________
111 Id., at pp. 208-209.

532

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
iyong kuryente lalong pumasok sa aking katawan. . .

Nairelease po ako subalit nanghina po ako hanggang
sa ngayon. Nang ako’y medyo may edad na
nararamdaman ko na ho iyong mga pampahirap,
iyong pukpok dito sa likod ko habang ako’y inaano,
lagi po nilang. . . pagkatapos nang pagpaikot ng
kuryente, pukpukin ho ako dito sa likod. Sabi nya
pampalakas daw iyon. Pero masakit na masakit po
talaga hanggang sa ngayon nararamdaman po namin
ngayon ang ano. Kaya ako, sumama ako sa U.S. para
ako’y tumestigo laban kay Marcos[.]112

Petitioner Carmencita Florentino, also from
the informal settlers’ sector, testified as to her
forcible abduction, torture, and detention:
Magandang hapon po sa inyo. Ako po si

Carmencita Florentino. Isa po akong leader ng urban
poor. Ipinaglalaban namin iyong karapatan namin sa
paninirahan doon na expropriation law. April 1977 po
dumating po iyong mga Metrocom may mga
kasamang pulis ng Quezon City may mga armalite po
sila, sapilitan po nila . . . marami po sila, siguro hindi
lang isang daan. Pinasok po nang sapilitan iyong
bahay namin, kasalukuyan po alas syete ng gabi. . . .
Niransack po iyong bahay namin pagkatapos
kinaladkad po iyong asawa ko. Iyong anak ko po na
siyam na taong babae na nag-iisa. Aka po, halos
nahubaran na ako dahil pinipilit po akong arestuhin,
kaming mag-asawa . . . At sinasabing ako’y leader ng
komunista na hindi ko naman po naiintindihan iyon.
Ang alam ko po pinaglalaban lang namin karapatan
namin sa paninirahan sa Barangay Tatalon.

Sapilitan po halos napunit na po iyong damit ko.
Ibinalibag ako doon sa . . . palabas po ng pinto dahil
hinahabol ko iyong asawa ko na hinampas po ng
armalite nung mga Metrocom na iyon. Tumama po
ang likod ko sa pintuan namin, iyong kanto namin na
halos mapilay na po ako. Pagkatapos po dinala kami
sa Camp Crame, iyong asawa ko hindi ko na po
nakita. Iyong anak ko nasa custody daw ng mga
sundalo. Ako pinaglipat-lipat kung saan saan doon ‘di
ko na matandaan e, may ESV, JAGO, na
iniinterrogate ako, tinatanong sino iyong pinuno, sino
iyong pinuno namin. Hindi ko po alam, wala akong
maisagot. Kaya po sa pagkakataon na iyon, tumutulo
na po iyong, akala ko po sipon lang, dugo na pala ang
lumalabas sa bibig ko saka sa ilong ko po dahil, hindi
ko alam kung anong nangyari do-
_______________
112 Id., at pp. 209-211.

533
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 533

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
on sa siyam na taong anak ko na babae, nahiwalay sa

akin. Masyado po ang pahirap na ginawa nila doon,
na kulang na lang na ma-rape ako. Inaasa ko na lang
po ang aking sarili sa Panginoong Diyos kung
anuman ang mangyari sa akin, tatanggapin ko na.
Pero iyong anak ko, iyong babae, hindi ko siya makita,
dahil ako nakabukod, bukod-bukod kami. Natawanan
ko iyong aking mga officer, buntis ho, ikinulong din

pala. Kaya sobra ho ang hirap na inabot namin noong
panahon ng martial law, na masyado na kaming . . .
hanggang ngayon taglay ko pa rin po . . . sa baga ko
may pilat, hindi nawawala, sinusumpong po
paminsan minsan lalo pa nga pag naalala ko ang
ganito na iniinterview kami kung maaari ayaw ko
nang magpainterview dahil ano po e mahirap,
napakasakit pong tanggapin. Pinalaya po kami
pansamantala ng anak ko, nagkita kami ng anak ko.
Isang buwan po kami sa Camp Crame, pansamantala
pinalaya kaming mag-ina dahil sa humanitarian daw
po pero binabantayan pa rin kami sa bahay namin,
hindi kami makalayong mag-ina. At tuwing Sabado
nagrereport po kami dyan sa Camp Crame. Ang
asawa ko po nakakulong sa Bicutan kasama po nila
Ka Trining. Hanggang ngayon po trauma na rin po
iyong anak ko kahit nga po may pamilya na ayaw
nang tumira dito sa Pilipinas dahil baka po makulong
uli kami. Iyon lang po.113

Petitioner Felix Dalisay testified as to the
lifelong trauma of the Martial Law years:
Magandang hapon po sa ating lahat. Felix Dalisay

po, 64 years old. Sapilitan po akong hinuli, kinulong
ng mga panahon ng Martial Law sometime ‘73, ‘74.
Almost, kung tututalin po lahat nang pagkakakulong
ko hindi naman tuloy-tuloy, almost three years po. ...
Sa Kampo Crame po sa panahon ng interrogation,
nakaranas po ako nang ibat-ibang klase nang
pagmaltrato. Nandyan po iyong pagka hindi maganda
ang sagot mo sa mga tanong nila, nakakatanggap po
ako ng karate chop, mga suntok po sa tagiliran na
alam nyo naman ang katawan ko maliit lang noong
araw, ang pakiramdam ko e bale na ata iyong
tadyang ko rito e. Andyan rin po iyong ipitan nang
bala ng 45 ang kamay mo, didiinan ng ganyan po.

Meron din pong mga suntok sa iba’t ibang parte ng
katawan. May pagkakataon po na minsan
natadyakan po ako, tinadyakan po ako, bumagsak sa
isang
_______________
113 Id., at pp. 208-212.

534

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
parting mabato kaya hanggang ngayon po may pilat

po ako dito. Ang pinakamabigat po kasi na nangyari
sa akin sa panahon nang interrogation, kung minsan
kasi kami pag ka iniinterrogate hindi na ho namin
matiis ang mga sakit so nakakapagsalita kami nang
mga taong nakasama namin. So, noong panahon po
na iyon, gabi noon, so may mga nabanggit ako during
interrogation ng mga tao na mga nakasama ko so
niraid po namin iyon, sinamahan ko sila. E marahil
siguro iyong mga dati kong kasama e nabalitaang
nahuli na ako, nagtakbuhan na po siguro so wala
kaming inabot. Ang mabigat na parte po noon galit na
galit ang mga sundalo ng FIFSEC po iyon. Ang
FIFSEC po Fifth Constabulary Security iyon e pinaka
notorious na torturer noong panahon ng Martial Law,
marami po iyan. So ang pinakamabigat po roon kasi
sa totoo po ngayon mabuti pa iyong LALU victim may
mga counseling pero kami po ang mga biktima
(crying) hanggang ngayon po wala pa ho kaming

natatanggap (sniffiing) maski hustisya, mga
counseling na yan. At ang masakit sa akin ako po
nagiging emotional po ako hindi lang po sa sarili ko. .
. . Marami pa pong mga biktima dyan ma’am na
talagang maaawa ka. Grabe po. Iyong sa akin po ang
pinaka matindi po akala ko isasalvage na po ako.
Dinala po ako sa isang madilim na lugar dyan sa
Libis, Quezon City sa Eastwood, noong panahon pong
iyun medyo gubatan po iyun pinaihi kami sabi naiihi
ako nakarinig na lang po ako ng putok sa kaliwang
bahagi ng tenga ko. Akala ko patay na ako. Tapos mga
pompyang, pompyang po na iyan pag sinabi pong
pompyang na mga ganyan. Hanggang ngayon po sa
totoo po humina po ang aking pandinig. Hindi naman
ako tuluyang nabingi, mahina po kaya pagka may
tumatawag sa akin sa cellphone sabi ko pakitext mo
na lang, naulinigan ko ang boses nyo pero ahhh hindi
ko maintindihan. So pakiusap lang sana sa totoo lang
po Ma’am dito maaring nagsasabi ang iba forget
about the past ilibing na natin yan dyan. Sa amin
pong mga naging biktima. Hindi po ganun kadali
iyon. Ang trauma po hanggang ngayon dala-dala
namin. Tuwing maaalala namin ang sinapit namin,
naiiyak kami, naaawa kami sa sarili namin. Tapos
ngayon sasabihin nila forget about the past. Paano
kaming mga naging biktima. Hanggang ngayon nga
wala pa kaming katarungan e. Andyan nga may Ten
Billion, ang human rights . . . mga nauna naman yan
e. Hindi ba nirecover natin yan. Tapos ngayon ang
sasabihin nila Marcos is a hero. No, hindi po. Hindi
po matatapos yan. So hanggang doon na lang po,
sana. Sana po pagbigyan nyo kami. Dahil kami sa
parte ng mga biktima payagan man ng Supreme
Court na ilibing yan di-

535
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 535

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
yan, di po kami titigil sa pakikipaglaban namin

sapagkat kami nagkaranas nang lupit ng Martial Law
hanggang, habang buhay po naming dala yan.
Salamat po.114

All these accounts occurred during the
Marcos regime. By no stretch of the imagination,
then, can Ferdinand E. Marcos’ memory serve as
an inspiration, to be emulated by generations of
Filipinos.

VI

Contemporarily, even the National Historical
Commission took a clear position against the
interment of Ferdinand E. Marcos at the
The National Historical Commission was
established by law as “the primary government
agency responsible for history”115 given the
mandate “to determine all factual matters
relating to official Philippine history.”116
Among others, it is given the task to:
(a) conduct and support all kinds of research

relating to Philippine national and local history;

(b) develop educational materials in various media,
implement historical educational activities for the
popularization of Philippine history, and disseminate

information regarding Philippine historical events,
dates, places and personages;

(c) undertake and prescribe the manner of
restoration, conservation and protection of the
country’s historical movable and immovable objects;

(d) manage, maintain and administer national
shrines, monuments, historical sites, edifices and
landmarks of significant historico-cultural value; and
_______________
114 Id., at pp. 214-215.

115 Rep. Act No. 10386, Sec. 5.
116 Id.

536

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
(e) actively engage in the settlement or resolution of

controversies or issues relative to historical
personages, places, dates and events.117

The National Historical Commission’s Board
is given the power to “discuss and resolve, with
finality, issues or conflicts on Philippine
History.”118 The Chair of the National Historical
Commission is mandated to “advise the
President and Congress on matters relating to

Philippine history.”119
In these statutory capacities, the National
Historical Commission published its study
entitled “Why Ferdinand Marcos Should not be
Buried at the Libingan ng mga Bayani” on July
12, 2016.120
The study was based on the declassified
documents in the Philippine Archives Collection
of the United States National Archives/National
Archives and Records Administration and the
websites of pertinent United States government
agencies and some officially sanctioned
biographies of Ferdinand E. Marcos. It
concluded that:
“With regard to Mr. Marcos’ war medals, we have

established that Mr. Marcos did not receive, as the
wartime history of the Ang Mga Maharlika and
Marcos’ authorized biography claim, the
Distinguished Service Cross, the Silver Medal, and
the Order of the Purple Heart. In the hierarchy of
primary sources, official biographies and memoirs do
not rank at the top and are never taken at face value
because of their self-serving orientation, as it is
abundantly palpable in Mr. Marcos’ sanctioned
biographies. In a leader’s earnestness to project
himself to present and succeeding generations as
strong and heroic, personally authorized accounts
tend to suffer from a shortage of facts and a bounty of
embellishment.”

“With respect to Mr. Marcos’ guerilla unit, the Ang
Mga Maharlika was never recognized during the war
and neither was Mr. Marcos’ leadership of it. Note
that other guerilla units in northern Luzon were
recognized, such as:
_______________
117 Id.
118 Id., Sec. 7(h).
119 Id., Sec. 13.
120 Supra note 29.

537
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 537

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
103rd Regiment, East Central Luzon

Pangasinan Anti-Crime Service, Pangasinan
Military Area, LGAF

100th Bn/100th Inf. Regiment LGAFA

Southern Pangasinan Guerilla Forces (Gonzalo
C. Mendoza Commander).
“Furthermore, grave doubts expressed in the military

records about Mr. Marcos’ actions and character as a
soldier do not provide sound, unassailable basis for
the recognition of a soldier who deserves to be buried
at the LNMB.

“On these grounds, coupled with Mr. Marcos’ lies
about his medals, the NATIONAL HISTORICAL
COMMISSION OF THE PHILIPPINES opposes the
plan to bury Mr. Marcos at the Libingan ng mga
Bayani.”121

The Court’s findings in a catena of cases in its
jurisprudence, a legislative determination in
Republic Act No. 10368, the findings of the
National Historical Commission, and the actual
testimony of petitioners during the Oral
Arguments clearly show that the life of
Ferdinand E. Marcos either as President or as a
soldier is bereft of inspiration. Ferdinand E.
Marcos should not be the subject of emulation of
this generation, or of generations yet to come.

VII

Assuming without accepting that Republic
Act No. 289 authorized public respondents to
determine who has led a life worthy of
“inspiration and emulation,” and assuming
further that it was under this authority that
they directed Ferdinand E. Marcos’ interment,
the President’s verbal orders, the Lorenzana
Memorandum, and the Enriquez Orders were
still issued with grave abuse of discretion
because they were whimsical and capricious.
Considering the state of existing law and
jurisprudence as well as the findings of the
National Historical Commission, there was no
showing
_______________
121 Id., at p. 24.

538

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
that respondents conducted any evaluation

process to determine whether Ferdinand E.
Marcos deserved to be buried at the Libingan ng
mga Bayani.
Respondents’ actions were based upon the
President’s verbal orders, devoid of any
assessment of fact that would overcome what
had already been established by law and
jurisprudence.
The Solicitor General can only state that:
41. During the campaign period leading to the

May 2016 elections, President Duterte, then only a
candidate to the highest executive post in the land,
openly expressed his desire to have the remains of
former President Marcos interred at the Libingan.
42. On 9 May 2016, more than 16 million voters
elected President Duterte to the position.
43. True to his campaign promise of unifying the
nation, President Duterte gave verbal orders on 11
July 2016 to Defense Secretary Lorenzana to effect
the interment of the remains of former President
Marcos at the Libingan.
44. On 7 August 2016, and pursuant to the verbal
orders of the President, Defense Secretary Lorenzana
issued a Memorandum addressed to AFP Chief of
Staff General Ricardo R. Visaya informing him of the
verbal orders of the President, and for this purpose, to
“undertake the necessary planning and preparations
to facilitate the coordination of all agencies concerned
specially the provisions for ceremonial and security
requirements.”
45. In the same Memorandum, Defense Secretary

Lorenzana tasked the PVAO as the “OPR” (Office of
Primary Responsibility) for the interment of the
remains of former President Marcos, as the Libingan
is under the PVAO’s supervision and administration.
Defense Secretary Lorenzana likewise directed the
Administrator of the PVAO to designate the focal
person for and overseer of the event.
46. On 9 August 2016, Rear Admiral Ernesto
Enriquez, by command of General Visaya, issued a
Directive to the Commanding

539
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 539

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
General of the Philippine Army to prepare a grave for

former President Marcos at the Libingan.122

President Duterte himself publicly admitted
that Ferdinand E. Marcos was no hero.123 This
much was also admitted by the Solicitor
General:124
Honorable Chief Justice and Associate Justices: At

this moment in our history, I recall a scene from
Julius Caesar where Marc Anthony spoke to his
countrymen: “I come to bury Caesar, not to praise
him, The evil that men do lives after them, the good
is oft interred in their bones.” Inspired by these lines,
I now come to your honors to allow the State to bury
the remains of former President Ferdinand Marcos

at the Libingan ng mga Bayani, not to honor him as
a hero even if by military standards he is. But to
accord him the simple mortuary rites befitting a
former president, commander-in-chief, war veteran
and soldier.125

The capriciousness of the decision to have him
buried at the Libingan ng mga Bayani is
obvious, considering how abhorrent the
atrocities during Martial Law had been.
Likewise, the effects of the Marcos regime on
modern Philippine history are likewise too
pervasive to be overlooked.
The Filipino People themselves deemed
Marcos an unfit President and discharged him
from office through a direct exercise of their
sovereign power. This has been repeatedly
recognized by this Court.
_______________
122 OSG Memorandum, pp. 19-20.

123 Hegina, Aries Joseph, Duterte won’t change mind on
hero’s burial for Marcos, Inquirer.Net, May 26, 2016
<http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/787590/duterte-wont-change-
mind-on-heros-burialfor-marcos#ixzz4IQcNtc8X> (visited
November 7, 2016).
Nicolas, Fiona, Duterte defends hero’s burial for Marcos: A
matter of enforcing the law, CNN Philippines, August 18,
2016 <http://cnnphilippines.com/news/2016/08/18/duterte-
defends-marcos-heros-burial-libingan-ng-mga-bayani-
enforcing-law.html> (visited November 7, 2016).
124 TSN, Oral Arguments, September 7, 2016, pp. 8 and
93.
125 Id., at p. 8.

540

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
In Lawyers League for a Better Philippines v.

Aquino:126
The three petitions obviously are not impressed

with merit. Petitioners have no personality to sue and
their petitions state no cause of action. For the
legitimacy of the Aquino government is not a
justiciable matter. It belongs to the realm of politics
where only the people of the Philippines are the judge.
And the people have made the judgment; they have
accepted the government of President Corazon C.
Aquino which is in effective control of the entire
country so that it is not merely a de facto government
but is in fact and law a de jure government. Moreover,
the community of nations has recognized the
legitimacy of the present government. All the eleven
members of this Court, as reorganized, have sworn to
uphold the fundamental law of the Republic under her
government.

Moreover, the sentiment of the sovereign
People, reacting to the blight that was the
Marcos dictatorship, was enunciated in
Proclamation No. 3:
WHEREAS, the new government was installed

through a direct exercise of the power of the Filipino
people assisted by units of the New Armed Forces of

the Philippines;
WHEREAS, the heroic action of the people was
done in defiance of the provisions of the 1973
Constitution, as amended;
WHEREAS, the direct mandate of the people as
manifested by their extraordinary action demands the
complete reorganization of the government,
restoration of democracy, protection of basic rights,
rebuilding of confidence in the entire governmental
system, eradication of graft and corruption,
restoration of peace and order, maintenance of the
supremacy of civilian authority over the military, and
the transition to a government under a New
Constitution in the shortest time possible.

Further, in articulating the mandate of the
People, Article 2, Section 1 of Proclamation No. 3
enumerated the many evils perpetuated during
_______________
126 G.R. No. 73748, May 22, 1986, as cited in In Re:

Saturnino V. Bermudez, 229 Phil. 185, 188; 145 SCRA 160,
163 (1986) [Per Curiam, En Banc].

541
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 541

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
the Marcos regime, which the new government

would be charged to dismantle:

Article II
The President, the Vice President, and the Cabinet

SECTION 1. Until a legislature is elected and
convened under a new Constitution, the President
shall continue to exercise legislative power.
The President shall give priority to measures to
achieve the mandate of the people to:
a) Completely reorganize the government and
eradicate unjust and oppressive structures, and
all iniquitous vestiges of the previous regime;
b) Make effective the guarantees of civil, political,
human, social, economic and cultural rights and
freedoms of the Filipino people, and provide
remedies against violations thereof;
c) Rehabilitate the economy and promote the
nationalist aspirations of the people;
d) Recover ill-gotten properties amassed by the
leaders and supporters of the previous regime
and protect the interest of the people through
orders of sequestration or freezing of assets of
accounts;
e) Eradicate graft and corruption in government
and punish those guilty thereof; and
f) Restore peace and order, settle the problem of
insurgency, and pursue national reconciliation
based on justice.

Public respondents neglect to examine the
entirety of Ferdinand E. Marcos’ life, despite the
notoriety of his latter years. The willful
ignorance of the pronouncements from all three
branches of government and of the judgment of
the People themselves can only be characterized
as so arbitrary and whimsical as to constitute

grave abuse of discretion.

VIII

Republic Act No. 10368, otherwise known as
the Human Rights Victims Reparation and
Recognition Act of 2013, contains a legislative

542

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
finding that gross human rights violations were

committed during the Marcos regime. It provides
for both the recognition of the sufferings of
human rights victims as well as the provision for
effective remedies.
Recognition of human rights and of the goal of
achieving social justice is a primordial shift in
our constitutional order. This shift was
occasioned by the experiences of our society
during Martial Law. This is evident in some
discussions in the Constitutional Convention.
Commissioner Edmundo Garcia, speaking on
the necessity of a Commission on Human Rights,
emphasized:
Precisely, one of the reasons why it is important for

this body to be constitutionalized is the fact that
regardless of who is the President or who holds the
executive power, the human rights issue is of such
importance that it should be safeguarded and it
should be independent of political parties or power

that are actually holding the reins of government. Our
experience during the martial law period made us
realize how precious those rights are and, therefore,
these must be safeguarded at all times.
Hence, Section 11, Article II of the 1987
Constitution thus reads, “(t)he State values the
respect for human rights.” To breathe life into this
State policy, the Commission on Human Rights was
created and was envisioned as an independent office,
free from political interference.127

Commissioner Jose Nolledo, sponsoring the
provision that declares an independent foreign
policy for the Philippines, also stated:
The Marcos regime has wrought great havoc to our

country. It has intensified insurgency and is guilty of
rampant violations of human rights and injustices it
has committed. It has brought about economic
turmoil. It has institutionalized widespread graft and
corruption in all levels of government and it has bled
the National treasury, resulting in great financial
hemorrhage of our country.128
_______________
127 Rosales, et al., Memorandum (G.R. No. 225973), p.

109.
128 Id.

543
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 543

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Former Associate Justice Cecilia Muñoz

Palma, the 1986 Constitutional Commission
President, in her closing speech, alluded to the
experience during Martial Law as a motivating
force operating in the background of the crafting
of the new Constitution:
A beautiful irony which cannot be overlooked is the

fact that this new Constitution was discussed,
debated, and finally written within the walls of this
hall which saw the emergence of what was called by
its author a “constitutional authoritarianism,” but
which, in effect, was a dictatorship, pure and simple.
This hall was the seat of a combined executive and
legislative power skillfully placed in the hands of one
man for more than a decade. However, the miracle of
prayer and of a people’s faith and determined struggle
to break the shackles of dictatorship toppled down the
structure of despotism and converted this hall into
hallowed grounds where the seeds of a newly found
freedom have been sown and have borne fruit.
My countrymen, we open the new Charter with a
Preamble which is the beacon light that shines and
brightens the path in building a new structure of
government for our people. In that Preamble is
expounded in positive terms our goals and
aspirations. Thus, imploring the aid of Almighty God,
we shall establish a just and humane society, a social
order that upholds the dignity of man, for as a
Christian nation, we adhere to the principle that, and
I quote: “the dignity of man and the common good of
society demand that society must be based on justice.”
We uphold our independence and a democratic way of
life and, abhorring despotism and tyranny, we bind
ourselves to live under the rule of law where no man

is above the law, and where truth, justice, freedom,
equality, love and peace will prevail.
For the first time in the history of constitution
making in this country, the word “love” is enshrined
in the fundamental law. This is most significant at
this period in our national life when the nation is
bleeding under the forces of hatred and violence. Love
which begets understanding is necessary if
reconciliation is to be achieved among the warring
factions and conflicting ideologies now gripping the
country. Love is imperative if peace is to be restored
in our nativeland, for without love there can be no
peace.
We have established a republican democratic form
of government where sovereignty resides in the people
and civilian supremacy over the military is upheld.

544

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
For the first time, the Charter contains an all-

embracing expanded Bill of Rights which constitutes
the cornerstone of the structure of government.
Traditional rights and freedoms which are hallmarks
of our democratic way of life are reaffirmed. The right
to life, liberty and property, due process, equal
protection of the laws, freedom of religion, speech, the
press, peaceful assembly, among others, are
reasserted and guaranteed. The Marcos provision that
search warrants or warrants of arrest may [be] issued
not only by a judge but by any responsible officer

authorized by law is discarded. Never again will the
Filipino people be victims of the much-condemned
presidential detention action or PDA or presidential
commitment orders, the PCOs, which desecrate the
rights to life and liberty, for under the new provision a
search warrant or warrant of arrest may be issued
only by a judge. Mention must be made of some new
features in the Bill of Rights, such as the privilege of
the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended only in
cases of invasion or rebellion, and the right to bail is
not impaired during such suspension, thereby
discarding jurisprudence laid down by the Supreme
Court under the Marcos dispensation that the
suspension of the privilege of the writ carried with it
the suspension of the right to bail. The death penalty
is abolished, and physical, psychological or degrading
punishment against prisoners or detainees,
substandard and subhuman conditions in
penitentiaries are condemned.
For the first time, the Constitution provides for the
creation of a Commission on Human Rights entrusted
with the grave responsibility of investigating
violations of civil and political rights by any party or
groups and recommending remedies therefor.
From the Bill of Rights we proceed to the structure
of government established in the new Charter.
We have established the presidential system of
government with three branches — the legislative,
executive, and judicial — each separate and
independent of each other, but affording an effective
check and balance of one over the other.
All legislative power is returned and exclusively
vested in a bicameral legislature where the Members
are elected by the people for a definite term, subject to
limitations for reelection, disqualification to hold any
other office or employment in the government
including government-owned or -controlled

corporations and, among others, they may not even
appear as counsel before any court of justice.

545
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 545

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
For the first time in our Constitution, 20 percent of

Members the Lower House are to be elected through a
party-list system and, for three consecutive terms
after the ratification of the Constitution, 25 of the
seats shall be allocated to sectoral representatives
from labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural
communities, women, youth and other sectors as may
be provided by law. This innovation is a product of the
signs of the times when there is an intensive clamor
for expanding the horizons of participatory democracy
among the people.
The executive power is vested in the President of
the Philippines elected by the people for a six-year
term with no reelection for the duration of his/her life.
While traditional powers inherent in the office of the
President are granted, nonetheless for the first time,
there are specific provisions which curtail the extent
of such powers. Most significant is the power of the
Chief Executive to suspend the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus or proclaim martial law.
The flagrant abuse of that power of the
Commander-in-Chief by Mr. Marcos caused the
imposition of martial law for more than eight years
and the suspension of the privilege of the writ even
after the lifting of martial law in 1981. The new
Constitution now provides that those powers can be

exercised only in two cases, invasion or rebellion when
public safety demands it, only for a period not
exceeding 60 days, and reserving to Congress the
power to revoke such suspension or proclamation of
martial law which congressional action may not be
revoked by the President. More importantly, the
action of the President is made subject to judicial
review thereby again discarding jurisprudence which
render the executive action a political question and
beyond the jurisdiction of the courts to adjudicate.
For the first time, there is a provision that the
state of martial law does not suspend the operation of
the Constitution nor abolish civil courts or legislative
assemblies, or vest jurisdiction to military tribunals
over civilians, or suspend the privilege of the writ.
Please forgive me if, at this point, I state that this
constitutional provision vindicates the dissenting
opinions I have written during my tenure in the
Supreme Court in the martial law cases.129
_______________
129 Id., citing Closing remarks of the President of the

Constitutional Commission at the final session, Official
Gazette, October 15, 1986
<http://www.gov.ph/1986/10/15/closing-remarks-of-the-
president-of-the-constitutional-commission-at-the-final-
session-october-15-1986> (visited November 7, 2016).

546

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
IX

In part, to implement these safeguards for
human rights, Republic Act No. 10368 was
passed. Its statement of policy is found in
Section 2:
Section 2. Declaration of Policy.—Section 11 of

Article II of the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of
the Philippines declares that the State values the
respect for human rights. Pursuant to this declared
policy, Section 12 of Article III of the Constitution
prohibits the use of torture, force, violence, threat,
intimidation or any other means which vitiate the free
will and mandates the compensation and
rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices
and their families.
By virtue of Section 2 of Article II of the
Constitution adopting generally accepted principles of
international law as part of the law of the land, the
Philippines adheres to international human rights
laws and conventions, the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, including the International
Convenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and
the Convention Against Torture (CAT) and Other
Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
obligation to enact domestic legislation to give effect
to the rights recognized therein and to ensure that
any person whose rights or freedoms have been
violated shall have an effective remedy, and even if
the violation is committed by persons acting in an
official capacity. In fact, the right to a remedy is itself
guaranteed under existing human rights treaties
and/or customary international law, being peremptory

in character (jus cogens) and as such has been
summary execution, torture, enforced or involuntary
disappearance and other gross human rights
violations committed during the regime of former
President Ferdinand E. Marcos covering the period
from September 21, 1972 to February 25, 1986 and
restore the victims’ honor and dignity. The State
under the Marcos regime.

547
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 547

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Similarly, it is the obligation of the State to

acknowledge the sufferings and damages inflicted
upon persons whose properties or businesses were
forcibly taken over, sequestered or used, or those
whose professions were damaged and/or impaired, or
those whose freedom of movement was restricted
and/or impaired, and/or such other victims of the
violations of the Bill of Rights.
Thus, Section 2 of Republic Act No. 10368

states (2) two state policies: (i) “to acknowledge
the heroism and sacrifices of all Filipinos who
were victims of summary execution, torture,
enforced or involuntary disappearance and other
gross human rights violations” committed from
September 21, 1972 to February 25, 1986 during
the Marcos regime; and (ii) to restore their honor
and dignity.130
Section 2 of Republic Act No. 10368 likewise
acknowledges the State’s moral and legal
obligation to recognize and provide reparation to
the victims and/or their families for the deaths,
injuries, sufferings, deprivations, and damages
they suffered under the Marcos regime. The
State also expressly acknowledged the sufferings
and damages inflicted upon: (i) persons whose
properties or businesses were forcibly taken
over, sequestered or used; (ii) those whose
professions were damaged and/or impaired; (iii)
those whose freedom of movement was
restricted; and/or (iv) such other victims of the
violations of the Bill of Rights.131
_______________
130 See also Implementing Rules and Regulations of Rep.

Act No. 10368, Sec. 3(a):
SECTION 3. Declaration of Policy.—Consistent with
Sections 2 and 11 of Article II, and Section 12 of Article III of
the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, and
adhering to international human rights law and conventions,
it is the declared policy of the State to:
a) Recognize the heroism and sacrifices of all Filipinos

who were victims of summary execution, torture,
enforced or involuntary disappearance and other
gross human rights violations committed during the

February 25, 1986 and restore the victims’ honor
and dignity[.]
131 See also Implementing Rules and Regulations of Rep.

Act No. 10368, Sec. 3(b) and (c):
SECTION 3. Declaration of Policy.—Consistent with
Sections 2 and 11 of Article II, and Section 12 of Article III of
the 1987 Constitution of the Repub-

548

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
The bases of these policies132 are found in the

Constitution. Section 11 of Article II of the 1987
Constitution provides:

ARTICLE II

. . . .

State Policies

....

SECTION 11. The State values the dignity of every
human person and guarantees full respect for human
rights.

Related to Article II, Section 11 is Section 9,
which provides:
SECTION 9. The State shall promote a just and

dynamic social order that will ensure the prosperity
and independence of the nation and free the people
from poverty through policies that provide adequate
social services, promote full employment, a rising
standard of living, and an improved quality of life for
all.

Article II, Section 10 goes further:
SECTION 10. The State shall promote social justice

in all phases of national development.
_______________
lic of the Philippines, and adhering to international human

rights law and conventions, it is the declared policy of the
State to:
. . . .
b) Acknowledge its moral and legal obligation to recognize

families for the deaths, injuries, sufferings, deprivations
and damages they suffered under the Marcos regime;
c) Acknowledge the sufferings and damages inflicted upon
persons whose properties or businesses were forcibly
taken over, sequestered or used, or those whose
professions were damaged and/or impaired, or those
whose freedom of movement was restricted, and/or such
other victims of the violations of the Bill of Rights.
132 Rep. Act No. 10368, Sec. 2.

549
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 549

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
These enhance the rights that are already

enshrined in the Bill of Rights.133

Under the Bill of Rights, Article III, Section
12(2) and (4) of the Constitution provides:134

ARTICLE III
Bill of Rights

....

SECTION 12. . . .
(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation,
or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be
used against him. Secret detention places, solitary,
incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention
are prohibited.

....

(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil
sanctions for violations of this section as well as
compensation to and rehabilitation of victims of
torture or similar practices, and their families.

Republic Act No. 10368 provides for both
government policy in relation to the treatment of
Martial Law victims as well as these victims’

reparation and recognition. It creates a Human
Rights Victims’ Claims Board135 and provides for
its powers.136 Among the powers of the Board is
to “approve with finality all eligible claims”137
under the law.
_______________
133 Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides for the

Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was also found in Article 4
of the 1973 Constitution, Article III of the 1935 Constitution;
also the Title IV, Political Constitution of the Malolos
Constitution and the President McKinley’s Instructions of
April 7, 1900.
134 Rep. Act No. 10386, Sec. 2.
135 Id., Secs. 8 to 14 provide:
SECTION 8. Creation and Composition of the Human
Rights Victims’ Claims Board.—There is hereby created an
independent and quasi-judicial body to be known as the
Human Rights Victims’ Claims Board, hereinafter referred
to as the Board. It shall be composed of nine (9) members,
who shall possess the following qualifications:
(a) Must be of known probity, competence and integrity;

550

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
_______________
(b) Must have a deep and thorough understanding and

knowledge of human rights and involvement in efforts
against human rights violations committed during the
regime of former President Ferdinand E. Marcos;
(c) At least three (3) of them must be members of the
Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the practice of
law for at least ten (10) years; and
(d) Must have a clear and adequate understanding and
commitment to human rights protection, promotion and
advocacy.
The Human Rights Victims’ Claims Board shall be

attached to but shall not be under the Commission on
Human Rights (CHR).
The Board shall organize itself within thirty (30) days
from the completion of appointment of all nine (9) members
and shall thereafter organize its Secretariat.
SECTION 9. Appointment to the Board.—The President
shall appoint the Chairperson and the other eight (8)
members of the Board: Provided, That human rights
organizations such as, but not limited to, the Task Force
Detainees of the Philippines (TFDP), the Free Legal
Assistance Group (FLAG), the Movement of Attorneys for
Brotherhood, Integrity and Nationalism (MABINI), the
Families of Victims of Involuntary Disappearance (FIND)
and the Samahan ng mga Ex-Detainees Laban sa Detensyon
at Aresto (SELDA) may submit nominations to the
President.
....
SECTION 11. Resolution of Claims.—The Board shall
be composed of three (3) divisions which shall function
simultaneously and independently of each other in the
resolution of claims for reparation. Each division shall be
composed of one (1) Chairperson, who shall be a member of
the Philippine Bar and two (2) members to be appointed by
the Board En Banc.
SECTION 12. Emoluments.—The Chairperson and

members of the Board shall have the rank, salary,
emoluments and allowances equivalent to a Presiding
Justice and Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals,
respectively.
SECTION 13. Secretariat of the Board.—The Board
shall be assisted by a Secretariat which may come from the
existing personnel of the CHR, without prejudice to the
hiring of additional personnel as determined by the Board to
accommodate the volume of required work. The following
shall be the functions of the Secretariat:
(a) Receive, evaluate, process and investigate applications

for claims under this Act;
(b) Recommend to the Board the approval of applications
for claims;
(c) Assist the Board in technical functions;
(d) Perform other duties that may be assigned by the
Board.

551
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 551

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
_______________
The Chairperson of the Board shall appoint a Board

Secretary who shall head the Secretariat for the duration of
the existence of the Board. There shall be a Technical Staff
Head assisted by five (5) Legal Officers and three (3)
Paralegal Officers; and an Administrative Staff Head
assisted by three (3) Administrative Support Staff.
When necessary, the Board may hire additional

contractual employees or contract a service provider to
provide services of counselors, psychologists, social workers
and public education specialists, among others, to augment
the services of the Secretariat: Provided, That the maximum
contract amount per year shall not exceed more than fifteen
percent (15%) of the total annual operating budget of the
Board.
SECTION 14. Operating Budget of the Board.—The
operating budget of the Board shall be funded from the Ten
billion peso (P10,000,000,000.00) fund, with Ten million
pesos (P10,000,000.00) as its initial operating budget:
Provided, That it shall not exceed Fifty million pesos
(P50,000,000.00) a year.
136 Id., Sec. 10 provides:
SECTION 10. Powers and Functions of the Board.—The
Board shall have the following powers and functions:
(a) Receive, evaluate, process and investigate applications

for claims under this Act;
(b) Issue subpoena/s ad testificandum and subpoena/s
duces tecum;
(c) Conduct independent administrative proceedings and
resolve disputes over claims;
(d) Approve with finality all eligible claims under this Act;
(e) Deputize appropriate government agencies to assist it
in order to effectively perform its functions;
(f) Promulgate such rules as may be necessary to carry out
the purposes of this Act, including rules of procedure in
the conduct of its proceedings, with the Revised Rules of
Court of the Philippines having suppletory application;
(g) Exercise administrative control and supervision over its
Secretariat;
(h) The Board, at its discretion, may consult the human
rights organizations mentioned in Section 9 herein; and
(i) Perform such other duties, functions and

responsibilities as may be necessary to effectively attain
the objectives of this Act.
137 Id., Sec. 10(d) provides:

SECTION 10. Powers and Functions of the Board.—The
Board shall have the following powers and functions:
....
(d) Approve with finality all eligible claims under this

Act[.]

552

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
This law provides for the process of

recognition of Martial Law victims.138 There are
victims who are allowed to initiate their
petitions,139
_______________
138 Id., Secs. 16, 17, 18. A point system is provided in

Section 19. Section 21 provides for the filing of sworn
statements “narrating the circumstances of the pertinent
human rights violations committed.” Section 23 provides for
a period to file claims. Section 24 provides for a system of
appeal. Section 25 provides penalties for fraudulent claims,
and various misuse of the funds dedicated for the
implementation of the law.
SECTION 16. Claimants.—Any person who is an HRVV

may file a claim with the Board for reparation and/or
recognition in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
SECTION 17. Conclusive Presumption That One is an
HRVV Under This Act.—The claimants in the class suit and
direct action plaintiffs in the Human Rights Litigation
Against the Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos (MDL No. 840,
CA No. 86-0390) in the US Federal District Court of
Honolulu, Hawaii wherein a favorable judgment has been
rendered, shall be extended the conclusive presumption that
they are HRVVs: Provided, That the HRVVs recognized by
the Bantayog ng mga Bayani Foundation shall also be
accorded the same conclusive presumption: Provided,
further, That nothing herein shall be construed to deprive
the Board of its original jurisdiction and its inherent power
to determine the extent of the human rights violations and
the corresponding reparation and/or recognition that may be
granted.
SECTION 18. Motu Proprio Recognition.—The Board
may take judicial notice motu proprio of individual persons
who suffered human rights violations as defined herein and
grant such persons recognition as HRVVs and included in
the Roll of Victims as provided for in Section 26 hereof.
....
SECTION 19. Determination of Award.—(a) The
Board shall follow the point system in the determination of
the award. The range shall be one (1) to ten (10) points, as
follows:
(1) Victims who died or who disappeared and are still

missing shall be given ten (10) points;
(2) Victims who were tortured and/or raped or sexually
abused shall be given six (6) to nine (9) points;
(3) Victims who were detained shall be given three (3) to
five (5) points; and
(4) Victims whose rights were violated under Section 3,
paragraph (b), nos. (4), (5) and (6) under this Act shall
be given one (1) to two (2) points.
....

553
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 553

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
_______________
SECTION 21. Documentation of Human Rights

Violations Committed by the Marcos Regime.—In the
implementation of this Act and without prejudice to any
other documentary or other evidence that may be required
for the award of any reparation, any HRVV seeking
reparation shall execute a detailed sworn statement
narrating the circumstances of the pertinent human rights
violation/s committed.
....
SECTION 23. Period for Filing of Claims; Waiver.—An
HRVV shall file an application for reparation with the Board
within six (6) months from the effectivity of the
implementing rules and regulations (IRR) of this Act:
Provided, That failure to file an application within said
period is deemed a waiver of the right to file the same:
Provided, further, That for HRVVs who are deceased,
incapacitated, or missing due to enforced disappearance,
their legal heir/s or representatives, shall be entitled to file
an application for reparation on their behalf.
Any opposition to the new application/s pursuant to
Section 16 hereof shall only be entertained if such is filed
within fifteen (15) days from the date of the last publication
of the official list of eligible claimants as may be determined
by the Board. The Board shall cause the publication of the

official list of eligible claimants once a week for three (3)
consecutive weeks in at least two (2) national newspapers of
general circulation.
SECTION 24. Appeal.—Any aggrieved claimant or
oppositor may file an appeal within ten (10) calendar days
from the receipt of the Resolution of the Division, to the
Board En Banc, whose decision shall then become final and
executory.
SECTION 25. Penalties; Applicability of the Revised
Penal Code.—Any claimant who is found by the Board, after
due hearing, to have filed a fraudulent claim, shall be
referred to the appropriate office for prosecution. If
convicted, he shall suffer the imprisonment of eight (8) to ten
(10) years, shall be disqualified from public office and
employment and shall be deprived of the right to vote and be
voted for in any national or local election, even after the
service of sentence unless granted absolute pardon.
Any member of the Board and its Secretariat, public
officer, employee of an agency or any private individual
mandated to implement this Act, who shall misuse, embezzle
or misappropriate the funds for the reparation of HRVVs or
who shall commit fraud in the processing of documents and
claims of HRVVs, or shall conspire with any individual to
commit the same, shall also be prosecuted.
Any member of the Board and its Secretariat, public
officer, employee of an agency or any private individual
mandated to implement this Act, who may

554

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
those who are conclusively presumed,140 and

those who may be motu proprio be recognized by
the Board141 even without an initiatory petition.
Republic Act No. 10368 codifies four (4)
obligations of the State in relation to the Martial
Law regime of Ferdinand E. Marcos:
First, to recognize the heroism and sacrifices
of victims of summary execution, torture,
enforced or involuntary disappearance, and
other gross violations of human rights;
Second, to restore the honor and dignity of
human rights victims;
Third, to provide reparation to human rights
victims and their families; and
Fourth, to ensure that there are effective
remedies to these human rights violations.
_______________
have been found guilty of committing any or all of the

prohibited acts stated in the preceding paragraph, or those
acts punishable under the Revised Penal Code, shall be
penalized under the pertinent provisions in the Code and
relevant special penal laws.
139 Id., Sec. 16, in relation to the definition of victim in
Sec. 3(b), provides:
SECTION 16. Claimants.—Any person who is an HRVV
may file a claim with the Board for reparation and/or
recognition in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
SECTION 17. Conclusive Presumption That One is an
HRVV Under This Act.—The claimants in the class suit and
direct action plaintiffs in the Human Rights Litigation
Against the Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos (MDL No. 840,
CA No. 86-0390) in the US Federal District Court of
Honolulu, Hawaii wherein a favorable judgment has been
rendered, shall be extended the conclusive presumption that

they are HRVVs: Provided, That the HRVVs recognized by
the Bantayog ng mga Bayani Foundation shall also be
accorded the same conclusive presumption: Provided,
further, That nothing herein shall be construed to deprive
the Board of its original jurisdiction and its inherent power
to determine the extent of the human rights violations and
the corresponding reparation and/or recognition that may be
granted.
SECTION 18. Motu Proprio Recognition.—The Board
may take judicial notice motu proprio of individual persons
who suffered human rights violations as defined herein and
grant such persons recognition as HRVVs and included in
the Roll of Victims as provided for in Section 26 hereof.

555
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 555

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Based on the text of this law, human rights

violations during the “regime of former
President Ferdinand E. Marcos covering the
period from September 21, 1972 to February 25,
1986” are recognized. Despite his claim of having
won the snap elections for President in 1985,
Ferdinand E. Marcos was unceremoniously
spirited away from Malacañan to Hawaii as a
result of the People’s uprising now known as
“People Power.” The legitimacy of his ouster
from power was subsequently acknowledged by
this Court in Lawyers’ League for a Better
Philippines and in In re Saturnino Bermudez,

which were both decided in 1986.
This recognition of human rights violations is
even clearer in the law’s definition of terms in
Republic Act No. 10368, Section 3(b):
(b) Human rights violation refers to any act or

omission committed during the period from
September 21, 1972 to February 25, 1986 by persons
acting in an official capacity and/or agents of the
State, but shall not be limited to the following:
(1) Any search, arrest and/or detention

without a valid search warrant or warrant of
arrest issued by a civilian court of law,
including any warrantless arrest or detention
carried out pursuant to the declaration of
Martial Law by former President Ferdinand E.
Marcos as well as any arrest, detention or
deprivation of liberty carried out during the
covered period on the basis of an Arrest, Search
and Seizure Order (ASSO), a Presidential
Commitment Order (PCO), or a Preventive
Detention Action (PDA) and such other similar
executive issuances as defined by decrees of
former President Ferdinand E. Marcos, or in ay
manner that the arrest, detention or
deprivation of liberty was effected;

(2) The infliction by a person acting in an
official capacity and or an agent of the State of
physical injury, torture, killing, or violation of
other human rights, of any person exercising
civil or political rights, including but not limited
to the freedom of speech, assembly or
organization; and/or the right to petition the
government for redress of grievances, even if
such violation took place during or in the course
of what the authorities at the time deemed an

illegal assembly or demon-

556

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
stration: Provided, That torture in any form or

under any circumstance shall be considered a
human rights violation;

(3) Any enforced or involuntary disappearance
caused upon a person who was arrested,
detained or abducted against one’s will or
otherwise deprived of one’s liberty, as defined in
Republic Act No. 10350, otherwise known as the
‘Anti-Enforced or Involuntary Disappearance
Act of 2012’;

(4) Any force or intimidation causing the
involuntary exile of a person from the
Philippines;

(5) Any act of force, intimidation or deceit
causing unjust or illegal takeover of a business,
confiscation of property, detention of owner/s
and or their families, deprivation of livelihood of
a person by agents of the State, including those
caused by Ferdinand E. Marcos, his spouse
Imelda R. Marcos, their immediate relatives by
consanguinity or affinity, as well as those
persons considered as among their close
relatives, associates, cronies and subordinates

under Executive Order No. 1, issued on
February 28, 1986 by then President Corazon C.
Aquino in the exercise of her legislative powers
under the Freedom Constitution’;

(6) Any act or series of acts causing,
committing and/or conducting the following:

“(i) Kidnapping or otherwise exploiting
children of persons suspected of
committing acts against the Marcos
regime;

“(ii) Committing sexual offenses against
human rights victims who are detained
and/or in the course of conducting military
and/or police operations; and

557
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 557

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
“(iii) Other violations and/or abuses

similar or analogous to the above,
including those recognized by
international law.”142

Human rights violations during Martial Law
were state-sponsored. Thus, Republic Act No.
10368, Section 3(c) defines Human Rights
Victims as:
(c) Human Rights Violations Victim (HRVV) refers

to a person whose human rights were violated by
persons acting in an official capacity and/or agents of
the State as defined herein. In order to qualify for
reparation under this Act, the human rights violation
must have been committed during the period from
September 21, 1972 to February 25, 1986: Provided,
however, That victims of human rights violations that
were committed one (1) month before September 21,
1972 and one (1) month after February 25, 1986 shall
be entitled to reparation under this Act if they can
establish that the violation was committed:

(1) By agents of the State and/or persons
acting in an official capacity as defined
hereunder;

(2) For the purpose of preserving, maintaining,
supporting or promoting the said regime; or

(3) To conceal abuses during the Marcos
regime and/or the effects of Martial Law.143

Section 3(d) of this law defines the violators to
include persons acting in an official capacity
and/or agents of the State:
(d) Persons Acting in an Official Capacity and/or

Agents of the State.—The following persons shall be
deemed persons acting in an official capacity and/or
agents of the State under this Act:
(1) Any member of the former Philippine

Constabulary (PC), the former Integrated
National Policy (INP), the Armed Forces of the
Philippines (AFP) and the Civilian
_______________
142 Id., Sec. 3(b).

143 Id., Sec. 3(c).

558

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Home Defense Force (CHDF) from September

21, 1972 to February 25, 1986 as well as any
civilian agent attached thereto: and any
member of a paramilitary group even if one is
not organically part of the PC, the INP, the AFP
or the CHDF so long as it is shown that the
group was organized, funded, supplied with
equipment, facilities and/or resources, and/or
indoctrinated, controlled and/or supervised by
any person acting in an official capacity and/or
agent of the State as herein defined;

(2) Any member of the civil service, including
persons who held elective or appointive public
office at any time from September 21, 1972 to
February 25, 1986;

(3) Persons referred to in Section 2(a) of
Executive Order No. 1, creating the Presidential
Commission on Good Government (PCGG),
issued on February 28, 1986 and related laws by
then President Corazon C. Aquino in the
exercise of her legislative powers under the
Freedom Constitution, including former

President Ferdinand E. Marcos, spouse Imelda
R. Marcos, their immediate relatives by
consanguinity or affinity, as well as their close
relatives, associates, cronies and subordinates;
and

(4) Any person or group/s of persons acting
with the authorization, support or acquiescence
of the State during the Marcos regime.144

In clear and unmistakable terms, the law
recognizes the culpability of Ferdinand E.
Marcos for acts of summary execution, torture,
enforced or involuntary disappearances, and
other gross violations of human rights. The law
likewise implies that not only was he the
President that presided over those violations,
but that he and his spouse, relatives, associates,
cronies, and subordinates were active
participants.
Burying the remains of Ferdinand E. Marcos
at the Libingan ng mga Bayani violates Republic
Act No. 10368 as the act may be considered as
an effort “to conceal abuses during the Marcos
regime” or to “conceal . . .
_______________
144 Id., Sec. 3(d).

559
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 559

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
the effects of Martial Law.”145 Its symbolism is

unmistakable. It undermines the recognition of
his complicity. Clearly, it is illegal.

X

“Libingan ng mga Bayani” is a label created
by a presidential proclamation. The Libingan ng
mga Bayani was formerly known as the Republic
Memorial Cemetery. In 1954, under
Proclamation No. 86, the Republic Memorial
Cemetery was renamed to Libingan ng mga
Bayani for symbolic purposes, to express esteem
and reverence for those buried there:
WHEREAS, the name “Republic Memorial Cemetery”

at Fort Wm McKinley, Rizal province, is not symbolic
of the cause for which our soldiers have died, and does
not truly express the nation’s esteem and reverence
for her war dead;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, Ramon Magsaysay, President
of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in
me by law, do hereby declare that the “Republic
Memorial Cemetery” shall henceforth be called
“LIBINGAN NG MGA BAYANI.”

Thus, Proclamation No. 86 is a recognition of
the nation’s intent to honor, esteem, and revere
its war dead. To further this intention, it
changed the name of the cemetery to the
Libingan ng mga Bayani. From this act alone, it
is clear that the name of the cemetery conveys
meaning. The Libingan ng mga Bayani was
named as such to honor and esteem those who

are and will be buried there.
If there was no intention to bestow any
recognition upon Ferdinand E. Marcos as a hero,
then he should not be buried at the Libingan ng
mga Bayani. If the President wanted to allot a
portion of public property to bury Ferdinand E.
Marcos without according him the title of a hero,
the President had other options. The President
had the power to select a different cemetery
where Marcos was to be buried.
_______________
145 Id., Sec. 3(c).

560

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Likewise, before ordering the interment, the

President did not amend the name through his
own presidential proclamation. Therefore, the
intent to bury him with honors is clearly legible,
totally unequivocal, and dangerously palpable.
Having the remains of Ferdinand E. Marcos
in a national shrine called the Libingan ng mga
Bayani undeniably elevates his status. It
produces an indelible remark on our history. It
commingles his name and his notorious legacy
with the distinctively heroic and exemplary
actions of all those privileged to be buried there.
The transfer of Ferdinand E. Marcos’ remains

violates the policy of full and public disclosure of
the truth. It produces an inaccurate account of
the violations committed. It will fail to educate
all sectors of society and all generations of the
human rights violations committed under his
watch. It is a violation of the fundamental
statutory policy of recognition of the human
rights violations committed during the Marcos
regime.
As pointed out by the Commission on Human
Rights:
17. Crucial to the Satisfaction component of

effective reparation is the official acknowledgment of
the truth of the abuses and violations that the victim
suffered, including an acknowledgment of the
responsibility of the perpetrator as well as a public
apology.
18. Burying the remains of Ferdinand Marcos at
the LNMB with the pomp and pageantry accorded to a
hero is the complete antithesis of any such apology,
and would constitute a denial or reversal of any
previous acknowledgment of his many sins against
the victims of human rights violations under his
government. It is an act that, for all of the discussion
as to what “bayani” means, will inevitably extol him
and his actions in government for all future
generations. . . .
19. Moreover, the burial of Mr. Marcos’ remains
at the LNMB sends a very dangerous message to
Philippine society and even to the world by treating
him as a hero, and violates the Guarantee of Non--
Repetition component of effective reparations. . . .
20. To bury a legally confirmed human rights
violator as hero would fly in the face of any effort to
educate the Filipino people on the importance of
human rights, and would, rather than promote reform

in favor of respect for human rights, tend to promote
impunity

561
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 561

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
by honoring a man known all over the world for

having perpetrated human rights violations for nearly
two decades in order to perpetuate his hold on power;
21. Worse still, this would even send a message to
other leaders that adopting a similar path of abuse
and violations that characterized the Marcos
dictatorship would ultimately result not in
condemnation but instead acknowledgment and
accolades of heroism, constituting thereby a set of
circumstance not contemplated by the holistic notion
of reparation, in particular violating both the
standard of Satisfaction and the Guarantee of Non-
Repetition. Therefore, this will not only deprive the
victims of human rights violations of their right to
effective reparations but will place future generations
in genuine peril of the real prospect of coming face-to-
face once more with authoritarian rule characterized
by rampant human rights violations.146

The interment of the remains of Ferdinand E.
Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani
necessarily implies two (2) things: the honoring
of Ferdinand E. Marcos; and the allotting of a
portion of public property for this act.
The act of burying in itself has always been

more than an act of disposing of dead bodies. A
burial is a manner of memorializing and paying
respects to a deceased person. Implicit in these
ceremonies is the preservation of the memory of
the person for his good or valiant deeds.
This cultural practice is not limited to private
persons. The same practice applies when it is the
State burying the deceased person. The act of
burying a body under the sanction of the State
means that it is the State itself paying its
respects to the dead person and memorializing
him or her for his or her good and valiant deeds.
It is never done to remember past
transgressions. Thus, burials are acts of
honoring. And when the burial is state-
sanctioned, it is the State that honors the
deceased person.
This is more emphasized when the place of
interment is the Libingan ng mga Bayani.
Again, whether or not one subscribes to the idea
that the Libingan ng mga Bayani is a cemetery
for the country’s heroes, from
_______________
146 Commission on Human Rights Memorandum, pp. 9-

16.

562

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
the public’s perspective, those buried at the

Libingan ng mga Bayani are respected, revered,
admired, and seen with high regard. To say
otherwise is ridiculous. Although not all who are
buried at the Libingan ng mga Bayani are
recognized by the public, the public recognizes
the distinction of being buried there. Those who
are and will be buried there are accorded honors
not only by their own families, but by the State
itself.
It is impossible for the State to bury
Bayani without according him, or his memory,
any honor.
Given these considerations, the transfer of
the remains of Ferdinand E. Marcos at the
Libingan ng mga Bayani violates Republic Act
No. 10368. It is inconsistent with the State’s
public policies as stated in Republic Act No.
10368.
In Avon Cosmetics, Inc. v. Luna,147 this Court
discussed the meaning and relevance of public
policy:
And what is public policy? In the words of the

eminent Spanish jurist, Don Jose Maria Manresa, in
his commentaries of the Codigo Civil, public policy
(orden público):
[R]epresents in the law of persons the public,

social and legal interest, that which is
permanent and essential of the institutions,
that which, even if favoring an individual in
whom the right lies, cannot be left to his own
will. It is an idea which, in cases of the waiver of
any right, is manifested with clearness and
force.
As applied to agreements, Quintus Mucius

Scaevola, another distinguished civilist gives the term
“public policy” a more defined meaning:
Agreements in violation of orden públic must be

considered as those which conflict with law,
whether properly, strictly and wholly a public
law (derecho) or whether a law of the person,
but law which in certain respects affects the
interest of society.
_______________
147 540 Phil. 389; 511 SCRA 376 (2006) [Per J. Chico-
Nazario, First Division].

563
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 563

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Plainly put, public policy is that principle of the

law which holds that no subject or citizen can lawfully
do that which has a tendency to be injurious to the
public or against the public good. As applied to
contracts, in the absence of express legislation or
constitutional prohibition, a court, in order to declare
a contract void as against public policy, must find that
the contract as to the consideration or thing to be
done, has a tendency to injure the public, is against
the public good, or contravenes some established
interests of society, or is inconsistent with sound
policy and good morals, or tends clearly to undermine
the security of individual rights, whether of personal
liability or of private property.148 (Emphasis supplied,

citations omitted)

The State’s fundamental policies are laid out
in the Constitution. The rest are embodied in
statutes enacted by the legislature. The
determination of policies is a legislative function,
consistent with the Congress’ power to make,
alter, and repeal laws.149
It is not the President alone who determines
the State’s policies. The President is always
bound by the Constitution and the State’s
statutes and is constitutionally mandated to
“ensure that the laws be faithfully executed.”150
To execute laws, the President must faithfully
comply with all of them. He cannot ignore the
laws for a particular group of people or for
private interests. The President cannot ignore
the laws to execute a policy that he determined
on his own. He cannot ignore the laws to fulfill a
campaign promise that may or may not have
been the reason why he won the People’s votes.
Thus, the President is bound to comply with and
execute Republic Act No. 10368.
Republic Act No. 10368’s state policies are
again as follows:
First, to recognize the heroism and sacrifices
of all Filipinos who had been victims of summary
execution, torture, enforced or involuntary
disappearance, and other gross human rights
violations committed dur-
_______________
148 Id., at pp. 404-405; pp. 393-394.
149 Government of the Philippine Islands v. Springer, 50

Phil. 259, 276 (1927) [Per J. Malcolm, Second Division],
citing Cooley’s Constitutional Limitations, 7th ed., pp. 126,
131, 157-162.
150 CONST., Art. VII, Sec. 17.

564

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
ing the regime of Ferdinand E. Marcos covering

the period from September 21, 1972 to February
25, 1986; and
Second, to restore the victims’ honor and
dignity.
The nature of Ferdinand E. Marcos’ burial at
the Libingan ng mga Bayani contravenes these
public policies. The State’s act of according any
honor to Ferdinand E. Marcos grossly
contradicts, and is highly irreconcilable with, its
own public policies to recognize the heroism and
sacrifices of the Martial Law victims and restore
these victims’ honor and dignity.
To allow Ferdinand E. Marcos’ burial is
inconsistent with honoring the memory of the
Martial Law victims. It conflicts with their
recognized heroism and sacrifice, and as most of
them testified, it opens an avenue for their re-
traumatization. These victims’ honor, which the
State avowed to restore, is suddenly
questionable because the State is also according
honor and allotting public property to the person
responsible for their victimization. The victims’

state recognition is put into doubt when the
President decided to act favorably towards the
person who victimized them.

XI

Public respondents’ contention that
Ferdinand E. Marcos will not be buried as a
hero, but only as a President, soldier, and Medal
of Valor Awardee, fails to convince:
JUSTICE LEONEN:
I am not challenging whether the action of the

President was regular or not, that’s not the point.
The point is, you know for a fact that it was a
proclamation creating the Libingan ng mga Bayani,
and now without changing the name, they are now,
the President, according to you, verbally ordered the
interment of the remains of the former President.
Yet now, you take the position that the intention of
government is not to honor the body of Ferdinand
Marcos as the body of a hero. Although the
Libingan’s name is Libingan ng mga Bayani. So, can
you explain that?

565
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 565

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
But, as I said, Your Honor, in my opening

statement, that is not the purpose to bury him as a
hero. But, by military standards, Your Honor, former
President Marcos fits in to the definition of a hero.
As defined by the Lagman’s Petition, Your Honor.
JUSTICE LEONEN:
Excuse me, Counsel, a while ago, this morning,

before we took lunch, you said that there was no
intention to honor. In fact, you read from your
Comment, that there was no intention to bury the
President as a hero.
Yes, we stand by that, Your Honor.
JUSTICE LEONEN:
Okay.
However, based on the military standards given to

a Medal of Valor awardee, he fits in to the definition
which was proposed by Petitioner Lagman, Your
Honor.
JUSTICE LEONEN:
A Medal of Valor awardee, is he or she a hero?
May I read into the records, Your Honor.
JUSTICE LEONEN:
A Medal of Valor, please do not ignore my

question.
Yes.
JUSTICE LEONEN:
A Medal of Valor awardee, is he a hero or not a

hero? Is he or she a hero or not a hero?
Based on the wordings of Presidential Decree

1687, Your Honor, it says here, “The Medal of Valor
is the highest award that may be given to a Filipino
soldier in recognition of conspicuous acts of gallantry
above and beyond a call of duty and in total
disregard of personal safety; Whereas, an awardee of
the Medal of Valor for his supreme self-sacrifice and
distinctive act of gallantry, performed more than
ordinarily hazardous service and deserved due
recognition from a grateful government and people.”
. . .

566

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
JUSTICE LEONEN:
Is this a Presidential Decree, Counsel?
. . . the definition, Your Honor, in the Lagman

Petition . . .
JUSTICE LEONEN:
Is this a Presidential Decree?
Yes, Your Honor.
JUSTICE LEONEN:
Who issued the Presidential Decree?
. . . .
Well, a judicial notice can be taken that it was

during the term of President Marcos, Your Honor.
JUSTICE LEONEN:
Ferdinand Marcos, who is a Medal of Valor

awardee, issued this Presidential Decree.
However, Your Honor, the Medal of Valor . . .
JUSTICE LEONEN:
No, no, no, however, he had the power to issue the

Presidential Decree, I’m not questioning that. Okay,
my question here, which you ignored, is, is a Medal
of Valor awardee a hero?
By the definition, Your Honor, he is a hero.
JUSTICE LEONEN:
So, therefore, you are going back against what you

said in the Comment . . .
But we will set aside that, Your Honor.
JUSTICE LEONEN:
How can you set that aside?
We will set it aside because . . .

567
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 567

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
JUSTICE LEONEN:
Which part of Marcos will you not bury as a Medal

of Valor awardee and which part will you bury?
Because, Your Honor . . .
JUSTICE LEONEN:
It’s the same person.
. . . President Duterte’s announcement is that he

will allow the burial not as a hero, but as a former
president, a former veteran and a soldier, that’s all,

Your Honor.161

The claim that he is being buried only as a
President, soldier, and Medal of Valor awardee
is a fallacy. When a person is buried, the whole
person is buried, not just parts of him or her.
Thus, if government buries and honors
Ferdinand E. Marcos’ body as the body of a
former soldier, it will, at the same time, be
burying and honoring the body of a human
rights violator, dictator, and plunderer. It is
impossible to isolate the President, soldier, and
Medal of Valor awardee from the human rights
violator, dictator, and plunderer.

XII

Apart from recognizing the normative
framework and the acknowledgment of human
rights violations during the Marcos regime, the
law likewise acknowledges the State’s obligation
that “any person whose rights or freedoms have
been violated shall have an effective remedy.”162
This right to an “effective remedy” is available
even if “the violation is committed by persons
acting in an official capacity.”163
With the recognition of human rights victims
of Martial Law, the Board created by Republic
Act No. 10368 may provide “awards.”164
_______________
161 TSN, Oral Arguments, September 7, 2016, pp. 156-

159.
162 Rep. Act No. 10368, par. 2.
163 Id.
164 Id., Sec. 19.

568

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Although this award has a monetary value,165

other duties for government are likewise
provided by law. There can be nonmonetary
reparation:
Section 5. Nonmonetary Reparation.—The

Department of Social Welfare and Development
(DSWD), the Department of Education (DepEd), the
Commission on Higher Education (CHED), the
Technical Education and Skills Development
Authority (TESDA), and such other government
agencies shall render the necessary services as
nonmonetary reparation for HRVVs and/or their
families, as may be determined by the Board pursuant
to the provisions of this Act[.]166

The phrase “other government agencies”
includes public respondents in these
consolidated cases.
The law also requires the documentation of
the human rights violations committed during
the Marcos regime:
Section 21. Documentation of Human Rights

Violations Committed by the Marcos Regime.—In the
implementation of this Act and without prejudice to

any other documentary or other evidence that may be
required for the award of any reparation, any HRVV
seeking reparation shall execute a detailed sworn
statement narrating the circumstances of the
pertinent human rights violation/s committed.167

Further, memorialization is required under
the law:
Section 26. Roll of Victims.—Persons who are

HRVVs, regardless of whether they opt to seek
reparation or not, shall be given recognition by
enshrining their names in a Roll of Human Rights
Victims to be prepared by the Board.
A Memorial/Museum/Library shall be established
in honor and in memory of the victims of human
rights violations whose names
_______________
165 Id., Sec. 19(c). The monetary value shall be

dependent on a point system.
166 Id., Sec. 5.
167 Id., Sec. 21.

569
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 569

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
shall be inscribed in the Roll. A compendium of their

sacrifices shall be prepared and may be readily viewed
and accessed in the internet. The

Memorial/Museum/Library/Compendium shall have
an appropriation of at least Five hundred million
pesos (P500,000,000.00) from the accrued interest of
Ten billion pesos (P10,000,000,000.00) fund.
The Roll may also be displayed in government
agencies as may be designated by the HRVV
Memorial Commission as created hereunder.

The Human Rights Violations Victims’
Memorial Commission is given the task of
making such memory permanent. It is tasked to
ensure that the atrocities that happened during
the Marcos regime are included in the
educational curricula of schools:
Section 27. Human Rights Violations Victims’

Memorial Commission.—There is hereby created a
Commission to be known as the Human Rights
Violations Victims’ Memorial Commission, hereinafter
referred to as the Commission, primarily for the
establishment, restoration, preservation and
conservation of the
Memorial/Museum/Library/Compendium in honor of
the HRVVs during the Marcos regime.

....

The Commission shall be attached to the CHR
solely for budgetary and administrative purposes. The
operating budget of the Commission shall be
appropriated from the General Appropriations Act.
The Commission shall also coordinate and
collaborate with the DepEd and the CHED to ensure
that the teaching of Martial Law atrocities, the lives
and sacrifices of HRVVs in our history are included in
the basic, secondary and tertiary education curricula.

The concept of an effective remedy can be
read from the law.

570

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
The requirements of effective remedies

beyond monetary compensation are also
supported by jurisprudence. In Department of
Environment and Natural Resources v. United
Planners Consultants, Inc.:158
[E]very statutory grant of power, right or privilege is

deemed to include all incidental power, right or
privilege. In Atienza v. Villarosa, the doctrine was
explained, thus:
No statute can be enacted that can provide all

the details involved in its application. There is
always an omission that may not meet a
particular situation. What is thought, at the
time of enactment, to be an all-embracing
legislation may be inadequate to provide for the
unfolding events of the future. So-called gaps in
the law develop as the law is enforced. One of
the rules of statutory construction used to fill in
the gap is the doctrine of necessary implication.
The doctrine states that what is implied in a
statute is as much a part thereof as that which
is expressed. Every statute is understood, by
implication, to contain all such provisions as
may be necessary to effectuate its object and

purpose, or to make effective rights, powers,
privileges or jurisdiction which it grants,
including all such collateral and subsidiary
consequences as may be fairly and logically
inferred from its terms. Ex necessitate legis. And
every statutory grant of power, right or
privilege is deemed to include all incidental
power, right or privilege. This is so because the
greater includes the lesser, expressed in the
maxim, in eo plus sit, simper inest et minus.159

Persuasive, as it dovetails with the
requirements of our Constitution and our
statutes, are international laws and treaties
providing for the right to a remedy for victims of
international human rights law. This has been
recognized in Article 8160 of the Universal
Declaration of Hu-
_______________
158 G.R. No. 212081, February 23, 2015, 751 SCRA 389
[Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, First Division].
159 Id., at pp. 404-405, citing Atienza v. Villarosa, 497
Phil. 689; 458 SCRA 385 (2005) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., En
Banc].
160 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Art. 8
provides:

571
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 571
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
man Rights; Article 2161 of the International

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; Article
6162 of the International Convention on the
Elimi-
_______________
Article 8. Everyone has the right to an effective remedy

by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the
fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by
law.
161 International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights,
Art. 2 provides:
Article 2.
1. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to

respect and to ensure to all individuals within its
territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights
recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction
of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion,
political or other opinion, national or social origin,
property, birth or other status.
2. Where not already provided for by existing legislative or
other measures, each State Party to the present
Covenant undertakes to take the necessary steps, in
accordance with its constitutional processes and with
the provisions of the present Covenant, to adopt such
legislative or other measures as may be necessary to
give effect to the rights recognized in the present
Covenant.
3. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes:
(a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms
as herein recognized are violated shall have an
effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation
has been committed by persons acting in an official

capacity;
(b) To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy
shall have his right thereto determined by
162 International Convention on the Elimination of All

Forms of Racial Discrimination, Art. 6 provides:
Article 6. States Parties shall assure to everyone within
their jurisdiction effective protection and remedies, through
the competent national tribunals and other State
institutions, against any acts of racial discrimination which
violate his human rights and fundamental freedoms contrary
to this Convention, as well as the right to seek from such
tribunals just and adequate reparation or satisfaction for
any damage suffered as a result of such discrimination.

572

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
nation of All Forms of Racial Discrimination;

Article 14163 of the Convention against Torture
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment; and Article 39164 of
the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The
right to a remedy is also an obligation in Article
3165 of the Hague Convention Respecting the

Laws and Customs of War on Land of 18 October
1907 (Convention IV); Article 91166 of the
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions
of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection
of Victims of International Armed Conflicts
(Protocol I) of 8 June 1977; and Article 68167 and
Article 75168 of the Rome Statute of the
International Criminal Court. Additionally, the
Rome Statute of the International
_______________
163 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel,

Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Art. 14
provides:
Article 14.
1. Each State Party shall ensure in its legal system that

the victim of an act of torture obtains redress and has
an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation,
including the means for as full rehabilitation as
possible. In the event of the death of the victim as a
result of an act of torture, his dependants shall be
entitled to compensation.
2. Nothing in this article shall affect any right of the
victim or other persons to compensation which may
exist under national law.
164 Convention on the Rights of the Child, Art. 39

provides:
Article 39. States Parties shall take all appropriate
measures to promote physical and psychological recovery
and social reintegration of a child victim of any form of
neglect, exploitation, or abuse; torture or any other form of
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; or
armed conflicts. Such recovery and reintegration shall take
place in an environment which fosters the health, self-

respect and dignity of the child.
165 Hague Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs
of War on Land, Art. 3 provides:
Article 3. A belligerent party which violates the
provisions of the said Regulations shall, if the case demands,
be liable to pay compensation. It shall be responsible for all
acts committed by persons forming part of its armed forces.
166 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions, Art.
91 provides:
Article 91. Responsibility.—A Party to the conflict which
violates the provisions of the Conventions or of this Protocol
shall, if the case demands, be liable to pay compensation. It
shall be responsible for all acts committed by persons
forming part of its armed forces.
167 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court,
Art. 68 provides:
Article 68. Protection of the victims and witnesses and
their participation in the proceedings.—

573
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 573

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
_______________
1. The Court shall take appropriate measures to protect

the safety, physical and psychological well-being,
dignity and privacy of victims and witnesses. In so
doing, the Court shall have regard to all relevant
factors, including age, gender as defined in Article 7,
paragraph 3, and health, and the nature of the crime, in
particular, but not limited to, where the crime involves

sexual or gender violence or violence against children.
The Prosecutor shall take such measures particularly
during the investigation and prosecution of such crimes.
These measures shall not be prejudicial to or
inconsistent with the rights of the accused and a fair
and impartial trial.
2. As an exception to the principle of public hearings
provided for in Article 67, the Chambers of the Court
may, to protect victims and witnesses or an accused,
conduct any part of the proceedings in camera or allow
the presentation of evidence by electronic or other
special means. In particular, such measures shall be
implemented in the case of a victim of sexual violence or
a child who is a victim or a witness, unless otherwise
ordered by the Court, having regard to all the
circumstances, particularly the views of the victim or
witness.
3. Where the personal interests of the victims are affected,
the Court shall permit their views and concerns to be
presented and considered at stages of the proceedings
determined to be appropriate by the Court and in a
manner which is not prejudicial to or inconsistent with
the rights of the accused and a fair and impartial trial.
Such views and concerns may be presented by the legal
representatives of the victims where the Court
considers it appropriate, in accordance with the Rules of
Procedure and Evidence.
4. The Victims and Witnesses Unit may advise the
Prosecutor and the Court on appropriate protective
measures, security arrangements, counselling and
assistance as referred to in Article 43, paragraph 6.
5. Where the disclosure of evidence or information
pursuant to this Statute may lead to the grave
endangerment of the security of a witness or his or her
family, the Prosecutor may, for the purposes of any
proceedings conducted prior to the commencement of

the trial, withhold such evidence or information and
instead submit a summary thereof. Such measures shall
be exercised in a manner which is not prejudicial to or
inconsistent with the rights of the accused and a fair
and impartial trial.
6. State may make an application for necessary measures
to be taken in respect of the protection of its servants or
agents and the protection of confidential or sensitive
information.
168 Id., Art. 75 provides:

575
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 575

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Criminal Court requires that the “principles

relating to reparations to, or in respect of,
victims, including restitution, compensation and
rehabilitation”169 be established by state parties.
Except for the Hague Convention of 1907, the
Philippines has ratified all of these international
conventions.170 The contents of the Hague Con-
_______________
Article 75. Reparations to victims.—
1. The Court shall establish principles relating to

reparations to, or in respect of victims, including
restitution, compensation and rehabilitation. On this
basis, in its decision the Court may, either upon
request or on its own motion in exceptional

circumstances, determine the scope and extent of any
damage, loss and injury to, or in respect of, victims
and will state the principles on which it is acting.
2. The Court may make an order directly against a
convicted person specifying appropriate reparations
to, or in respect of, victims, including restitution,
compensation and rehabilitation. Where appropriate,
the Court may order that the award for reparations
be made through the Trust Fund provided for in
Article 79.
3. Before making an order under this article, the
Court may invite and shall take account of
representations from or on behalf of the convicted
person, victims, other interested persons or
interested States.
4. In exercising its power under this article, the
Court may, after a person is convicted of a crime
within the jurisdiction of the Court, determine
whether, in order to give effect to an order which it
may make under this article, it is necessary to seek
measures under Article 93, paragraph 1.

A State Party shall give effect to a decision under this
article as if the provisions of Article 109 were applicable to
this article.
169 Id.
170 The Philippines signed and approved the Universal
Declaration on Human Rights on December 10, 1948 as part
of the United Nations General Assembly that adopted it;
ratified the International Convention on Civil and Political
Rights on October 23, 1986; the International Convention on
the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination on
September 15, 1967; the Convention against Torture and
Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment on June 26, 1987; Convention on the Rights of
the Child on Augnst 21, 1990; the Protocol Additional to the

Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the
Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts
(Protocol I) of June 8, 1977 on March 30, 2012; the Rome
Statute of the International Criminal Court on August 30,
2011.

575
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 575

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
vention of 1907 already form part of customary

international law embodying much of the
foundation of international humanitarian law.
All the obligations in these treaties are already
part of our laws.
We take a closer look at the International
Convention on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR). Part II, Article 2, Section 3 provides:
PART II
Article 2

....

undertakes:

an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation
has been committed by persons acting in an official
capacity;

remedy shall have his right thereto determined by

enforce such remedies when granted. (Emphasis
supplied)

The United Nations General Assembly later
adopted Resolution No. 60/147, which embodied
the Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right
to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross
and Serious Violations of International
Humanitarian Law (Basic Principles).171 The
Basic Principles was adopted to affirm and
expound on the right of victims to a remedy as
provided for in the ICCPR and other
international laws and treaties. It is persuasive
in the ICCPR’s interpretation and contributes to
achieving
_______________
171 UN G.A. Res. 60/147, U.N. Doc. A/RES/60/147 (16

December 2005). The Basic Principles and Guidelines were
recommended by the UN Commission on Human Rights in
its resolution 2005/35 dated April 19, 2005 and by the
Economic and Social Council also in its resolution dated
2005/30 dated July 25, 2005.

576

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
the full guarantee for respect of human rights

required by the Constitution.
The Basic Principles does not entail new
international obligations. The document only
identifies “mechanisms, modalities, procedures
and methods for the implementation of existing
legal obligations under international human
which are complementary through different as to
their norms.”172
Under the Basic Principles, the dignity of
victims must be respected, and their well-being
ensured. The State must take measures to
safeguard that its laws protect the victims from
re-traumatization:
VI. Treatment of victims

10. Victims should be treated with humanity and
respect for their dignity and human rights, and
appropriate measures should be taken to ensure their
safety, physical and psychological well-being and
privacy, as well as those of their families. The State
should ensure that its domestic laws, to the extent
possible, provide that a victim who has suffered
violence or trauma should benefit from special
consideration and care to avoid his or her re-
traumatization in the course of legal and
administrative procedures designed to provide justice
and reparation.

The victims’ right to a remedy under the
Basic Principles includes adequate, effective, and
prompt reparation for harm suffered:
VII. Victims’ right to remedies

11. Remedies for gross violations of international
human rights law and serious violations of
international humanitarian law include the victim’s
right to the following as provided for under
international law:
_______________
172 Basic Principles, 7th whereas clause provides:

Emphasizing that the Basic Principles and Guidelines
contained herein do not entail new international or domestic
legal obligations but identify mechanisms, modalities,
procedures and methods for the implementation of existing
legal obligations under international human rights law and
international humanitarian law which are complementary
though different as to their norms[.]

577
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 577

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
(a) Equal and effective access to justice;

(b) Adequate, effective and prompt
reparation for harm suffered;
(c) Access to relevant information concerning
violations and reparation mechanisms.

The Basic Principles further elucidates the
reparation to which the victims are entitled. It
provides that the reparation must be
proportional to the harm suffered. The general
concept of reparation and effective remedies is
found in Principles 15 and 18 of the Basic
Principles:

intended to promote justice by redressing gross
serious violations of international humanitarian law.
Reparations should be proportional to the gravity of
the violations and the harm suffered. In accordance
with its domestic laws and international legal
obligations, a State shall provide reparation to victims
for acts or omissions which can be attributed to the
State and constitute gross violations of international
human rights law or serious violations of
international humanitarian law. In cases where a
person, a legal person, or other entity is found liable
for reparation to a victim, such party should provide
reparation to the victim or compensate the State if the
State has already provided reparation to the victim.

. . . .

18. In accordance with domestic law and
international law, and taking account of individual
circumstances, victims of gross violations of
international human rights law and serious violations
of international humanitarian law should, as
appropriate and proportional to the gravity of the
violation and the circumstances of each case, be
provided with full and effective reparation, as laid out
in principles 19 to 23, which include the following
forms: restitution, compensation, rehabilitation,

satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition.

578

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Full and effective reparation includes

Restitution, Compensation, Rehabilitation,
Satisfaction, and Guarantees of Non-repetition.
These are provided for under Principles 19 to 23:
19. Restitution should, whenever possible, restore

the victim to the original situation before the gross
occurred. Restitution includes, as appropriate:
restoration of liberty, enjoyment of human rights,
identity, family life and citizenship, and return to
one’s place of residence, restoration of employment
and return of property.

circumstances of each case, resulting from gross
violations of international human rights law and
such as:
(b) Lost opportunities, including employment,

education and social benefits;
(c) Material damages and loss of earnings,
including loss of earning potential;
(d) Moral damage;
medicine and medical services, and
psychological and social services.


22. Satisfaction should include, where applicable,
any or all of the following:

(b) Verification of the facts and full and public
disclosure of the truth to the extent that such
disclosure does not cause further harm or
threaten the safety and interests of the victim,
the victim’s relatives, witnesses, or persons who
have intervened to assist

579
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 579

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
the victim or prevent the occurrence of further

violations;
(c) The search for the whereabouts of the
disappeared, for the identities of the children
abducted, and of the bodies of those killed, and
assistance in the recovery, identification and

reburial of the bodies in accordance with the
expressed or presumed wish of the victims, or
the cultural practices of the families and
communities;
(d) An official declaration or a judicial decision
connected with the victim;
(e) Public apology, including acknowledgment of
the facts and acceptance of responsibility;
(f) Judicial and administrative sanctions against
persons liable for the violations;
(h) Inclusion of an accurate account of the
violations that occurred in international human
training and in educational material at all
levels.
23. Guarantees of non-repetition should include,

where applicable, any or all of the following measures,
which will also contribute to prevention:
(a) Ensuring effective civilian control of military

and security forces;
(b) Ensuring that all civilian and military
proceedings abide by international standards of
due process, fairness and impartiality;
(c) Strengthening the independence of the
judiciary;
(d) Protecting persons in the legal, medical and
healthcare professions, the media and other
related professions, and human rights
defenders;
(e) Providing, on a priority and continued basis,
human rights and international humanitarian
law education to all sectors of society and

training for

581
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 581

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
law enforcement officials as well as military and

security forces;
(f) Promoting the observance of codes of conduct and
ethical norms, in particular international
standards, by public servants, including law
enforcement, correctional, media, medical,
psychological, social service and military personnel,
as well as by economic enterprises;
(h) Reviewing and reforming laws contributing to or
allowing gross violations of international human
rights law and serious violations of international
humanitarian law.

The Basic Principles requires separate
obligations that are complete in themselves, and
all these components are necessary for achieving
an “effective remedy”173 against human rights
violations.
Thus, Compensation for violations committed
is not enough without the victim’s satisfaction.
Satisfying and compensating the victim is not
enough unless there is a guarantee against non-
repetition. This requires a legal order that can
address these violations, as well as a cultural

and educational system that allows
174
remembrance of its occurrences. It also
requires a state that does what it can to
guarantee non-repetition of these offenses.
These are essential to “guarantee full respect
for human rights.”175 Article 2, Section 11 of the
Constitution provides that “[t]he State values
the dignity of every human person. It guarantees
full respect of human rights.”176
This provision is not a mere guide or
suggestion. It requires the positive act of the
State to guarantee full respect of human rights.
Moreover,
_______________
173 Rep. Act No. 10368, Sec. 2.

174 See Memoradum (G.R. No. 225973), p. 47;
Memorandum Commission on Human Rights Memorandum,
p. 7.
175 CONST., Art. II, Sec. 11.
176 Id.

581
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 581

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
the State, with all its branches and

instrumentalities including this Court, must
provide this guarantee. When this state policy is
invoked, the State cannot shy away from
recognizing it as a source of right that may be

affected by government actions.
The reparation due to the victims should not
be solely monetary. In addition to the
compensation provided under Republic Act No.
10368, the State must restitute, rehabilitate,
satisfy, and guarantee non-repetition to victims.
Pertinent to issues raised by the victims of
the Marcos regime is the reparation in the form
of Satisfaction and Guarantee of Non-Repetition.
The Basic Principles is clear that Satisfaction
must include a “public apology, including
acknowledgment of the facts and acceptance of
responsibility,” “judicial and administrative
sanctions against persons liable for the
violations,” and an “inclusion of an accurate
account of the violations that occurred . . . in
educational material at all levels.”
The Guarantee of Non-Repetition requires the
State to “provide, on a priority and continued
basis, human rights and international
humanitarian law education to all sectors of
society,” and “review and reform laws
contributing to or allowing gross violations of
international human rights law and serious
violations of international humanitarian law.”
The transfer of the remains of Ferdinand E.
Marcos negates all these aspects of Satisfaction
and Guarantee of Non-Repetition. There has
been no sufficient public apology, full
acknowledgment of facts, or any clear acceptance
of responsibility on the part of Ferdinand E.
Marcos or his Heirs. Neither was Ferdinand E.
Marcos sanctioned specifically for human rights
violations. Now that he is dead, the victims can
no longer avail themselves of this recourse. To
add insult to this injury, the President decided
to acknowledge the heroic acts and other

favorable aspects of Ferdinand E. Marcos, the
person primarily responsible for these human
rights violations. This affects the accuracy of the
accounts of the violations committed on the
victims. It reneges on the State’s obligation to
provide human rights education and
humanitarian law education to the Filipino
People. It contributes to allowing violations of
international human rights law and encourages
impunity. If the State chooses to revere the
person responsible for human rights violations,
the percep-

582

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
tion of its People and the rest of the world on the

gravity and weight of the violations is
necessarily compromised.
Allowing Ferdinand E. Marcos’ burial under
the pretense of the President’s policy of
promotion of national healing and forgiveness
lowers the victims’ dignity and takes away from
them their right to heal in their own time.
Allowing the Marcos burial on the premise of
national healing and forgiveness is a compulsion
from the State for the victims and the Filipino
People to forgive their transgressor without
requiring anything to be done by the
transgressor or his successors, and without even
allowing the victims to be provided first the

reparations granted to them by law.
Despite the conclusive presumption accorded
to some of these human rights victims, they have
still been unable to claim the reparations
explicitly granted to them by Republic Act No.
10368. Meanwhile, Ferdinand E. Marcos is
awarded forgiveness and accorded state funds
and public property to honor him as a Former
President and a military man. This is not the
effective remedy contemplated by law.

XIII

To allow the Marcos burial is diametrically
opposed to Republic Act No. 10368. The stated
policies are clear. These must be applied, and
applied in its entirety — in accordance with its
spirit and intent:
Thus, the literal interpretation of a statute may

render it meaningless; and lead to absurdity,
injustice, or contradiction. When this happens, and
following the rule that the intent or the spirit of the
law is the law itself, resort should be had to the
principle that the spirit of the law controls its letter.
Not to the letter that killeth, but to the spirit that
vivifieth. Hindi ang letra na pumapatay, kung
hindi ang diwa na nagbibigay buhay.177
(Emphasis supplied)
_______________
177 League of Cities of the Philippines (LCP) v.

Commission on Elections, 592 Phil. 1, 62; 571 SCRA 263,
319-320 (2008) [Per J. Carpio, En Banc].

583
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 583

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Likewise, a law is always superior to an

administrative regulation, including those
issued by the Armed Forces of the Philippines.178
The latter cannot prevail over the former. In
Conte, et al. v. Commission on Audit:179
It is doctrinal that in case of conflict between a

statute and an administrative order, the former must
prevail. A rule or regulation must conform to and be
consistent with the provisions of the enabling statute
in order for such rule or regulation to be valid. The
rule-making power of a public administrative body is
a delegated legislative power, which it may not use
either to abridge the authority given it by the
Congress or the Constitution or to enlarge its power
beyond the scope intended. Constitutional and
statutory provisions control with respect to what rules
and regulations may be promulgated by such a body,
as well as with respect to what fields are subject to
regulation by it. It may not make rules and
regulations which are inconsistent with the provisions
of the Constitution or a statute, particularly the
statute it is administering or which created it, or
which are in derogation of, or defeat, the purpose of a
statute.180 (Emphasis supplied)

This is especially true when the regulation
does not stem from any enabling statute.
Administrative regulations stem from the
President’s administrative power. In Ople v.

Torres:181
Corollary to the power of control, the President also

has the duty of supervising the enforcement of laws
for the maintenance of general peace and public order.
Thus, he is granted administrative power over
bureaus and offices under his control to enable him to
discharge his duties effectively.182
_______________
178 China Banking Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 333

Phil. 158, 173; 265 SCRA 327, 343 (1996) [Per J. Francisco,
Third Division].
179 332 Phil. 20; 264 SCRA 19 (1996) [Per J.
Panganiban, En Banc].
180 Id., at p. 36; pp. 30-31.
181 354 Phil. 948; 293 SCRA 141 (1998) [Per J. Puno, En
Banc].
182 Id., at pp. 967-968; pp. 150-151.

584

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Administrative power is concerned with the work of

applying policies and enforcing orders as determined
by proper governmental organs. It enables the
President to fix a uniform standard of administrative
efficiency and check the official conduct of his agents.
To this end, he can issue administrative orders, rules
and regulations. (Emphasis supplied, citations

omitted)

Because regulations are issued under the
administrative powers of the President, its
function is mostly to properly apply policies and
enforce orders. Thus, regulations must be in
harmony with the law. The AFP Regulations
cannot be given priority by the President over
Nonetheless, assuming the AFP Regulations
are valid, Republic Act No. 10368 has amended
them such that they disallow any governmental
act that conflicts with the victims’ right to
recognition and reparation. Section 31 of
Republic Act No. 10368 provides:
Section 31. Repealing Clause.—All laws, decrees,

executive orders, rules and regulations or parts
thereof inconsistent with any of the provisions of this
Act, including Section 63(b) of Republic Act No. 6657,
as amended, otherwise known as the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 and Section 40(a) of
Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local
Government Code of 1991, are hereby repealed,
amended or modified accordingly.

Since Republic Act No. 10368 should be read
into or deemed to have amended the AFP
Regulations, the transfer of the remains of
Ferdinand E. Marcos is illegal.

XIV

Assuming the AFP Regulations remain the
governing regulation over the Libingan ng mga
Bayani, Ferdinand E. Marcos is still disqualified

from being interred there. It can be inferred
from the list of disqualifications that those who
have committed serious crimes, something
inherently immoral, despite having served the
country in some way, are not “bayani” deserving
to be interred at the Libingan ng mga Bayani.

585
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 585

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta

contends that Ferdinand E. Marcos is not
disqualified from being interred at the Libingan
ng mga Bayani under the AFP Regulations as he
was neither convicted of an offense involving
moral turpitude nor dishonorably discharged
from active military service. This argument is
hinged on the constitutional provision that a
person shall not be held to answer for a criminal
offense without due process of law and the
presumption of innocence in all criminal
prosecutions.183
It is true that the presumption of innocence
applies in criminal prosecutions. Nonetheless,
relying on the presumption of innocence to allow
Ferdinand E. Marcos to escape the consequence
of his crimes is flimsy.
First, this is not a criminal prosecution, and
the rights of the accused do not apply. Second,
Ferdinand E. Marcos’ innocence is not in issue
here. Even public respondents do not insult
petitioners by arguing that Ferdinand E. Marcos

is not complicit and responsible for the atrocities
committed during his dictatorship. Third, an
invocation of the presumption of Ferdinand E.
Marcos’ innocence is a rejection of the legislative
findings of Republic Act No. 10368 and of this
Court’s own pronouncements in numerous cases.
The issue at hand is whether Ferdinand E.
Marcos is someone who should be honored and
emulated.
There is no presumption of innocence when it
comes to determining one’s fitness to be buried
at the Libingan ng mga Bayani. Moreover, as
Ferdinand E. Marcos is a public officer, the
standards are high. Article XI of the
Constitution provides the basic rules that must
be followed by all public officers:

ARTICLE XI
Accountability of Public Officers

SECTION 1. Public office is a public trust. Public
officers and employees must, at all times, be
accountable to the people, serve them with utmost
responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency; act
with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.
_______________

586

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Not only is Ferdinand E. Marcos responsible

for gross human rights violations and, thus,
crimes of moral turpitude; he also failed to meet
any of the standards imposed on a public officer
under the Constitution. On this alone, he is not
worthy of being emulated and does not belong at
the Libingan ng mga Bayani.

XV

The Solicitor General claims that the
provision in the Administrative Code of 1987 is
the government’s legal basis for the instructions
to bury the remains of Ferdinand E. Marcos at
the Libingan ng mga Bayani:
Section 14. Power to Reserve Lands of the Public

and Private Domain of the Government.—(1) The
President shall have the power to reserve for
settlement or public use, and for specific public
purposes, any of the lands of the public domain, the
use of which is not otherwise directed by law. The
reserved land shall thereafter remain subject to the
specific public purpose indicated until otherwise
provided by law or proclamation. (Emphasis supplied)

This provision requires two (2) substantive
requirements. First, the segregation of land is
“for public use and a specific public purpose.”
Second, the use of public land “is not otherwise
directed by law.”
The Solicitor General cites Manosca v. Court
of Appeals184 and City of Manila v. Chinese
Community of Manila.185 These cases provide

little assistance to their case.
The Solicitor General claims that “recognizing
a person’s contribution to Philippine history and
culture is consistent with the requirement of
public use.”186 Yet, he acknowledges on behalf of
government that Martial Law was part of the
“dark pages” of our history. Thus, in his
Consolidated Comment:
_______________
184 G.R. No. 106440, January 29, 1996, 252 SCRA 412
[Per J. Vitug, First Division].
185 40 Phil. 349 (1919) [Per J. Johnson, En Banc].
186 Solicitor General Consolidated Comment, p. 43.

587
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 587

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
No amount of heartfelt eulogy, gun salutes, holy

anointment, and elaborate procession and rituals can
transmogrify the dark pages of history during Martial
Law. As it is written now, Philippine history is on the
side of Petitioners and everybody who fought and died
for democracy.187

Ferdinand E. Marcos was ousted from the
highest office by the direct sovereign act of the
People. His regime was marked by brutality and
by the “organized pillaging” that came to pass.
In Marcos v. Manglapus,188 which was

decided in 1989, this Court acknowledged that
Ferdinand E. Marcos was “a dictator”189 who
was “forced out of office and into exile after
causing twenty years of political, economic and
social havoc in the country.”190 This Court
recognized the immediate effects of the Marcos
regime:
We cannot also lose sight of the fact that the

country is only now beginning to recover from the
hardships brought about by the plunder of the
economy attributed to the Marcoses and their close
associates and relatives, many of whom are still here
in the Philippines in a position to destabilize the
country, while the Government has barely scratched
the surface, so to speak, in its efforts to recover the
enormous wealth stashed away by the Marcoses in
foreign jurisdictions. Then, we cannot ignore the
continually increasing burden imposed on the
economy by the excessive foreign borrowing during
the Marcos regime, which stifles and stagnates
development and is one of the root causes of
widespread poverty and all its attendant ills. The
resulting precarious state of our economy is of
common knowledge and is easily within the ambit of
judicial notice.191

In 2006, in Yuchengco v. Sandiganbayan:192
In PCGG v. Peña, this Court, describing the rule of

Marcos as a “well-entrenched plundering regime of
twenty years” noted the
_______________
187 Id., at pp. 60-61.

189 Id., at p. 492; pp. 682-683.
190 Id.
191 Id., at p. 509; p. 698.
192 515 Phil. 1; 479 SCRA 1 (2006) [Per J. Carpio-
Morales, En Banc].

588

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
“magnitude of the past regime’s ‘organized pillage’

and the ingenuity of the plunderers and pillagers with
the assistance of the experts and best legal minds
available in the market.” The evidence presented in
this case reveals one more instance of this grand
scheme. This Court — guardian of the high standards
and noble traditions of the legal profession — has
thus before it an opportunity to undo, even if only to a
certain extent, the damage that has been done.193
(Citations omitted)

In the 2001 case of Estrada v. Desierto,194 this
Court characterized once again the 1986 EDSA
Revolution and, in so doing, described the
rejection of the Marcos regime:
[T]he government of former President Aquino was the

result of a successful revolution by the sovereign
people, albeit a peaceful one. No less than the
Freedom Constitution declared that the Aquino
government was installed through a direct exercise of

the power of the Filipino People in defiance of the
provisions of the 1973 Constitution, as amended.195

The other possible purpose stated by the
Solicitor General is to achieve the ambiguous
goal of “national healing.”196 During the Oral
Arguments, the Solicitor General argues that
the aim of the burial is to achieve “changing the
national psyche and beginning the painful
healing of this country.” In doing so, however,
respondents rewrite our history to erase the
remembrance of Ferdinand E. Marcos as a
symbol of the atrocities committed to many of
our People. It is an attempt to forget that he was
a human rights violator, a dictator, and a
plunderer, in the name of “national healing” and
at the cost of repetition of the same acts in this
or future generations.
_______________
193 Id., at pp. 48-49; pp. 56-57.

194 406 Phil. 1; 353 SCRA 452 (2001) [Per J. Puno, En
Banc].
195 Id., at pp. 43-44; p. 492. See also Lawyers’ League for
a Better Philippines v. Aquino, supra note 126, as cited in In
Re: Saturnino V. Bermudez, supra note 126.
196 Solicitor General, Consolidated Comment, p. 5.

589
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 589
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Considering Ferdinand E. Marcos’

disreputable role in Philippine history, there can
be no recognition that serves the public interest
for him. There is no legitimate public purpose for
setting aside public land at the Libingan ng mga
Bayani — definitely a national shrine — for him.
Manosca states the standard that
governmental action to favor an individual or his
or her memory will only be allowed if it is to
recognize the person’s laudable and distinctive
contribution to Philippine history or culture.
Ferdinand E. Marcos’ leadership has been
discredited both by statutory provisions and
jurisprudence. He has contribution that stands
out and that should be validly recognized.
It is disturbing that what appears to be the
underlying cause for the interment of the
remains of Ferdinand E. Marcos at the Libingan
ng mga Bayani is the fulfillment of a campaign
promise by President Duterte to the Heirs of
Marcos. This dovetails with petitioners’
manifestation that campaign contributions were
made by the Heirs of Marcos. Promised acts of a
political candidate to a family to further
personal political ambition at the cost of the
public’s welfare cannot be considered as the
public purpose required by the Administrative
Code of 1987.

XVI

The exercise of the President’s powers may
not be justified by invoking the executive’s
residual powers.
An exercise of the President’s residual powers

is appropriate only if there is no law delegating
the power to another body, and if there is an
exigency that should be addressed immediately
or that threatens the existence of government.
These involve contingencies that cannot await
consideration by the appropriate branches of
government.
In Gonzales v. Marcos,197 this Court
recognized the residual power of the President to
administer donations specifically in the absence
of legislative guidelines. This Court stressed
that it was necessary that the executive act
promptly, as time was of the essence:
_______________
197 160 Phil. 637; 65 SCRA 624 (1975) [Per J. Fernando,

En Banc].

590

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
There is impressive juridical support for the stand

taken by the lower court. Justice Malcolm in
Government of the Philippine Islands v. Springer took
pains to emphasize: “Just as surely as the duty of
caring for governmental property is neither judicial
nor legislative in character is it as surely executive.”
It would be an unduly narrow or restrictive view of
such a principle if the public funds that accrued by
way of donation from the United States and financial

contributions for the Cultural Center project could not
be legally considered as “governmental property.”
They may be acquired under the concept of dominium,
the state as a persona in law not being deprived of
such an attribute, thereafter to be administered by
virtue of its prerogative of imperium. What is a more
appropriate agency for assuring that they be not
wasted or frittered away than the Executive, the
department precisely entrusted with management
functions? It would thus appear that for the President
to refrain from taking positive steps and await the
action of the then Congress could be tantamount to
dereliction of duty. He had to act; time was of the
essence. Delay was far from conducive to public
interest. It was as simple as that. Certainly then, it
could be only under the most strained construction of
executive power to conclude that in taking the step he
took, he transgressed on terrain constitutionally
reserved for Congress.198 (Emphasis supplied,
citations omitted)

In Marcos v. Manglapus,199 the government
was unstable and was threatened by various
forces, such as elements within the military, who
were among the rabid followers of Ferdinand E.
Marcos. Thus, the residual power of the
President to bar the return of Ferdinand E.
Marcos’ body was recognized by this Court as
borne by the duty to preserve and defend the
Constitution and ensure the faithful execution of
laws:
The power involved is the President’s residual power

to protect the general welfare of the people. It is
founded on the duty of the President, as steward of
the people. To paraphrase Theodore Roosevelt, it is
not only the power of the President but also his duty
to do anything not forbidden by the Constitution or
the laws that the needs of the nation demand. It is a
_______________
198 Id., at p. 644; p. 631.


591
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 591

Ocampo vs. Enriquez

that the laws are faithfully executed.200

Further, this Court recognized the President’s
residual powers for the purpose of, and
necessary for, maintaining peace:
More particularly, this case calls for the exercise of

the President’s powers as protector of the peace. The
power of the President to keep the peace is not limited
merely to exercising the commander-in-chief powers
in times of emergency or to leading the State against
external and internal threats to its existence. The
President is not only clothed with extraordinary
powers in times of emergency, but is also tasked with
attending to the day-to-day problems of maintaining
peace and order and ensuring domestic tranquillity in
times when no foreign foe appears on the horizon.

Wide discretion, within the bounds of law, in fulfilling
presidential duties in times of peace is not in any way
diminished by the relative want of an emergency
specified in the commander-in-chief provision. For in
making the President commander-in-chief the
enumeration of powers that follow cannot be said to
exclude the President’s exercising as Commander-in-
Chief powers short of the calling of the armed forces,
or suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus or declaring martial law, in order to keep the
peace, and maintain public order and security.201

In Sanlakas v. Reyes202 where several
hundred members of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines stormed the Oakwood Premiere
apartments in Makati City and demanded
Former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s
resignation, the use of the President’s residual
power to declare a state of rebellion was allowed.
This Court held that although the declaration is
a superfluity, her power to declare a state of
rebellion arises from her pow-
_______________
200 Id., at p. 504; p. 694, citing Hyman, The American

President, where the author advances the view that an
allowance of discretionary power is unavoidable in any
government and is best lodged in the President.
201 Id., at pp. 504-505; p. 694, citing Rossiter, The
American Presidency.
202 Sanlakas v. Reyes, supra note 78.

592

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
ers as Chief Executive and Commander-in-

Chief.203 This Court examined the history of
such powers:
The lesson to be learned from the U.S.

constitutional history is that the Commander-in-Chief
powers are broad enough as it is and become more so
when taken together with the provision on executive
power and the presidential oath of office. Thus, the
plenitude of the powers of the presidency equips the
occupant with the means to address exigencies or
threats which undermine the very existence of
government or the integrity of the State.204

In these cases, the residual powers recognized
by this Court were directly related to the
President’s duty to attend to a present
contingency or an urgent need to act in order to
preserve domestic tranquility. In all cases of the
exercise of residual power, there must be a clear
lack of legislative policy to guide executive
power.
This is not the situation in these consolidated
cases. As discussed, there are laws violated. At
the very least, there was no urgency. There was
no disturbance to the public peace.

XVII

I disagree with Associate Justice Jose P.

Perez’s view that the issue relating to the
transfer of the remains of Ferdinand E. Marcos
was already resolved through the political
process of the election of the President of the
Philippines.205 In his view, the issue had already
been presented to the public during the
campaign season, and President Duterte was
elected despite petitioners’ opposition. Thus, he
concludes that the sovereign has subscribed to
the policy promised by President Duterte.206 In
other words, he is of the opinion that the People
decided that Ferdinand E. Marcos should be
buried at the Libingan ng mga Bayani because
President Duterte did not lose.207
_______________
203 Id., at p. 522; p. 677.

204 Id., at p. 518; pp. 675-699.
205 J. Perez, Concurring Opinion, p. 472.
206 Id., at p. 473.
207 Id., at pp. 474-475.

593
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 593

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Associate Justice Perez suggests that the

President-elect’s acts to effectuate his campaign
promises may no longer be questioned by any
party, regardless of whether it is contrary to the
Constitution, laws, and public policy, regardless
of whether he obtained the votes of the majority,

and regardless of whether he acted with grave
of jurisdiction.208 He takes the position that any
act of the President to fulfill his electoral
promise will be deemed legitimate because the
People have supposedly chosen him as their
President.209
I cannot agree to this dangerous proposition.
We are a constitutional democracy: a State
under the rule of law.
The number of votes obtained by the
President does not determine whether the
Constitution or the laws will or will not apply.
The Constitution is not suspended on account of
the election of a President who promised a
particular policy. We elect a President whom we
expect to implement political platforms given the
existing state of the law. The process of election
is not a means to create new law. The process of
creating law is provided in Article VIII of the
Constitution. Neither should the elections for
President be the process for amending the
Constitution. The process for amending the
Constitution is provided in Article XVII of the
same Constitution.
Furthermore, the President is tasked to
execute the law — not create it. It is the
legislative branch that determines state policies
through its power to enact, amend, and repeal
laws. Thus, it is dangerous to assume that the
sovereign voted for the President to “ratify”
policies he promised during his campaign.
In other words, under our constitutional
order, we elect a President subject to the
Constitution and the current state of the law.
We do not, through the process of elections,

anoint a king.
Moreover, the theory that a campaign
promise becomes policy is an abdication of the
judiciary’s duty to uphold the Constitution and
its laws.
_______________
208 Id.
209 Id.

594

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Article VIII, Section 1 of the Constitution

provides:

ARTICLE VIII
Judicial Department

SECTION 1. The judicial power shall be vested in
one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may

Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of
justice to settle actual controversies involving rights
which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to


This provision defines this Court’s duty to
ensure that all branches or instrumentalities of
Government act only within the scope of their
powers as defined by the Constitution and by
law. Nothing in the provision allows campaign
promises to trump the rule of law.
Associate Justice Perez’s Concurring Opinion
is founded upon the premise that the transfer of
the remains of Ferdinand E. Marcos is a
question of policy to be determined by the
People, outside the scope of this Court’s power of
judicial review. He claims that the matter is a
political question. Unfortunately, the allegations
of an infringement upon a fundamental
individual or collective right and grave abuse of
discretion on the part of another branch of
government, which were properly pleaded by
petitioners, were not addressed.
Recently, in Diocese of Bacolod v. Commission
on Elections:210
The political question doctrine is used as a defense

when the petition asks this court to nullify certain
acts that are exclusively within the domain of their
respective competencies, as provided by the
Constitution or the law. In such situation,
presumptively, this court should act with deference. It
will decline to void an act unless the exercise of that
power was so capricious and arbitrary so as to amount
to grave abuse of discretion.
_______________
210 G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015, 747 SCRA 1 [Per
J. Leonen, En Banc].

595
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 595

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
The concept of a political question, however, never

precludes judicial review when the act of a
constitutional organ infringes upon a fundamental
individual or collective right. . . .
Marcos v. Manglapus limited the use of the
political question doctrine:
When political questions are involved, the

Constitution limits the determination to
jurisdiction on the part of the official whose
action is being questioned. If grave abuse is not
established, the Court will not substitute its
judgment for that of the official concerned and
decide a matter which by its nature or by law is
for the latter alone to decide.
How this court has chosen to address the political

question doctrine has undergone an evolution since
the time that it had been first invoked in Marcos v.
Manglapus. Increasingly, this court has taken the
historical and social context of the case and the
relevance of pronouncements of carefully and
narrowly tailored constitutional doctrines. . . .
Many constitutional cases arise from political

crises. The actors in such crises may use the
resolution of constitutional issues as leverage. But the
expanded jurisdiction of this court now mandates a
duty for it to exercise its power of judicial review
expanding on principles that may avert catastrophe or
resolve social conflict.
This court’s understanding of the political question
has not been static or unbending. In Llamas v.
Executive Secretary Oscar Orbos, this court held:
While it is true that courts cannot inquire

into the manner in which the President’s
discretionary powers are exercised or into the
wisdom for its exercise, it is also a settled
rule that when the issue involved concerns
the validity of such discretionary powers or
whether said powers are within the limits
prescribed by the Constitution, We will not
decline to exercise our power of judicial
review. And such review does not constitute a
modification or correction of the act of the
President, nor does it constitute interference
with the functions of the President.

596

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
The concept of judicial power in relation to the

concept of the political question was discussed most
extensively in Francisco v. HRET. In this case, the
House of Representatives argued that the question of

the validity of the second impeachment complaint
that was filed against former Chief Justice Hilario
Davide was a political question beyond the ambit of
this court. . . .
As stated in Francisco, a political question will not
be considered justiciable if there are no
constitutionally imposed limits on powers or functions
conferred upon political bodies. Hence, the existence
of constitutionally imposed limits justifies
subjecting the official actions of the body to the
scrutiny and review of this court.211 (Emphasis
supplied, citations omitted)

XVIII

Similarly, I cannot agree with the conclusions
of Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion with respect
to the interpretation of Article VIII, Section 1 of
the Constitution.
Associate Justice Brion opines that this
Court’s expanded jurisdiction under the
Constitution does not empower this Court to
review allegations involving violations and
misapplication of statutes.212 He claims that the
remedies available to petitioners are those found
in the Rules of Court, which address errors of
law.213 He claims that this Court can only check
whether there is grave abuse of discretion on the
part of another branch or instrumentality of
government when there is a violation of the
Constitution.214 Necessarily, petitioners must
have shown that there is prima facie evidence
that the President violated the Constitution in
allowing the Marcos burial.215 He insists that
the Court’s authority, under its expanded
jurisdiction, is limited to determining the

constitutionality of a governmental act. Grave
abuse of discretion from violations of statutes
cannot be made a matter of judicial review
under this Court’s expanded jurisdiction.
_______________
211 Id., at pp. 20-23.

212 J. Brion, Concurring Opinion, p. 437.
213 Id.
214 Id., at p. 438.
215 Id.

597
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 597

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Associate Justice Brion’s interpretation

proceeds from the theory that there is a
hierarchy of breach of the normative legal order
and that only a breach of the Constitution will
be considered grave abuse of discretion.
In my view, this reading is not supported by
the text of the provision or by its history.
Article VIII, Section 1 of the Constitution is
clear. This Court is possessed of the duty to
exercise its judicial power to determine whether
there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or expess of jurisdiction by any branch or
instrumentality of government. This provision
does not state that this Court may exercise its
power of judicial review exclusively in cases of

violations of the Constitution.
An illegal act is an illegal act, no matter
whether it is illegal as a result of the violation of
a constitutional provision or a violation of valid
and existing law. It is the exercise of discretion
that must be subjected to review, and it is the
discretion of any branch or instrumentality of
government. Nothing in the Constitution can
lead to the conclusion that a violation of a
statute by the President is not a grave abuse of
discretion.
This jurisdiction to determine whether there
is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess jurisdiction of any branch of government
is a new provision under the 1987 Constitution.
It was added as a safeguard from abuses of other
branches of government, which were justified
under the doctrine of political question. In
Francisco, Jr. v. House of Representatives:216
In our own jurisdiction, as early as 1902, decades

before its express grant in the 1935 Constitution, the
power of judicial review was exercised by our courts to
invalidate constitutionally infirm acts. And as pointed
out by noted political law professor and former
Supreme Court Justice Vicente V. Mendoza, the
executive and legislative branches of our government
in fact effectively acknowledged this power of judicial
review in Article 7 of the Civil Code, to wit:
_______________

Morales, En Banc].

598

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Article 7. Laws are repealed only by

subsequent ones, and their violation or
nonobservance shall not be excused by disuse,
or custom or practice to the contrary.

When the courts declare a law to be inconsistent
with the Constitution, the former shall be void
and the latter shall govern.

Administrative or executive acts, orders and
regulations shall be valid only when they are not
contrary to the laws or the Constitution.

. . . .
In the scholarly estimation of former Supreme

Court Justice Florentino Feliciano, “. . . judicial
review is essential for the maintenance and
enforcement of the separation of powers and the
balancing of powers among the three great
departments of government through the definition and
maintenance of the boundaries of authority and
control between them.” To him, “[j]udicial review is
the chief, indeed the only, medium of participation —
or instrument of intervention — of the judiciary in
that balancing operation.”
To ensure the potency of the power of judicial
review to curb grave abuse of discretion by “any
branch or instrumentalities of government,” the
aforequoted Section 1, Article VIII of the
Constitution engraves, for the first time into its

history, into block letter law the so-called
“expanded certiorari jurisdiction” of this Court,
the nature of and rationale for which are mirrored in
the following excerpt from the sponsorship speech of
its proponent, former Chief Justice Constitutional
Commissioner Roberto Concepcion:

. . . .

The first section starts with a sentence copied from
former Constitution. It says:
The judicial power shall be vested in one

Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may

I suppose nobody can question it.
The next provision is new in our constitutional law.

I will read it first and explain.

599
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 599

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Judicial power includes the duty of courts of

justice to settle actual controversies involving
enforceable and to determine whether or not
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on
the part or instrumentality of the government.
Fellow Members of this Commission, this is

actually a product of our experience during
martial law. As a matter of fact, it has some
antecedents in the past, but the role of the
judiciary during the deposed regime was marred
considerably by the circumstance that in a
number of cases against the government, which
then had no legal defense at all, the solicitor
general set up the defense of political questions
and got away with it. As a consequence, certain
principles concerning particularly the writ of
habeas corpus, that is, the authority of courts to
order the release of political detainees, and
other matters related to the operation and effect
of martial law failed because the government
set up the defense of political question. And the
Supreme Court said: “Well, since it is political,
we have no authority to pass upon it.” The
Committee on the Judiciary feels that this was
not a proper solution of the questions involved. It
did not merely request an encroachment upon
the rights of the people, but it, in effect,
encouraged further violations thereof during the
martial law regime. . . .

....

Briefly stated, courts of justice determine the
limits of power of the agencies and offices of the
government as well as those of its officers. In
other words, the judiciary is the final arbiter on
the question whether or not a branch of
government or any of its officials has acted
without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction,
or so capriciously as to constitute an abuse of
discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction or
lack of jurisdiction. This is not only a judicial
power but a duty to pass judgment on matters of

this nature.
This is the background of paragraph 2 of
Section 1, which means that the courts cannot
hereafter evade the

600

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
duty to settle matters of this nature, by claiming

that such matters constitute a political
question.217 (Emphasis supplied)

It is not about violations that may or may not
be constitutional or statutory in character. It is
about discretion gravely abused.
Regretfully, Associate Justice Brion’s position
ignores the legal issues presented by petitioners,
which involve a question of the proper exercise
of constitutional powers: whether the President
may use his executive power to order the
transfer of the remains of Ferdinand E. Marcos’
to the Libingan ng mga Bayani burial despite
the rights invoked by petitioners and other
particular provisions in the Constitution,
statutes, and public policy.
Definitely, there is an actual case or
controversy ripe for judicial review. Recalling a
position in Spouses Imbong v. Ochoa, Jr.:218
The requirement for a “case” or “controversy”

locates the judiciary in the scheme of our
constitutional order. It defines our role and
distinguishes this institution from the other
constitutional organs.

....

An actual case or controversy is “one which
involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of
opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial resolution;
the case must not be moot or academic or based on
extralegal or other similar considerations not
cognizable by a court of justice.” To be justiciable, the
issues presented must be “‘definite and concrete,
touching the legal relations of parties having adverse
legal interest’; a real and substantial controversy
admitting of specific relief.” The term justiciability
refers to the dual limitation of only considering in an
adversarial context the questions presented before
courts, and in the process, the courts’ duty to respect
its coequal branches of government’s powers and
prerogatives under the doctrine of separation of
powers.
_______________
217 Id., at pp. 881-884; pp. 123-126.

218 J. Leonen, Dissenting Opinion in Imbong v. Ochoa,
Jr., G.R. No. 204819, April 8, 2014, 721 SCRA 146, 731-847
[Per J. Mendoza, En Banc].

601
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 601

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
There is a case or controversy when there is a real

conflict of rights or duties arising from actual
facts. These facts, properly established in court
through evidence or judicial notice, provide the
natural limitations upon judicial interpretation of the
statute. When it is claimed that a statute is
inconsistent with a provision of the Constitution, the
meaning of a constitutional provision will be narrowly
drawn.
Without the necessary findings of facts, this court
is left to speculate leaving justices to grapple within
the limitations of their own life experiences. This
provides too much leeway for the imposition of
political standpoints or personal predilections of the
majority of this court. This is not what the
Constitution contemplates. Rigor in determining
whether controversies brought before us are
justiciable avoids the counter majoritarian difficulties
attributed to the judiciary.
Without the existence and proper proof of actual
facts, any review of the statute or its implementing
rules will be theoretical and abstract. Courts are not
structured to predict facts, acts or events that will
still happen. Unlike the legislature, we do not
determine policy. We read law only when we are
convinced that there is enough proof of the real acts or
events that raise conflicts of legal rights or duties.
Unlike the executive, our participation comes in after
the law has been implemented. Verily, we also do not
determine how laws are to be implemented.219

There is an actual case or controversy in this
case as it involves a conflict of legal rights
arising from actual facts, which have been

properly established through evidence or judicial
notice, and which provide the natural limitations
upon judicial interpretation of the statute.
Petitioners invoke a violation of their existing
legal rights, among which is their right as
victims of human rights violations committed
during the Marcos regime. They invoke an act
from the executive branch, which allegedly
violates their rights and was allegedly
committed with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. On
the other hand, respondents insist on the
President’s right to exercise his executive
discretion on who may or may not be buried at
the
_______________
219 Id., at pp. 738-739.

602

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Libingan ng mga Bayani. Thus, a conflict of

rights must be determined by this Court in
accordance with the Constitution and statutes.
This Court’s ruling on the matter will not be
merely advisory; on the contrary, it shall be
binding among the parties and shall be
implemented with force and effect. Thus, there is

an actual case or controversy.

XIX

Associate Justice Peralta contends that
petitioners have no locus standi because they
failed to show any direct suffering or personal
injury that they have incurred or will incur as a
result of Ferdinand E. Marcos’ burial.220
I cannot agree.
The requirement of locus standi requires that
the party raising the issue must have “a
personal and substantial interest in the case
such that he has sustained, or will sustain direct
injury as a result.”221
In Public Interest Center, Inc. v. Roxas:222
In Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Zamora, this

Court defined legal standing as follows:
Legal standing or locus standi has been defined as
a personal and substantial interest in the case such
that the party has sustained or will sustain direct
injury as a result of the governmental act that is
being challenged. The term “interest” means a
material interest, an interest in issue affected by the
decree, as distinguished from mere interest in the
question involved, or a mere incidental interest. The
gist of the question of standing is whether a party
alleges “such personal stake in the outcome of the
controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness
which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which
the court depends for illumination of difficult
constitutional questions.”
_______________
220 Ponencia, pp. 260-261.

221 People v. Vera, 65 Phil. 56, 87 (1937) [Per J. Laurel,
First Division].
Morales, Second Division].

603
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 603

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
In public suits, the plaintiff, representing the

general public, asserts a “public right” in assailing an
allegedly illegal official action. The plaintiff may be a
person who is affected no differently from any other
person, and could be suing as a “stranger,” or as a
“citizen” or “taxpayer.” To invest him with locus
standi, the plaintiff has to adequately show that he is
entitled to judicial protection and has a sufficient
interest in the vindication of the asserted public
right.223 (Citations omitted)

Several petitioners allege that they are
human rights victims during the Marcos regime
who had filed claims under Republic Act No.
10368. In their Petitions, they claim that
respondents’ questioned acts affect their right to
reparation and recognition under Republic Act
No. 10368 and international laws. As petitioners
have an interest against Ferdinand E. Marcos
and have claims against the State in connection
with the violation of their human rights,
petitioners are vested with material interest in
the President’s act in allowing the Marcos burial

at the Libingan ng mga Bayani.
In any case, the rule on standing has been
relaxed “when the matter is of transcendental
importance, of overreaching significance to
society, or of paramount public interest.”224 In In
Re Supreme Court Judicial Independence v.
Judiciary Development Fund:225
Transcendental importance is not defined in our

jurisprudence, thus, in Francisco v. House of
Representatives:
_______________
223 Id., at pp. 455-456; pp. 469-470.

224 In the Matter of: Save the Supreme Court Judicial
Independence and Fiscal Autonomy Movement v. Abolition of
Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) and Reduction of Fiscal
Autonomy, UDK-15143, January 21, 2015, 746 SCRA 352
[Per J. Leonen, En Banc], citing Biraogo v. Philippine Truth
Commission of 2010, supra note 76 at p. 441; p. 151, in turn
citing Social Justice Society (SJS) v. Dangerous Drugs
Board, 591 Phil. 393, 404; 570 SCRA 410, 421 (2008) [Per J.
Velasco, Jr., En Banc], Tatad v. Secretary of the Department
of Energy, 346 Phil. 321, 359; 281 SCRA 330, 348 (1997) [Per
J. Puno, En Banc], and De Guia v. Commission on Elections,
G.R. No. 104712, May 6, 1992, 208 SCRA 420, 422 [Per J.
Bellosillo, En Banc].
225 Id.

604

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
There being no doctrinal definition of

transcendental importance, the following
instructive determinants formulated by former
Supreme Court Justice Florentino P. Feliciano
are instructive: (1) the character of the funds or
other assets involved in the case; (2) the
presence of a clear case of disregard of a
constitutional or statutory prohibition by the
public respondent agency or instrumentality of
the government; and (3) the lack of any other
party with a more direct and specific interest in
raising the questions being raised.226 (Citations
omitted)

Given that public property and funds are
involved and there are allegations of disregard of
constitutional and statutory limitations by the
executive department, this Court may properly
act on the Petitions.
The ponencia states that petitioners violated
the doctrines of exhaustion of administrative
remedies and hierarchy of courts,227 which
essentially espouse the principle that no direct
resort to this Court is allowed when there are
other plain, speedy, and adequate remedies.

However, there are exceptions to this rule, as
restated in Diocese of Bacolod:
(a) When there are genuine issues of
constitutionality that must be addressed at
the most immediate time;
(b) When the issues involved are of
transcendental importance. In these cases,
the imminence and clarity of the threat to

fundamental constitutional rights outweigh
the necessity for prudence. The doctrine
relating to constitutional issues of
transcendental importance prevents courts
from the paralysis of procedural niceties
when clearly faced with the need for
substantial protection;
(c) In cases of first impression, and no
jurisprudence yet exists that will guide the
lower courts on this matter;
(d) When the constitutional issues raised are
better decided by this court;
_______________
226 Id., at pp. 367-368.


605
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 605

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
(e) When the filed petition reviews the act of a

constitutional organ;
(f) When there is a time element presented in
this case cannot be ignored;
(g) When there is no other plain, speedy, and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law that could free them from the injurious
effects of respondents’ acts in violation of
their rights; and
(h) When the petition includes questions that

are “dictated by public welfare and the
advancement of public policy, or demanded
by the broader interest of justice, or the
orders complained of were found to be
patent nullities, or the appeal was
considered as clearly an inappropriate
remedy.”228

These exceptions are present in these
consolidated cases. First, these cases involve
reviewing the act of another constitutional
organ, that is, the President’s exercise of
discretion in allowing Ferdinand E. Marcos’
burial at the Libingan ng mga Bayani. Second,
these Petitions raise constitutional questions
that would be better decided by this Court, as
well as issues relating to public policy that may
be beyond the competence of the lower courts.
These cases are likewise of first impression, and
no jurisprudence yet exists on this matter. Thus,
the Petitions cannot be dismissed by invoking
the doctrine of hierarchy of courts and
exhaustion of administrative remedies.

XX

Grave abuse of discretion is committed when
the President violates his or her own oath of
office. Thus, in Article VII, Section 5 of the 1987
Constitution:

ARTICLE VII
Executive Department

....
_______________
228 Diocese of Bacolod v. Commission on Elections, supra

note 210 at pp. 15-18.

606

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
SECTION 5. . . .

“I, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully
and conscientiously fulfill my duties as President . . .
of the Philippines, preserve and defend its
Constitution, execute its laws, do justice to every man,
and consecrate myself to the service of the nation. So
help me God.”

The President’s duty to faithfully execute the
laws of the land is enshrined in the Constitution.
Thus, in Article VII, Section 17:

all executive departments, bureaus and offices. He
shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed.

In Almario v. Executive Secretary,229 we have
clarified that the faithful execution clause is not
a separate grant of power but an obligation
imposed on the President. The President is,
therefore, not above the law or above judicial
interpretation. He is duty-bound to obey and

execute them. Thus, administrative or executive
acts, orders and regulations shall be valid only
when they are not contrary to the laws or the
Constitution.230
In Almario, the President’s proclamation of
several national artists was nullified because
several rules, guidelines, and processes of the
National Commission on Culture and the Arts
and the Cultural Center of the Philippines were
disregarded. This Court declared that the
actions of the President, contrary to the spirit of
these rules, constituted grave abuse of
discretion:
Thus, in the matter of the conferment of the Order

of National Artists, the President may or may not
adopt the recommendation or advice of the NCCA and
the CCP Boards. In other words, the advice of the
NCCA and the CCP is subject to the President’s
discretion.
Nevertheless, the President’s discretion on the
matter is not totally unfettered, nor the role of the
NCCA and the CCP Boards meaningless.
_______________

v. The Executive Secretary, supra note 1.
230 CIVIL CODE, Art. 7.

607
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 607
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Discretion is not a free-spirited stallion that runs

and roams wherever it pleases but is reigned in to
keep it from straying. In its classic formulation,
‘discretion is not unconfined and vagrant’ but
‘canalized within banks that keep it from overflowing.’
The President’s power must be exercised in
accordance with existing laws. Section 17, Article VII
of the Constitution prescribes faithful execution of the
laws by the President:
Sec. 17. The President shall have control of all

the executive departments, bureaus and offices.
He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully
executed.
The President’s discretion in the conferment of the

Order of National Artists should be exercised in
accordance with the duty to faithfully execute the
relevant laws. The faithful execution clause is best
construed as an obligation imposed on the President,
not a separate grant of power. It simply underscores
the rule of law and, corollarily, the cardinal principle
that the President is not above the laws but is obliged
to obey and execute them. This is precisely why the
law provides that “[a]dministrative or executive acts,
orders and regulations shall be valid only when they
are not contrary to the laws of the Constitution.”231

XXI

The ponencia’s characterization of Ferdinand
E. Marcos as “just a human who erred like us”232
trivializes the magnitude of the suffering that he
inflicted on scores of Filipinos.
Ferdinand E. Marcos’ “errors” were not errors

that a President is entitled to commit. They were
exceptional in both severity and scale. They were
inhuman acts.
Ferdinand E. Marcos provided the
atmosphere of impunity that allowed the
molestations, rape, torture, death, and
disappearance of thousands of Filipinos.
Ferdinand E. Marcos was the President who,
rather than preserve and protect the public
trust, caused untold anguish upon
_______________

v. The Executive Secretary, supra note 1 at pp. 163-164; pp.
308-310.

608

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
thousands of Filipino families. Their trauma,

after all these years, still exists.
Ferdinand E. Marcos plundered the nation’s
coffers. The systematic plunder was so
exceptional and outrageous that even after being
ousted, he and his family brought more than
P27,000,000.00 in freshly printed notes, 23
wooden crates, 12 suitcases and bags, and
various boxes of jewelry, gold bricks, and enough
clothes to fill 57 racks233 with them to their exile

in Hawaii.
These were not accidents that humans, like
us, commit. These were deliberate and conscious
acts by one who abused his power. To suggest
that Ferdinand E. Marcos was “just a human
who erred like us” is an affront to those who
suffered under the Marcos regime.
To suggest that these were mere errors is an
attempt to erase Ferdinand E. Marcos’
accountability for the atrocities during Martial
Law. It is an attempt to usher in and guarantee
impunity for them as well as for those who will
commit the same in the future.
It is within the power of this Court to prevent
impunity for gross violations of human rights,
systematic plunder by those whom we elect to
public office, and abuse of power at the expense
of our toiling masses. We should do justice
rather than characterize these acts as the “mere
human error” of one whom We have
characterized as a dictator and an authoritarian.

XXII

Interpreting the law is not mere power. It is
not simply our personal privilege.
Judicial review is an awesome social
responsibility that should always be discharged
with the desire to learn from history and to do
justice. Social justice will not come as a gift. It is
a product of the constant,
_______________
233 Ocampo Memorandum (G.R. No. 225973), p. 5, citing

Davies, Nick, The $10bn question: what happened to the
Marcos millions?, The Guardian, May 7, 2016

<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/07/10bn-
dollar-question-marcos-millions-nick-davies> (visited
November 7, 2016).

609
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 609

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
conscious, and determined effort to understand

our society and do what is right. Justice will not
come when we insist that we should decide
behind a veil of ignorance. Precisely, our
expanded jurisdiction in the present
Constitution contains our People’s command for
this Court not to forget that never again should
this Court be blind to reality.
The reality is that the retelling of the story of
Martial Law is agonizing to many who went
through the ordeal. Reliving it for eternity, with
the transfer of the remains of he who is
responsible for the ordeal to the sacred grounds
of the Libingan ng mga Bayani, will
permanently cause untold anguish to the
victims.
The mother who stood by her principles but
was tortured, molested, or raped during Martial
Law will now have to explain to her daughter
why he who allowed that indignity to happen is
now at the Libingan ng mga Bayani.
The family of the father or the mother or the
son or the daughter or the nephew or niece or
cousin who disappeared will have extreme
difficulty accepting that the remains of

Ferdinand E. Marcos — the President who was
Commander-in-Chief and who had control over
all those who wielded state coercion during
Martial Law — is buried in a place that implies
that he is a hero. They will have to explain to
themselves, with the pain and anguish that they
still suffer, why the most powerful man who was
unable to help them find their kin is granted
honors by this State.
Those who will celebrate this country’s pride
every year with the commemoration of People
Power or the EDSA Revolution will also live
with the contradiction that the remains of the
President they ousted for his abuses is now
interred at the Libingan ng mga Bayani.
National healing cannot happen without the
victims’ participation and consent.
The decision of the majority to deny the
Petitions robs this generation and future
generations of the ability to learn from our past
mistakes. It will tell them that there are
rewards for the abuse of power and that there is
impunity for human rights violations. The
decision of the majority implies that, learning
from the past, our People should be silent and

610

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
cower in fear of an oppressor. After all, as time

passes, the authoritarian and the dictator will be
rewarded.
Sooner rather than later, we will experience
the same fear of a strongman who will dictate
his view on the solutions of his favored social
ills. Women will again be disrespected, molested,
and then raped. People will die needlessly —
perhaps summarily killed by the same law
enforcers who are supposed to protect them and
guarantee the rule of law. Perhaps, there will be
people who will be tortured after they are
shamed and stereotyped.
We forget the lessons of the past when we
allow abuse to hold sway over the lives of those
who seem to be unrelated to us. Silence, in the
face of abuse, is complicity.
The burial of Ferdinand E. Marcos at the
Libingan ng mga Bayani is not an act of
national healing. It cannot be an act of healing
when petitioners, and all others who suffered,
are not consulted and do not participate. Rather,
it is an effort to forget our collective shame of
having failed to act as a People as many
suffered. It is to contribute to the impunity for
human rights abuses and the plunder of our
public trust.
The full guarantee of human rights is a
fundamental primordial principle enshrined in
the Constitution. It is not the antithesis of
government.
To deny these Petitions is to participate in the
effort to create myth at the expense of history.
Ferdinand E. Marcos’ remains, by law, cannot
be transferred to the Libingan ng mga Bayani.
Ferdinand E. Marcos is not a “bayani.”
Ferdinand E. Marcos is not a hero.
ACCORDINGLY, I vote to GRANT the

consolidated Petitions.

611
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 611

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
DISSENTING OPINION

CAGUIOA, J.:

I vehemently dissent.
Ultimately, the ponencia’s reason to dismiss
the petitions is that there is “no clear
constitutional or legal basis” to hold that there
was a grave abuse of discretion attending
President Rodrigo R. Duterte’s order to inter
former President Marcos’s remains in the
Libingan ng mga Bayani (“LNMB”). And the
premise of the statement is that the sole
authority in determining who are entitled and
disqualified to be interred at the LNMB is the
AFP Regulations.
I cannot, as a magistrate and a citizen, in
good conscience, agree. My reasons are set forth
below.

The burial of former President Mar-
cos does not raise a political question
beyond the ambit of judicial review.

The ponencia holds that President Duterte’s
decision to have the remains interred at the
LNMB involves a political question that is not a

justiciable controversy.
I disagree.
The issues of justiciability and political
question are inextricably intertwined. They are
in reality two sides of the same coin. Their
resolution usually involves mutually exclusive
choices. A determination favoring one
necessarily negates the other. It is an “either/or”
scenario.
Invariably, any discussion of the political
question doctrine will draw in the concept of
judicial power and review. In turn, the presence
of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction is the stimulus for the
exercise of judicial review.
As the doctrine of political question evolved in
this jurisdiction, so did the concept of judicial
power. At present, judicial power, as defined in

613
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 613

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
paragraph 2, Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987

Constitution,1 includes the duty of the courts to
settle actual controversies involving rights
which are legally demandable and enforceable,
and to determine whether or not there has been
a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch
or instrumentality of the Government. This
expanded concept of judicial power has
consequently bounded, if not marginalized, the

political question doctrine.
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts
of justice to settle actual controversies involving
enforceable, and to determine whether or not
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the
part of any branch or instrumentality of the
Government.
The petitioners argue that their petitions
raise justiciable issues over which the Court has
the power of judicial review under its expanded
jurisdiction under the 1987 Constitution.2 They
cite, among others, The Diocese of Bacolod v.
COMELEC,3 Marcos v. Manglapus,4 Integrated
Bar of the Philippines v. Zamora,5 Estrada v.
Desierto,6 and Francisco, Jr. v. The House of
Representatives7 in support of their argument.
These cases have resolved the political question
issue as well.
On the other hand, public respondents argue
that President Duterte’s determination to have
the remains of former President Marcos interred
at the LNMB does not pose a justiciable
controversy.8 The Solicitor General claims that
the decision involves “wisdom”9 and thus beyond
judicial review. In fine, public respondents pose
“policy or wisdom” considerations to thwart the
Court from taking cognizance of the petitions.10
In support of his position, the Solicitor General
relies on the cases of
_______________
1 Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one

Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be
established by law.
2 Lagman Petition, p. 3, par. 5.
3 G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015, 747 SCRA 1.
4 258 Phil. 479; 177 SCRA 668 (1989).
5 392 Phil. 618; 338 SCRA 81 (2000).
6 406 Phil. 1; 353 SCRA 452 (2001).
7 460 Phil. 830; 415 SCRA 44 (2003).
8 OSG Consolidated Comment, I.A., p. 24.
9 Id., par. 55, p. 24.
10 Id., par. 51, p. 24; Public Respondent’s Memorandum,
par. 55, p. 27.

613
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 613

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Mamba v. Lara,11 Belgica v. Ochoa, Jr.,12 and

Tañada v. Cuenco13 as jurisprudential anchors.
In Francisco, Jr. v. The House of
Representatives,14 the Court, after recalling the
deliberations of the 1986 Constitutional
Commission in relation to Section 1, Article
VIII15 of the 1987 Constitution, espoused that
there are two species of political questions: (1)
“truly political questions” or “nonjusticiable
political questions” and (2) “justiciable political
questions” or those which are “not truly political
questions.” Thus, truly political questions are
beyond judicial review while courts can review
questions which are not truly political in
nature.16 The Court explained in Francisco:
However, Section 1, Article VIII, of the

Constitution does not define what are “truly political
questions” and those which are not truly political.
Identification of these two species of political
questions may be problematic. There has been no
clear standard. The American case of Baker v. Carr
attempts to provide some:
x x x Prominent on the surface of any case
held to involve a political question is found a
textually demonstrable constitutional
department; or a lack of judicially discoverable
and manageable standards for resolving it; or
the impossibility of deciding without an initial
policy determination of a kind clearly for
nonjudicial discretion; or the impossibility of a
court’s undertaking independent resolution
without expressing lack of the respect due
coordinate branches of government; or an
unusual need for questioning adherence to a
political decision already made; or the
potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious
pronouncements by various departments on one
question. (Italics supplied)
_______________
11 623 Phil. 63; 608 SCRA 149 (2009).

12 721 Phil. 416; 710 SCRA 1 (2013).
13 103 Phil. 1051 (1957).
note 7 at p. 910; p. 149.
15 Supra note 1.
note 7 at pp. 911-912; pp. 150-151.

614

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Of these standards, the more reliable have been the

first three: (1) a textually demonstrable constitutional
department; (2) the lack of judicially discoverable and
manageable standards for resolving it; and (3) the
impossibility of deciding without an initial policy
determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial
discretion. These standards are not separate and
distinct concepts but are interrelated to each in that
the presence of one strengthens the conclusion that
the others are also present.
The problem in applying the foregoing standards is
that the American concept of judicial review is
radically different from our current concept, for
Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution provides our
courts with far less discretion in determining whether
they should pass upon a constitutional issue.
In our jurisdiction, the determination of whether
an issue involves a truly political question and a
nonjusticiable question lies in the answer to the
question of whether there are constitutionally
imposed limits on powers or functions conferred upon
political bodies. If there are, then our courts are duty-
bound to examine whether the branch or
instrumentality of the government properly acted
within such limits. This Court shall thus now apply
this standard to the present controversy.17 (Citations

omitted)

As early as the landmark case of Tañada v.
Cuenco,18 the Court has already recognized that,
while the action of the executive or legislative
department may be dictated by public or
political policy, or may involve a question of
policy or its wisdom, the judiciary is nonetheless
charged with the special duty of determining the
limitations which the law places on all official
action, viz.:
“It is not easy, however, to define the phrase

‘political question,’ nor to determine what matters fall
within its scope. It is frequently used to designate all
questions that lie outside the scope of the judicial
questions, which under the constitution, are to be
decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in
regard to which
_______________
17 Id.
18 Tañada v. Cuenco, supra note 13.

615
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 615

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
full discretionary authority has been delegated to the

legislative or executive branch of the government.” x x
x

xxxx

“x x x What is generally meant, when it is said that
a question is political, and not judicial, is that it is a
matter which is to be exercised by the people in their
primary political capacity, or that it has been
specifically delegated to some other department or
particular officer of the government, with
discretionary power to act. x x x Thus the Legislature
may in its discretion determine whether it will pass a
law or submit a proposed constitutional amendment
to the people. The courts have no judicial control over
such matters, not merely because they involve [a]
political question, but because they are matters which
the people have by the Constitution delegated to the
Legislature. The Governor may exercise the
powers delegated to him, free from judicial
control, so long as he observes the laws and acts
within the limits of the power conferred. His
discretionary acts cannot be controllable, not
primarily because they are of a political nature, but
because the Constitution and laws have placed the
particular matter under his control. But every
officer under a constitutional government must
act according to law and subject him to the
restraining and controlling power of the people,
acting through the courts, as well as through
the executive or the Legislature. One department
is just as representative as the other, and the
judiciary is the department which is charged with the
special duty of determining the limitations which the
law places upon all official action. The recognition of
this principle, unknown except in Great Britain and
America, is necessary, ‘to the end that the
government may be one of laws and not [of]
men’ — words which Webster said were the greatest

contained in any written constitutional document.” x x
x19

The Solicitor General argues that the wisdom
of the President cannot be questioned when, in
the exercise of his powers under the Constitution
and the Administrative Code, he deemed it
appropriate to inter the remains of former
President Marcos in a parcel of land of the public
domain devoted for the purpose of being a
military shrine, and recognize
_______________
19 Id., at pp. 1066-1067. (emphasis supplied)

616

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
his having been a former President, a Medal of

Valor Awardee, a member of the retired military
personnel, and a war veteran.20
A mere invocation of the wisdom of the
President’s actions and orders does not make
them untrammeled, as indeed, the exercise of
Presidential powers and prerogatives is not
without limitations — the exercise of the
Presidential power and prerogative under the
Constitution and the Administrative Code,
which the public respondents invoke, is

circumscribed within defined constitutional,
legal, and public policy standards.
In fact, the reliance by the Solicitor General
on the powers of the President under the
Constitution and the 1987 Revised
Administrative Code (“RAC”) to justify his
decision to inter the remains of former President
Marcos in the LNMB necessarily calls into play
any and all underlying constitutional and legal
limitations to such powers. Within this
paradigm, judicial review by the Court is
justifiable, if not called for. There is, thus, no
truly political question in relation to the assailed
action of the President if this is justified to have
been made allegedly pursuant to his purported
powers under the Constitution and the RAC.
Apart from his powers under the Constitution
and the RAC, the Solicitor General also argues
that the President’s order to allow former
President Marcos’ interment at the LNMB is
based on his determination that it shall promote
national healing and forgiveness, and redound to
the benefit of the Filipino people.21 He further
argues that the President’s decision is not
simply a matter of political accommodation, or
even whim, but, viewed from a wider
perspective, it is geared towards changing the
national psyche and thus begin the painful
healing of this country.22 Lastly, he argues that
the said order is in keeping with the President’s
campaign promise, his quest for genuine change
and his desire to efface Marcos’ remains as the
symbol of polarity.23
In fine, the Solicitor General asks the Court
to take the foregoing arguments at face value
and admit them as truisms without any

question,
_______________
20 OSG Consolidated Comment, par. 60, p. 25; Public

Respondents’ Memorandum, par. 62, p. 29.
21 Id., par. 61, p. 26; id., par. 63, p. 29.
22 Id., par. 3, p. 5.
23 Id., Prefatory Statement, pp. 3-5.

617
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 617

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
on the proposition that if the Court were to

scrutinize them, then the President’s wisdom is
being doubted. This request, however, the Court
cannot grant without abnegating its
constitutional duty24 of judicial review.

Requisites of Judicial Review

The flipside to the political question doctrine
would be the requisites of judicial review. Before
the Court may hear and decide a petition
assailing the constitutionality of a law or any
governmental act, the following must first be
satisfied: (1) there must be an actual case or
controversy calling for the exercise of judicial
power; (2) the person challenging the act must
have standing to question the validity of the
subject act or issuance; otherwise stated, he
must have a personal and substantial interest in

the case such that he has sustained, or will
sustain, direct injury as a result of its
enforcement; (3) the question of constitutionality
must be raised at the earliest opportunity; and
(4) the issue of constitutionality must be the
very lis mota of the case.25 Of these four, the
most important are the first two requisites,26
and thus will be the focus of the following
discussion.

The case presents an
actual controversy ripe
for adjudication.

In Belgica v. Ochoa,27 the Court expounded
anew on the requirement of actual case or
controversy in this wise:
By constitutional fiat, judicial power operates only

when there is an actual case or controversy. This is
embodied in Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987
Constitution which pertinently states that ‘judi-
_______________

note 7 at pp. 889-890; p. 223.
25 Belgica v. Ochoa, Jr., supra note 12 at pp. 518-519; p.
89.
26 Id., at p. 519; p. 819, citing Joya v. Presidential
Commission on Good Government, 296-A Phil. 595, 602; 225
SCRA 568, 575 (1993).
27 Id., at pp. 519-520; pp. 89-90.

618

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
cial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to

settle actual controversies involving rights which are
legally demandable and enforceable x x x.’
Jurisprudence provides that 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. In other words, ‘[t]here
must be a contrariety of legal rights that can be
interpreted and enforced on the basis of
existing law and jurisprudence.’ Related to the
requirement of an actual case or controversy is the
requirement of ‘ripeness,’ meaning that the questions
raised for constitutional scrutiny are already ripe for
adjudication. ‘A question is ripe for adjudication
when the act being challenged has had a direct
adverse effect on the individual challenging it.
It is a prerequisite that something had then
been accomplished or performed by either
branch before a court may come into the
picture, and the petitioner must allege the
existence of an immediate or threatened injury
to itself as a result of the challenged action.’
‘Withal, courts will decline to pass upon constitutional
issues through advisory opinions, bereft as they are of
authority to resolve hypothetical or moot questions.’
(Emphasis supplied)
With these standards, this case presents an

actual case or controversy that is ripe for
adjudication. The antagonistic claims on the
legality of the interment of former President
Marcos at the LNMB as shown in petitioners’
assertion of legally enforceable rights that may
be infringed upon by the subject interment, on
the one hand, and the Solicitor General’s
insistence on the President’s prerogative to
promote national healing, on the other, clearly
satisfy the requirement for contrariety of legal
rights. Furthermore, the issues in this case are
also ripe for adjudication because it has not been
denied that initial preparations and planning for
the subject interment have already been
undertaken by public respondents.28
_______________
28 Gov’t now preparing for Marcos burial at Libingan,

available at <http://www.rappler.com/nation/142266-
philippines-malacanang-preparations-ferdinand-marcos-
burial-libingan-ng-mga-bayani>, last accessed on October 17,
2016.

619
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 619

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Petitioners have locus standi.

I do not agree with the ponencia’s holding
that none of the petitioners had standing to file
the petitions for failure to show direct and

personal injury.
Locus standi is defined as a right of
appearance in a court of justice on a given
question.29 It refers to a personal and
substantial interest in a case such that the party
has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a
result of the challenged governmental act.30 To
satisfy the requirement of legal standing, one
must allege such personal stake in the outcome
of the controversy as to assure that concrete
adverseness which sharpens the presentation of
issues upon which the court depends for
illumination of difficult constitutional
31
questions.
In Agan, Jr. v. Philippine International Air
Terminals Co., Inc.,32 the Court recognized that
in public actions, suits are not usually brought
by parties who have been personally injured by
the operation of a law or any other government
act but by concerned citizens, taxpayers or
voters who actually sue in the public interest.
Thus, in a long line of cases, nontraditional
plaintiffs, such as concerned citizens, taxpayers
and legislators, who have not been personally
injured by the assailed governmental act, have
been given standing by this Court provided
specific requirements have been met.33
For legislators, they have standing to
maintain inviolate the prerogatives, powers, and
privileges vested by the Constitution in their
office
_______________
29 Araullo v. Aquino III, 737 Phil. 457, 535; 728 SCRA 1,
79 (2014), citing Black’s Law Dictionary, p. 941 (6th ed.,
1991).
30 Imbong v. Ochoa, Jr., G.R. No. 204819, April 8, 2014,
721 SCRA 146, 283, citing Anak Mindanao Party-list Group
v. The Executive Secretary, 558 Phil. 338, 350; 531 SCRA
583, 591 (2007).
31 Galicto v. Aquino III, 683 Phil. 141, 170; 667 SCRA
150, 170 (2012).
32 450 Phil. 744, 803; 402 SCRA 612, 645-646 (2003).
note 7 at p. 895; p. 136.

620

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
and are allowed to sue to question the validity of

any official action, which infringe upon their
legislative prerogatives.34
In the case of taxpayers, they are allowed to
sue where there is a claim that public funds are
illegally disbursed or that public money is being
deflected to any improper purpose, or that public
funds are wasted through the enforcement of an
invalid or unconstitutional law.35
When suing as a concerned citizen, the person
complaining must allege that he has been or is
about to be denied some right or privilege to
which he is lawfully entitled or that he is about
to be subjected to some burdens or penalties by
reason of the statute or act complained of. When
the issue concerns a public right, however, it has

been held that being a citizen and having an
interest in the execution of the laws is already
sufficient.36
Applying the foregoing standards to the
present case:
(1) Victims of human rights violations
during martial law have the requisite legal
standing to file their respective petitions. Their
personal and direct interest to question the
interment and burial of former President Marcos
at the LNMB rests on their right to a full and
effective remedy and entitlement to monetary
and nonmonetary reparations guaranteed by the
State under the Constitution, domestic and
international laws.
(2) Petitioners also have standing as
citizens-taxpayers. The public character of the
LNMB and the general appropriations for its
maintenance, preservation and development
satisfy the requirements for a taxpayer’s suit. To
be sure, petitioners’ assertion of every citizen’s
right to enforce the performance of a public duty
and to ensure faithful execution of laws suffices
to clothe them with the requisite legal standing
as concerned citizens.
_______________
34 Osmeña III v. Power Sector Assets and Liabilities

Management Corporation, G.R. No. 212686, September 28,
2015, 771 SCRA 559, 576.
35 Chavez v. Judicial and Bar Council, 691 Phil. 173,
196; 676 SCRA 579, 594-595 (2012).
Republic of the Philippines Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain
(GRP), 589 Phil. 387, 486; 568 SCRA 402, 456 (2008).

621
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 621

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
(3) However, Members of Congress in the

Lagman petition and petitioner De Lima have no
personality to maintain the suit as legislators
because they failed to allege, much less show,
how the President’s directive to have the
remains of former President Marcos interred at
the LNMB usurps or infringes upon their
legislative functions.
(4) Similarly, petitioners Saguisag, et al., as
intervenors in the case, have no legal standing to
maintain the suit in regard to their claim as
human rights lawyers as this is too general to
clothe them the legal interest in the matter in
litigation or in the success of either of the parties
required under the Rules of Court.37
Be that as it may, the question of locus standi
is but corollary to the bigger question of the
proper exercise of judicial power.38 The Court
may brush aside technical rules when the
matter is of transcendental importance
deserving the attention of the Court in view of
their seriousness, novelty and weight as
precedents.39
The ponencia concludes by saying that “[the
interment] would have no profound effect on the
political, economic, and other aspects of our
national life considering that more than twenty-
seven years since his death and thirty years
after his ouster have already passed.”

Prescinding from this statement’s sheer and
utter disregard of Philippine history, the
implications that the assailed act bear on the
State’s policy to guarantee full respect for
human rights embodied in the Constitution, on
the body of jurisprudence acknowledging the
atrocities committed during martial law, and on
the legislative enactments and treaty obligations
granting full protection and reparation to the
victims of human rights violations, undoubtedly
elevate this case to the level of transcendental
importance. A relaxation of the rules of legal
standing is thus properly called for.
_______________
37 Id., at p. 487; pp. 456, 459.

38 David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, 522 Phil. 705, 763; 489
SCRA 160, 224 (2006).
Phil. 374, 442; 637 SCRA 78, 151-152 (2010).

622

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Certiorari and prohibition

are proper remedies.

The Solicitor General assails the propriety of
the remedies sought by petitioners. He argues
that a petition for certiorari and prohibition does

not lie against public respondents inasmuch as
the President, in directing the interment of
former President Marcos at the LNMB, did not
exercise judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial
functions.
The petitioners’ resort to certiorari and
prohibition was proper. A petition for certiorari
or prohibition under Rule 65 is an appropriate
remedy to question, on the ground of grave
abuse of discretion, the act of any branch or
instrumentality of government, even if the latter
does not exercise judicial, quasi-judicial or
ministerial functions.40
To reiterate, the expanded definition of
judicial power, under Article VIII, Section 1 of
the Constitution, imposes upon the Court and all
other courts of justice, the power and the duty
not only to “settle actual controversies involving
enforceable” but also “to determine whether or
not there has been a grave abuse of discretion on
the part of any branch or instrumentality of the
Government.”
In the case of Araullo v. Aquino,41 the Court
clarified that the special civil actions of
certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court are remedies by which the courts
discharge this constitutional mandate. Thus, it
was ruled that:
[T]he remedies of certiorari and prohibition are

necessarily broader in scope and reach, and the writ of
certiorari or prohibition may be issued to correct
errors of jurisdiction committed not only by a tribunal,
corporation, board or officer exercising judicial, quasi-
judicial or ministerial functions but also to set right,
undo and restrain any act of grave abuse of discretion

amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by any
branch or instrumentality of the Govern-
_______________
40 Jardeleza v. Sereno, G.R. No. 213181, August 19,

2014, 733 SCRA 279, 328, citing Araullo v. Aquino III, supra
note 29 at p. 531; p. 76; Villanueva v. Judicial and Bar
Council, G.R. No. 211833, April 7, 2015, 755 SCRA 182.
41 Araullo v. Aquino III, id.

623
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 623

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
ment, even if the latter does not exercise judicial,

quasi-judicial or ministerial functions.
Thus, petitions for certiorari and prohibition are
appropriate remedies to raise constitutional issues
and to review and/or prohibit or nullify the acts of
legislative and executive officials.
Necessarily, in discharging its duty under Section
1, supra, to set right and undo any act of grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction by any branch or instrumentality of the
Government, the Court is not at all precluded from
making the inquiry provided the challenge was
properly brought by interested or affected parties. The
Court has been thereby entrusted expressly or by
necessary implication with both the duty and the
obligation of determining, in appropriate cases, the
validity of any assailed legislative or executive action.
This entrustment is consistent with the republican

system of checks and balances.42

Therefore, that the assailed act and/or
issuances do not involve the exercise of judicial,
quasi-judicial or ministerial functions is of no
moment. Under the Court’s expanded
jurisdiction, the validity of the President’s
directive to have the remains of former
President Marcos interred and buried at the
LNMB and the legality of the assailed
Memorandum and Directive issued by public
respondents, are proper subjects of a petition for
certiorari and prohibition.

Petitioners did not violate the rule
on hierarchy of courts.

The ponencia holds that petitioners failed to
observe the rule on hierarchy of courts as they
should have filed with the Regional Trial Court
exercising jurisdiction over public respondents,
and that there exist no special, compelling and
important reasons to justify direct resort to this
Court.
I disagree.
_______________
42 Id., at p. 531; pp. 74-75.

624

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
In The Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC,43

citing Bañez, Jr. v. Concepcion,44 the Court held:
The Court must enjoin the observance of the policy

on the hierarchy of courts, and now affirms that the
policy is not to be ignored without serious
consequences. The strictness of the policy is designed
to shield the Court from having to deal with causes
that are also well within the competence of the lower
courts, and thus leave time to the Court to deal with
the more fundamental and more essential tasks that
the Constitution has assigned to it. The Court may act
on petitions for the extraordinary writs of certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus only when absolutely
necessary or when serious and important reasons
exist to justify an exception to the policy.

xxxx

The Supreme Court is a court of last resort, and
must so remain if it is to satisfactorily perform the
functions assigned to it by the fundamental charter
and immemorial tradition. It cannot and should not
be burdened with the task of dealing with causes in
the first instance. Its original jurisdiction to issue the
so-called extraordinary writs should be exercised only
where absolutely necessary or where serious and
important reasons exist therefore. Hence, that
jurisdiction should generally be exercised relative to
actions or proceedings before the Court of Appeals, or
before constitutional or other tribunals, bodies or
agencies whose acts for some reason or another are
not controllable by the Court of Appeals. Where the
issuance of an extraordinary writ is also within the
competence of the Court of Appeals or a Regional

Trial Court, it is in either of these courts that the
specific action for the writ’s procurement must be
presented. This is and should continue to be the policy
in this regard, a policy that courts and lawyers must
strictly observe. x x x45

In the same case, however, the Court
recognized that hierarchy of courts is not an
iron-clad rule. Direct invocation of this Court’s
jurisdiction may be allowed for special,
important and compelling reasons clearly spelled
out in the petition, such as: (a) when there are
genuine
_______________

supra note 3.
44 693 Phil. 399, 412; 679 SCRA 237, 250-251 (2012).
supra note 3 at pp. 42-43.

625
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 625

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
issues of constitutionality that must be

addressed at the most immediate time; (b) when
the issues involved are of transcendental
importance; (c) in cases of first impression; (d)
when the constitutional issues raised are best
decided by this Court; (e) when the time element

presented in this case cannot be ignored; (f) when
the petition reviews the act of a constitutional
organ; (g) when there is no other plain, speedy,
and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law; (h) when public welfare and the
advancement of public policy so dictates, or
when demanded by the broader interest of
justice; (i) when the orders complained of are
patent nullities; and (j) when appeal is
considered as clearly an inappropriate remedy.46
Contrary to the ponencia’s holding, there are
special and compelling reasons attendant in the
case at bar which justify direct resort to this
Court. Apart from the fact that the issues
presented here are of transcendental
importance, as earlier explained, they are being
brought before the Court for the first time. As no
jurisprudence yet exists on the matter, it is best
that this case be decided by this Court.
Moreover, while the petitions may have been
directed against the Memorandum and Directive
issued by public respondents, the ultimate act
assailed is an executive action. In Drilon v.
Lim,47 the Court ruled:
In the exercise of this jurisdiction, lower courts are

advised to act with the utmost circumspection,
bearing in mind the consequences of a declaration of
unconstitutionality upon the stability of laws, no less
than on the doctrine of separation of powers. As the
questioned act is usually the handiwork of the
legislative or the executive departments, or both, it
will be prudent for such courts, if only out of a
becoming modesty, to defer to the higher judgment of
this Court in the consideration of its validity, which is
better determined after a thorough deliberation by a
collegiate body and with the concurrence of the

majority of those who participated in its discussion.48
_______________
46 Id., at pp. 45-50.

47 G.R. No. 112497, August 4, 1994, 235 SCRA 135.
48 Id., at p. 140.

626

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Furthermore, time was of the essence in this

case. The public pronouncement of Presidential
Spokesman Ernesto Abella that the burial for
former President Marcos would push through
“unless the Supreme Court will issue a TRO”;49
news reports that the burial would be scheduled
on September 18, 2016,50 and the President’s
statement that he was willing to allow the
Marcos family to decide on the date of the burial
and adding that they could even set the date of
the burial on September 11, 2016,51 cannot be
ignored.

Exhaustion of administrative
remedies does not apply in
this case.

The ponencia upholds the Solicitor General’s
claim that petitioners failed to exhaust
administrative remedies because they should

have first sought with the Office of the President
the reconsideration of the subject directives.
This is untenable.
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
remedies is not absolute as there are numerous
exceptions laid down by jurisprudence, namely:
(a) when there is a violation of due process; (b)
when the issue involved is purely a legal
question; (c) when the administrative action is
patently illegal amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction; (d) when there is estoppel on the
part of the administrative agency concerned; (e)
when there is irreparable injury; (f) when the
respondent is a department sec-
_______________
49 Palace: Hero’s burial for Marcos to proceed unless

there’s a TRO, available at
<http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/577948/news/nation/palace-
hero-s-burial-for-marcos-to-proceed-unless-there-s-a-tro>,
last accessed on October 17, 2016.
50 Palace clueless on who will pay for Marcos funeral,
available at <http://manilastandardtoday.com/news/-main-
stories/top-stories/213621/palace-clueless-on-who-will-pay-
for-marcos-funeral.html>, last accessed on October 17, 2016.
51 Duterte confirms Marcos burial at the Libingan ng
mga Bayani, available at
<http://cnnphilippines.com/news/2016/08/07/marcos-libingan-
ng-mga-bayani-burial.html>, last accessed on October 17,
2016.

627
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 627

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
retary whose acts as an alter ego of the President

bear the implied and assumed approval of the
latter; (g) when to require exhaustion of
administrative remedies would be unreasonable;
(h) when it would amount to a nullification of a
claim; (i) when the subject matter is a private
land in land case proceedings; (j) when the rule
does not provide a plain, speedy and adequate
remedy; or (k) when there are circumstances
indicating the urgency of judicial intervention.52
In the petitions before the Court,
circumstances (b), (f), (g) and (k) are present.
First, as already mentioned, the case involves
a matter of extreme urgency. The urgency of
judicial intervention is self-evident in the
Court’s decision to issue a Status Quo Ante
Order on August 23, 2016, which was extended
until November 8, 2016.
Second, the principal issue in this case of
whether the President, in ordering the
interment and burial of the remains of former
President Marcos at the LNMB, committed
grave abuse of discretion and/or violated the
Constitution and other statutes is purely of law
and will ultimately be decided by the courts of
justice. In this regard, Vigilar v. Aquino53
explains the reason for the exception, viz.:
Said question at best could be resolved only tentatively

by the administrative authorities. The final
decision on the matter rests not with them but
with the courts of justice. Exhaustion of
administrative remedies does not apply,
because nothing of an administrative nature is
to be or can be done. The issue does not require

technical knowledge and experience but one
that would involve the interpretation and
application of law. (Emphasis supplied)

Third, it was upon the verbal order of the
President that the assailed Memorandum and
Directive were issued by public respondents.
This, in fact, is extant in the very language of
the Memorandum itself. Moreover, the
President, on numerous occasions, had insisted
that, notwithstand-
_______________

supra note 3 at pp. 59-60, citing Chua v. Ang, 614 Phil. 416,
425-426; 598 SCRA 229, 238 (2009).
53 654 Phil. 755, 761-762; 639 SCRA 772, 778 (2011),
citing Republic v. Lacap, G.R. No. 158253, March 2, 2007,
517 SCRA 255, 266-267.

628

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
ing oppositions, including the filing of the

consolidated petitions, he would make good his
promise to allow the burial of the former
President Marcos at the LNMB54 and even allow
the Marcos family to decide on the date of the
burial. With these pronouncements, seeking

relief with the Office of the President would
have been an exercise in futility.

Substantive Issues

Having established the jurisdiction of this
Court to rule upon these consolidated petitions
under Rule 65, pursuant to its power of judicial
review under the expanded definition of judicial
power in Article VIII, Section 1 of the
Constitution, I now proceed to the substantive
issues.

Grave abuse of discretion

The office of the writs of certiorari and
prohibition is to correct errors of jurisdiction
arising from grave abuse of discretion. Very
simply, then, the most important question that
needs to be answered in this case is fairly
straightforward: whether or not public
respondents acted with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in
ordering the interment of former President
Marcos in the LNMB.
Restated, in ordering the interment of former
President Marcos in the LNMB, did public
respondents contravene or violate the
Constitution, the law, or existing jurisprudence?
55
If they did, then they committed grave abuse
of discretion,56 the ponencia concedes as much.
Whimsical-
_______________
54 Duterte asked to reconsider Marcos burial at Libingan

ng mga Bayani, available at
<http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/568973/news/nation/duterte-
asked-to-reconsider-marcos-burial-at-libingan-ng-mga-
bayani>, last accessed on October 17, 2016; Duterte: Follow
the law on hero’s burial for Marcos, available at
<http://news.abs-cbn.com/news/08/11/16/duterte-follow-the-
lawon-heros-burial-for-marcos>, last accessed on October 17,
2016.
55 See Perez-Rosario v. Court of Appeals, 516 Phil. 204,
209; 494 SCRA 66, 85 (2006); Dueñas, Jr. v. House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal, 610 Phil. 730, 760; 593
SCRA 316, 345-346 (2009).
56 See Balangauan v. Court of Appeals, Special
Nineteenth Division, 584 Phil. 183; 562 SCRA 184 (2008);
Banal III v. Panganiban, 511 Phil. 605; 475 SCRA 164
(2005); Republic v. COCOFED, 423 Phil. 735; 372 SCRA 462
(2001).

629
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 629

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
ity, caprice and arbitrariness are also considered

in determining the existence of grave abuse. I
fully concur with Justice Leonen’s discussion on
the subject, and will confine my discussion to
whether the interment violates the Constitution,
law or jurisprudence.
Directly answering the question, I believe
that the petitions are with merit, and that the
order to inter the remains of former President
Marcos in the LNMB is contrary to the

Constitution, the law, and several executive
issuances that have the force of law, as well as
the public policy that the Constitution, the said
laws, and executive issuances espouse and
advance. The argument that burying former
President Marcos in the LNMB does not make
him a hero disregards the status of the LNMB as
a national shrine, the public policy in treating
national shrines, the standards set forth in these
laws and executive issuances as well as in the
AFP LNMB burial regulations (“AFP
Regulations”).
Before explaining how the intended interment
of former President Marcos violates the
Constitution, law, executive issuances, public
policy, and custom, it would be apropos to
examine the legal bases offered by the Solicitor
General and private respondents Heirs of
Marcos in defending the legality of the
President’s act of allowing the interment and
burial of former President Marcos in the LNMB,
as upheld by the ponencia.

The President’s power to reserve
tracts of land of the public domain
for a specific public purpose.

The ponencia considers the President’s power
to reserve land for public purpose, under Section
14, Chapter IV of Book III, Title I of the RAC, as
basis for the decision to inter former President
Marcos in the LNMB.57 Section 14 provides:
SECTION 14. Power to reserve Lands of the

Public and Private Domain of the Government.—(1)
The President shall have the power to reserve for

use of which is
_______________
57 OSG Comment, pars. 131-138, pp. 42-44.

630

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
not otherwise directed by law. The reserved land shall

thereafter remain subject to the specific public
purpose indicated until otherwise provided by law or
proclamation.
(2) He shall also have the power to reserve from
sale or other disposition and for specific public uses or
purposes, any land belonging to the private domain of
the Government, or any of the Friar lands, the use of
which is not otherwise directed by law, and thereafter
such land shall be used for the purposes specified
by such proclamation until otherwise provided by
law.

This power is, in turn, traced by the Solicitor
General to the President’s power to reserve
lands under Commonwealth Act No. 141, or the
Public Land Act.58 The provision that empowers
the President to reserve tracts of land of the
public domain for a specific purpose, in turn,

reads:

CHAPTER XI
Reservations for Public and Semi-Public Purposes

SECTION 83. Upon the recommendation of the
Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce, the President
may designate by proclamation any tract or tracts
of land of the public domain as reservations for the
use of the Commonwealth of the Philippines or of any
of its branches, or of the inhabitants thereof, in
accordance with regulations prescribed for this
purpose, or for quasi-public uses or purposes when the
public interest requires it, including reservations for
highways, rights-of-way for railroads, hydraulic power
sites, irrigation systems, communal pastures or leguas
comunales, public parks, public quarries, public
fishponds, workingmen’s village and other
improvements for the public benefit.

First of all, it bears noting that under the
provisions of both the RAC and the Public Land
Act, this power to reserve government lands of
the public and private domain is exercised
through a Presidential Proclamation59 or, under
the Revised Administrative Code of 1917, by
executive
_______________
58 Id.
59 Under Section 4, Chapter II of Book III, Title I of the
REVISED ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, a proclamation is an act of the
President fixing a date or declar-

631
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 631

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
order.60 Elsewhere in the Public Land Act, the

proclamation where the reservation is made is
forwarded to the Director of Lands, and may
require further action from the Solicitor
General.61
An illustration is found in the factual milieu
of Republic v. Octobre,62 wherein a particular
tract of land of the public domain was reserved
for a public purpose by proclamation, and
thereafter released through a subsequent
proclamation by President Magsaysay. The
Court cited therein the authority of the
President under Section 9 of the Public Land Act
to reclassify lands of the public domain “at any
time and in a similar manner, transfer lands
from one class to another,” to validate the
release of the reservation through the
subsequent proclamation. This supports the
conclusion that the positive act that “perfects”
the reservation for public purpose (or release) is
the issuance of a proclamation. In fact, in
Republic v. Estonilo,63 this mode was considered
necessary for a reservation to be effective or
valid:
To segregate portions of the public domain as

reservations for the use of the Republic of the
Philippines or any of its branches, like the Armed
Forces of the Philippines, all that is needed is a

presidential proclamation to that effect.

In this case, however, there is no dispute that
this power, argued by the Solicitor General as
belonging exclusively to the President, was
exercised through a verbal order. Based on the
foregoing, this falls short of the manner
prescribed by law for its exercise. Accordingly,
absent a Presidential Proclamation, I fail to
fathom how these laws (the RAC and the Public
Land Act) can be used to justify the decision to
inter former President Marcos in the LNMB.
Moreover, without any showing that the
interment is consistent with LNMB’s purpose as
a national shrine, it cannot be undertaken as no
change in the said specific purpose has been
validly made.
_______________
ing a status or condition of public moment or interest, upon

the existence of which the operation of a specific law or
regulation is made to depend.
60 CA No. 141, Sec. 64(d) and (e).
61 Id., Secs. 86 to 88.
62 123 Phil. 698; 16 SCRA 845 (1966).
63 512 Phil. 644, 646; 476 SCRA 265, 268 (2005).

632

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
But even assuming arguendo that the

President can exercise the power to reserve
lands of the public domain through a verbal
order, the exercise of this power as basis for the
decision to inter former President Marcos in the
LNMB must still be scrutinized in two ways:
first, does the interment constitute public use or
public purpose; and second, is there any law that
directs the use of the land the President seeks to
reserve.64
Based on the language of Section 14, Chapter
IV of Book III, Title I of the RAC itself, the
power to reserve land is qualified by the
standards stated therein:
(1) That the reservation be for settlement or
public use, and for specific public purposes;
(2) That the use of the land sought to be
reserved is not otherwise directed by law.

First requirement: reserve
tracts of land of the public
domain for a specific pub-
lic purpose.

On the first standard, petitioners argued
during the oral arguments that the fulfillment of
the President’s campaign promise, made in favor
of a private party, or to inter a dictator or
plunderer does not constitute a legitimate public
purpose as it does not serve public good. During
the interpellation by Justice Carpio, this was
discussed:
JUSTICE CARPIO:
If you bury somebody in the Libingan, you have to

spend money, correct?
ATTY. COLMENARES:
Yes, Your Honor.
_______________
64 “The matter to be considered then is whether there is

any law that directs or authorizes the President to release a
disposable public land from a reservation previously made.”
(Republic v. Octobre, supra note 62 at p. 701; pp. 847-848)

633
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 633

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
JUSTICE CARPIO:
Funds will be spent?
ATTY. COLMENARES:
Yes, Your Honor.
JUSTICE CARPIO:
And you will be using public property, correct?
ATTY. COLMENARES:
Yes, Your Honor.
JUSTICE CARPIO:
Now, the rule is public funds and public property

can be used only for a public purpose, not a private
purpose, correct?
ATTY. COLMENARES:
Yes, Your Honor.
JUSTICE CARPIO:
So, when you bury somebody in the Libingan who

has been dishonorably discharged or separated from
service, are you using public funds and property for a
public purpose or for a private purpose?
ATTY. COLMENARES:
That is not transformed, Your Honor. The shrine

is intended for, the public purpose or the shrine is for
enshrinement or the recognition of those who are
revered and esteemed and now you are going to put
someone who is not revered and esteemed. That will
be a violation of that, Your Honor.
JUSTICE CARPIO:
Public purpose means is that (sic), means the use

of the funds or the property is for the general welfare
for the public good?
ATTY. COLMENARES:
Yes, Your Honor.
JUSTICE CARPIO:
But if a person has been dishonorably discharged

from service and you bury him there in a government
property that is for a private purpose to extol or
honor the family or the person?
ATTY. COLMENARES:
Yes, Your Honor.
JUSTICE CARPIO:
That is not for the public, there is no public good

there, correct?

634

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
ATTY. COLMENARES:
Yes, Your Honor.
JUSTICE CARPIO:
So if the President now amends the regulations

because the regulations state, that if you are
dishonorably discharged, you cannot be buried in the
Libingan and former President Marcos was
dishonorably separated by the people in 1986, he
cannot be buried but if the President now, the
incumbent President amends the regulation to say
that he can still be buried upon my instruction that
cannot be done because that’s against the
Constitution because you’re using public funds or
property for a private purpose, correct?
ATTY. COLMENARES:
Yes, Your Honor, in that sense and also in

addition, if you agree with the petitioner’s contention
that R.A. 289 has a standard, the President’s
directive cannot amend R.A. 289 and now must
therefore also be struck down, Your Honor.
JUSTICE CARPIO:
Okay, thank you counsel, that’s all.65

For his part, the Solicitor General stood firm
and insisted that the subject interment serves a
public purpose, when interpellated by Justice
Leonen:
I have here an excerpt, Your Honor, Section 14.

“The Power to Reserve Lands of the Public and
Private Domain of the Government.—(1) The
President shall have the power to reserve for
use of which is not otherwise directed by law.”
JUSTICE LEONEN:
So there are two things there, public use and

public purpose.
Yes, Your Honor.
JUSTICE LEONEN:
Okay. Is the creation of a Libingan ng mga Bayani

falling under that power of the president, that
statutory power, for public use?
_______________
65 TSN, August 31, 2016, pp. 55-63.

635
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 635

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Yes, Your Honor.
JUSTICE LEONEN:
Can any member of the public use the Libingan?
Not any member, Your Honor. It should be within

the guidelines of the AFP Regulations.
JUSTICE LEONEN:
So is it still public use?
It will be public use, Your Honor, depending on the

observance of the classifications which allow certain
persons to be interred at the Libingan ng mga
Bayani.
JUSTICE LEONEN:
But if it’s not public, if only a few individuals,

select individuals, can use the Libingan, therefore, it
is not public use.
Maybe it can be public use but for a limited and

classified persons (sic) only, Your Honor.
JUSTICE LEONEN:
Is that the concept of public use? Is it your

submission that that is the concept of public use?
Because the cemetery can only accommodate so

much, it cannot accommodate the entire public of the
Philippines, Your Honor.
JUSTICE LEONEN:
Okay, we’ll go to that later. In fact, you cited the

case in your consolidated comment. Chinese
Cemetery, I think, vs. the City of Manila where you
said, that it does not need to have a character of
everybody using it to be public use, correct? And
therefore, the key there. . .
If there is a public purpose for it, yes, Your Honor.
JUSTICE LEONEN:
Yes. So the key there is public purpose.66
_______________
66 TSN, September 7, 2016, pp. 139-141.

636

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
There appears to be some confusion on the

part of the Solicitor General as to the difference
between the terms “public use” and “public
purpose.” “Public use” connotes the traditional
concept of use by the public while “public
purpose” is understood more to mean in
furtherance of the public good, or in the public
interest.67 The requirement of public purpose is
necessary because public funds and properties
cannot be used to serve primarily private
benefit.
This Court, in rejecting the validity of
appropriating public funds for a private purpose,
explained in Pascual v. Secretary of Public
Works and Communications:68
As regards the legal feasibility of appropriating

public funds for a private purpose, the principle
according to Ruling Case Law, is this:
“It is a general rule that the legislature is

without power to appropriate public revenue for
anything but a public purpose. x x x It is the
essential character of the direct object of the
expenditure which must determine its validity
as justifying a tax, and not the magnitude of the
interests to be affected nor the degree to which
the general advantage of the community, and
thus the public welfare, may be ultimately
benefited by their promotion. Incidental
advantage to the public or to the state,
which results from the promotion of
private inter-
_______________
67 There has been a shift from the literal to a broader

interpretation of “public purpose” or “public use” for which
the power of eminent domain may be exercised. The old
concept was that the condemned property must actually be
used by the general public (e.g., roads, bridges, public plazas,
etc.) before the taking thereof could satisfy the constitutional
requirement of “public use.” Under the more current concept,
“public use” means public advantage, convenience or benefit,
which tends to contribute to the general welfare and the
prosperity of the whole community, like a resort complex for
tourists or housing project. (Heirs of Juancho Ardano v.
Reyes, Nos. L-60549, 60553-60555, October 26, 1983, 125
SCRA 220; Sumulong v. Guerrero, No. L-48685, September
30, 1987, 154 SCRA 461; Province of Camarines Sur v. Court
of Appeals, G.R. No. 103125, May 17, 1993, 222 SCRA 173)
68 110 Phil. 331 (1960).

637
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 637

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
ests and the prosperity of private

enterprises or business, does not justify
their aid by the use of public money.” (25 R.
L. C. pp. 398-400; italics supplied)
The rule is set forth in Corpus Juris Secundum in

the following language:
“In accordance with the rule that the taxing

power must be exercised for public purposes
only, discussed, supra, Sec. 14, money raised by

taxation can be expended only for public
purposes and not for the advantage of
private individuals.” (85 C.J.S. pp. 645-646;
italics supplied)
Explaining the reason underlying said rule, Corpus

Juris Secundum states:
“Generally, under the express or implied

provisions of the constitution, public funds may
be used only for a public purpose. The right of
the legislature to appropriate funds is
correlative with its right to tax, and, under
constitutional provisions against taxation
except for public purposes and prohibiting the
collection of a tax for one purpose and the
devotion thereof to another purpose, no
appropriation of state funds can be made for
other than a public purpose. x x x

xxxx

“The test of the constitutionality of a statute
requiring the use of public funds is whether the
statute is designed to promote the public
interests, as opposed to the furtherance of the
advantage of individuals, although each
advantage to individuals might incidentally
serve the public. x x x” (81 C.J.S. p. 1147; italics
supplied)69

While the Solicitor General argues that
expenditures for the interment are supported by
AFP appropriations, the President’s discretion in
_______________
69 Id., at p. 340. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

638

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
spending AFP appropriations to support the

interment of former President Marcos in the
LNMB, by virtue of his power of budget
implementation and his power to reserve the
tract of land, remains, as stated, subject to the
public purpose requirement. In this case, the
legitimateness of the purpose will depend on
what this Court determines to be the nature of
the interment — public or private. Does it serve
the public at large, or merely the partisan
interests of certain individuals?
The ponencia holds that the recognition of the
former President Marcos’s status or
contributions as a President, veteran or Medal of
Valor awardee satisfies the public use
requirement, and the interment as compensation
for valuable services rendered is public
purpose that justifies use of public funds. Apart
from lacking legal basis, this holding
conveniently overlooks the primary purpose of
the interment extant in the records — the
Solicitor General has admitted that the burial of
former President Marcos was a campaign
promise of the President to the Marcos family:
JUSTICE CAGUIOA:
Before the President gave his verbal order to have

the remains of President Marcos interred in the
Libingan, did the heirs of President Marcos make a
personal request to that effect?
In fact, Your Honor, that was a campaign

promised (sic) even before he was a President.
JUSTICE CAGUIOA:
And that was a promised (sic) given to, whom?
To the heirs of President Marcos, Your Honor.70

This admission by the Solicitor General
indicates to me that the interment is primarily
to favor the Marcos family, and serves no
legitimate public purpose. Therefore, the first
requirement for the legitimate exercise of the
President’s power to reserve has not been met.
Moreover, any disbursement of public funds in
connection with the interment will
70 TSN, September 7, 2016, pp. 39-40.

639
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 639

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
not be for a public purpose, as it is principally

for the advantage of a private party — separate
from the motivation for the same.
The holding of the ponencia, shown in this
light, is illogical: Marcos is not a hero, and
burying him in the LNMB will not convert him
into a hero. But somehow, his interment
primarily serves a public purpose or otherwise
serves the interest of the public at large, and
this Court will allow the expenditure of public
funds to inter him as a President, veteran,
and/or a Medal of Valor awardee as
compensation for valuable public services
rendered — turning a blind eye to the
disservice, damage and havoc that former
President Marcos caused to this country.

Second requirement: the
use of the land sought to
be reserved not otherwise
directed by law.

The second requirement for the validity of a
reservation requires the determination of the
existence of a law that requires a different use
for the land to be reserved. This was the
standard in Republic v. Octobre,71 when the
Court interpreted Section 64(e) of the Revised
Administrative Code of 1917, the applicable
provision then in force, viz.:
SEC. 64. Particular powers and duties of

President of the Philippines.—In addition to his
general supervisory authority, the President of the
Philippines shall have such specific powers and duties
as are expressly conferred or imposed on him by law
and also, in particular, the powers and duties set forth

in this chapter.
Among such special powers and duties shall be:

xxxx

[(d) To reserve from settlement or public sale and
for specific public uses any of the public domain of the
(Philippine Islands) Philippines the use of which is
not otherwise directed by law, the same thereafter
remaining subject to the specific public uses indicated
in
_______________
71 Republic v. Octobre, supra note 62 at pp. 700-701; pp.

847-848.

640

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
the executive order by which such reservation is

made, until otherwise provided by law or executive
order.]
(e) To reserve from sale or other disposition and
for specific public use or service, any land belonging to
the private domain of the Government of the
Philippines, the use of which is not otherwise directed
by law; and thereafter such land shall be used for the
specific purposes directed by such executive order until
otherwise provided by law.72
and held that “[t]he matter to be considered then

is whether there is any law that directs or
authorizes the President to release a disposable
public land from a reservation previously made.”
Plainly, the powers in Section 64(d) and (e) are
restated in Section 14 of the RAC cited by the
Solicitor General. The Court’s interpretation of
Section 64(e), and by necessary extension now to
Section 14 of the RAC, has two implications:
first, the existence of a law directing the use of
the land sought to be reserved affects the
validity of the reservation — and the provisions
of the said law will form part of the standards by
which the court can determine the existence of
grave abuse in case of violation, and second, the
original specific public use or purpose continues
until a subsequent law or executive issuance
releases or changes the said specific public use
or purpose for which the land was originally
reserved.
In other words, the Solicitor General’s
invocation of Section 14 of the RAC, as intimated
earlier, confirms that the decision to inter
former President Marcos in the LNMB is not a
truly political question as said decision is, in
law, subject to the Court’s power of judicial
review — to determine whether the standards of
Section 14 of the RAC have been met, and
alongside all other laws, issuances, judicial
decisions and state of facts subject to judicial
notice that relate to former President Marcos as
the intended beneficiary of the directive to be
interred in the LNMB. Moreover, since the land
that is the present site of the LNMB is already
reserved by Presidential Proclamation for a
specified public use or purpose — for national
shrine purposes — then such specified use or
purpose continues until the land is released by

another Presidential Proclamation. Since in this
case, there is no such Presidential Proclamation,
_______________
72 Italics supplied.

641
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 641

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
the interment and concomitant expenditure of

public funds must, if justified by Section 14 of
the RAC, constitute public purpose and be
consistent with the specified purpose of its
reservation, i.e., Proclamation No. 208 (S. 1967).
In fine, the verbal order to inter falls short of
the required manner of exercising the power to
reserve. Moreover, the interment cannot be
justified by the power to reserve because it is not
a legitimate public purpose, and is not consistent
with the national shrine purposes of LNMB’s
reservation. For the same reasons that the
interment serves no legitimate public
purpose, no use of public property or
public funds can be made to support it.

Faithful execution and
power of control

As another basis for the power to order the
LNMB, the Solicitor General cites the

President’s power of control over the executive
department. On the other hand, Heirs of Marcos
insist that the President’s order merely
implements the express provisions of RA 289
and the pertinent AFP Regulations and, as such,
cannot be considered as capricious or whimsical,
nor arbitrary and despotic.
Petitioners, however, aver the opposite —
that the Memorandum and Directive to bury
former President Marcos at the LNMB violate
the faithful execution clause because it
disregards the clear and unequivocal declaration
made by Congress in RA 10368 that former
President Marcos is a recognized human rights
violator.
There is no argument as to the existence of
the power of control and duty of faithful
execution. However, as applied to the case at
bar, it bears to revisit the extent of the power of
control and duty to faithfully execute laws.
The President’s power of control and duty to
faithfully execute laws are found in Article VII,
Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution, which
provides:

642

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez

all the executive departments, bureaus, and offices.
He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed.

In Book IV, Chapter 7, Section 38(a) of the
RAC, control is defined to include “authority to
act directly whenever a specific function is
entrusted by law or regulation to a subordinate;
direct the performance of duty; restrain the
commission of acts; review, approve, reverse or
modify acts and decisions of subordinate officials
or units; determine priorities in the execution of
plans and programs; and prescribe standards,
guidelines, plans and programs.” It has also
been jurisprudentially defined as the “power of
an officer to alter or modify or nullify or set aside
what a subordinate officer had done in the
performance of his duties and to substitute the
judgment of the former for that of the latter.”73
In Phillips Seafood (Philippines) Corp. v. The
Board of Investments,74 the Court held that the
power of control is not absolute, and may be
effectively limited:
Such “executive control” is not absolute. The

definition of the structure of the executive branch of
government, and the corresponding degrees of
administrative control and supervision is not the
exclusive preserve of the executive. It may be
effectively limited by the Constitution, by law,
or by judicial decisions. x x x (Emphasis supplied)

Therefore, while the order to inter former
President Marcos in the LNMB may be
considered an exercise of the President’s power
of control, this is necessarily subject to the
limitations similarly applicable to his
subordinate, the Philippine Veterans Affairs
Office (“PVAO”) or the Quartermaster General

— found in the Constitution, laws and executive
Issuances.
This is consistent with the duty imposed upon
the President by the faithful execution clause,
which this Court explained, thus:
_______________
73 Ham v. Bachrach Motor Co., Inc., 109 Phil. 949, 957
(1960).
74 597 Phil. 649, 661; 578 SCRA 69, 81-82 (2009).

643
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 643

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
That the President cannot, in the absence of any

statutory justification, refuse to execute the laws
when called for is a principle fully recognized by
jurisprudence. In In re Neagle, the US Supreme Court
held that the faithful execution clause is “not limited
to the enforcement of acts of Congress according to
their express terms.” According to Father Bernas,
Neagle “saw as law that had to be faithfully
executed not just formal acts of the legislature
but any duty or obligation inferable from the
Constitution or from statutes.”75 (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied)

Verily, the claim that the President is merely
faithfully executing law (i.e., the AFP
Regulations) when he ordered the interment

must be examined in the context of the other
duties or obligations inferable from the
Constitution and from statutes that relate to the
facts of this case. And the order to inter cannot
be considered a valid exercise of his power of
control, or his duty to faithfully execute the laws
because the interment violates the Constitution,
laws and executive issuances — how it violates
these provisions are discussed subsequently in
this dissent.

Residual powers of the President

In default of, or in addition to, the President’s
power to reserve lands, power of control, and
faithful execution of the laws, the Solicitor
General claims that the decision to inter former
President Marcos is an exercise of the residual
powers of the President. And, in this connection,
the Solicitor General harps on the inherent and
exclusive prerogative of the President to
determine the country’s policy of national
healing.76
Residual powers are provided in Book III,
Title I, Chapter 7, Section 20 of the RAC, thus:
SECTION 20. Residual Powers.—Unless

Congress provides otherwise, the President shall
exercise such other powers and functions vested in the
President which are provided for under the laws
_______________
75 Biraogo v. Philippine Truth Commission of 2010,

supra note 39 at pp. 538-539; p. 346.
76 OSG Memorandum or Consolidated Comment.

644

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
and which are not specifically enumerated above, or

which are not delegated by the President in
accordance with law.

In Larin v. Executive Secretary,77 the claim of
exercise of residual power to validate the
streamlining of the Bureau of Internal Revenue
was examined in light of whether or not a law
exists that gives the President the power to
reorganize.
Another legal basis of E.O. No. 132 is Section 20,

Book III of E.O. No. 292 which states:
“Sec. 20. Residual Powers.—Unless

Congress provides otherwise, the President
shall exercise such other powers and
functions vested in the President which are
provided for under the laws and which are
not specifically enumerated above or which are
not delegated by the President in accordance
with law.” (italics ours)
This provision speaks of such other powers vested

in the President under the law. What law then which
gives him the power to reorganize? It is Presidential
Decree No. 1772 which amended Presidential Decree
No. 1416. These decrees expressly grant the President
of the Philippines the continuing authority to

reorganize the national government, which includes
the power to group, consolidate bureaus and agencies,
to abolish offices, to transfer functions, to create and
classify functions, services and activities and to
standardize salaries and materials. The validity of
these two decrees are unquestionable. x x x78

On the other hand, in Sanlakas v. Reyes,79
this Court made the following observation on
“residual powers”:
The lesson to be learned from the U.S.

constitutional history is that the Commander-in-Chief
powers are broad enough as it is and become more so
when taken together with the provision on executive
_______________
77 345 Phil. 961; 280 SCRA 713 (1997).

78 Id., at p. 979; p. 730.
79 466 Phil. 482; 421 SCRA 656 (2004).

645
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 645

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
power and the presidential oath of office. Thus, the

plenitude of the powers of the presidency equips the
occupant with the means to address exigencies or
threats which undermine the very existence of
government or the integrity of the State.80

Inasmuch as the Solicitor General has failed
to provide the persuasive constitutional or
statutory basis for the exercise of residual
power, or even the exigencies which “undermine
the very existence of the government or the
integrity of the State” that the order to inter
former President Marcos in the LNMB seeks to
address, the Court should have been left with no
recourse except to examine the factual bases, if
any, of the invocation of the residual powers of
the President, as this is the duty given to the
Court pursuant to its power of judicial review.
Jurisprudence mandates that there is no grave
abuse of discretion provided there is sufficient
factual basis for the exercise of residual
powers.81 Conversely, when there is absence of
factual basis for the exercise of residual power,
this will result in a finding of arbitrariness,
whimsicality and capriciousness that is the
essence of grave abuse of discretion.
As early as Marcos v. Manglapus,82 the Court,
after conceding to then President Corazon
Aquino the discretion to prohibit the Marcoses83
from returning to the Philippines under the
“residual unstated powers of the President x x x
to safeguard and protect general welfare,”
proceeded to still ascertain if her decision had
factual basis, viz.:
Under the Constitution, judicial power includes the

duty to determine whether or not there has been a
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
instrumentality of the Government. [Art. VIII, Sec. 1]
Given this wording, we cannot agree with the Solicitor
General that the issue constitutes a political question

which is beyond the jurisdiction of the Court to decide.
_______________
80 Id., at p. 518; p. 675.

81 Marcos v. Manglapus, supra note 4; Sanlakas v.
Executive Secretary, supra note 79; and Integrated Bar of the
Philippines v. Zamora, supra note 5.
82 Id.
83 Ferdinand E. Marcos, Imelda R. Marcos, Ferdinand R.
Marcos, Jr., Irene M. Araneta, and Imee Manotoc.

646

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
The present Constitution limits resort to the

political question doctrine and broadens the scope of
judicial inquiry into areas which the Court, under
previous constitutions, would have normally left to
the political departments to decide. But nonetheless
there remain issues beyond the Court’s jurisdiction
the determination of which is exclusively for the
President, for Congress or for the people themselves
through a plebiscite or referendum. We cannot, for
example, question the President’s recognition of a
foreign government, no matter how premature or
improvident such action may appear. We cannot set
aside a presidential pardon though it may appear to
us that the beneficiary is totally undeserving of the
grant. Nor can we amend the Constitution under the
guise of resolving a dispute brought before us because

the power is reserved to the people.
There is nothing in the case before us that
precludes our determination thereof on the political
question doctrine. The deliberations of the
Constitutional Commission cited by petitioners show
that the framers intended to widen the scope of
judicial review but they did not intend courts of
justice to settle all actual controversies before them.
When political questions are involved, the
Constitution limits the determination to
action is being questioned. If grave abuse is not
established, the Court will not substitute its judgment
for that of the official concerned and decide a matter
which by its nature or by law is for the latter alone to
decide. In this light, it would appear clear that the
second paragraph of Article VIII, Section 1 of the
Constitution, defining “judicial power,” which
specifically empowers the courts to determine
discretion on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the government, incorporates in
the fundamental law the ruling in Lansang v. Garcia
[No. L-33964, December 11, 1971, 42 SCRA 448] that:
Article VII of the [1935] Constitution vests in

the Executive the power to suspend the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus under
specified conditions. Pursuant to the principle of
separation of powers underlying our system of
government, the Executive is supreme within
his own sphere. However, the separation of
powers, under the Constitution, is not absolute.
What is more, it goes hand in hand with the

system of checks and balances,

647
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 647

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
under which the Executive is supreme, as

regards the suspension of the privilege, but only
if and when he acts within the sphere allotted to
him by the Basic Law, and the authority to
determine whether or not he has so acted is
vested in the Judicial Department, which, in
this respect, is, in turn, constitutionally
supreme.
In the exercise of such authority, the function
of the Court is merely to check — not to
supplant — the Executive, or to ascertain
merely whether he has gone beyond the
constitutional limits of his jurisdiction, not to
exercise the power vested in him or to
determine the wisdom of his act. x x x [at pp.
479-480]
Accordingly, the question for the Court to

determine is whether or not there exist factual
bases for the President to conclude that it was
in the national interest to bar the return of the
Marcoses to the Philippines. If such postulates
do exist, it cannot be said that she has acted, or
acts, arbitrarily or that she has gravely abused
her discretion in deciding to bar their return.
We find that from the pleadings filed by the

parties, from their oral arguments, and the facts
revealed during the briefing in chambers by the Chief
of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the
National Security Adviser, wherein petitioners and
respondents were represented, there exist factual
bases for the President’s decision.84 (Emphasis
supplied)

In Integrated Bar of the Philippines v.
Zamora,85 the Court, while conceding that the
President has the power to call out the armed
forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence,
invasion or rebellion, again inquired into the
factual determination by then President Joseph
Ejercito Estrada as to the necessity to call out
the armed forces, particularly the Marines, to
aid the PNP in visibility patrols around the
metropolis before it ruled that he did not gravely
abuse his discretion. The Court observed:
_______________
84 Marcos v. Manglapus, supra note 4 at pp. 506-508; pp.

696-697.
note 5.

648

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
The 1987 Constitution expands the concept of

judicial review by providing that “[T]he Judicial power
shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such
lower courts as may be established by law. Judicial
power includes the duty of the courts of justice to
settle actual controversies involving rights which are
legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the
Government.” Under this definition, the Court cannot
agree with the Solicitor General that the issue
involved is a political question beyond the jurisdiction
of this Court to review. When the grant of power is
qualified, conditional or subject to limitations,
the issue of whether the prescribed
qualifications or conditions have been met or
the limitations respected, is justiciable — the
problem being one of legality or validity, not its
wisdom. Moreover, the jurisdiction to delimit
constitutional boundaries has been given to this
Court. When political questions are involved, the
Constitution limits the determination as to
action is being questioned.

xxxx

Thus, it is the unclouded intent of the Constitution
to vest upon the President, as Commander-in-Chief of
the Armed Forces, full discretion to call forth the
military when in his judgment it is necessary to do so
in order to prevent or suppress lawless violence,
invasion or rebellion. Unless the petitioner can show
that the exercise of such discretion was gravely
abused, the President’s exercise of judgment deserves

to be accorded respect from this Court.
The President has already determined the
necessity and factual basis for calling the armed
forces. In his Memorandum, he categorically asserted
that, [V]iolent crimes like bank/store robberies,
holdups, kidnappings and carnappings continue to
occur in Metro Manila x x x. We do not doubt the
veracity of the President’s assessment of the
situation, especially in the light of present
developments. The Court takes judicial notice of
the recent bombings perpetrated by lawless
elements in the shopping malls, public utilities,
and other public places. These are among the
areas of deployment described in the LOI 2000.
Considering all these facts, we hold that the
Presi-

649
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 649

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
dent has sufficient factual basis to call for

military aid in law enforcement and in the
exercise of this constitutional power.86 (Citations
omitted; emphasis supplied)

In both Marcos v. Manglapus and Integrated
Bar of the Philippines v. Zamora, the Court,
pursuant to the expanded concept of judicial
power under the 1987 Constitution, took the
“pragmatist” approach that a political question87
should be subject to judicial review to determine

whether or not there had been a grave abuse of
action was being questioned. In turn, a
determination of the existence or nonexistence of
grave abuse of discretion is greatly dependent
upon a finding by the Court that the concerned
official had adequate factual basis for his
questioned action.
Thus, conceding to the President the power to
order the interment of the former President in
the LNMB, did he, however, have competent
factual basis to conclude that his decision would
promote national healing, genuine change and
forgiveness, redound to the benefit of Filipino
people, change the national psyche, begin the
painful healing of this country, and efface the
Marcos’ remains as a symbol of polarity?
National healing, genuine change,
forgiveness, change in national psyche, and
effacing the Marcos’s remains as the symbol of
polarity are not matters which the Court can or
may take judicial notice of.88 They are not self-
evident or self-authenticating. The public
respondents and the private respondents, Heirs
of Marcos, have, therefore, the burden to
_______________
86 Id., at pp. 638-645; pp. 105-112.

87 Not to be confused with a “truly political question”
pursuant to the Francisco v. HRET formulation.
88 Rule 129, Section 1 provides that judicial notice is
mandatory with respect to “the existence and territorial
extent of states, their political history, forms of government
and symbols of nationality, the law of nations, the admiralty
and maritime courts of the world and their seals, the

political constitution and history of the Philippines, the
official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial
departments of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the
measure of time, and the geographical divisions,” while
Section 2 provides that judicial notice is discretionary with
respect to matters which are of public knowledge, or are
capable of unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be
known to judges because of their judicial functions.

650

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
factually substantiate them. The Court cannot

be left, on its own, to divine their significance in
practical terms and flesh them out.
Regarding national healing, does the Solicitor
General expect the Court to commiserate with
and feel for whatever “pain and suffering” the
Marcos family may stand to endure if former
President Marcos is not interred in the LNMB?
The Court has not even been apprised of the
nature of such “pain and suffering.” In fact,
counsel for the heirs of Marcos refused to
provide an answer when asked on this issue
during the oral arguments, thus:
JUSTICE CAGUIOA:
Can you tell me what injuries the Marcos family is

suffering because President Marcos is (has) not been
interred in the Libingan? Is there any injury?
ATTY. RAFAEL-ANTONIO:
Your Honor, with all due respect the issue here is
the propriety of the decision of President Duterte to
inter him. The injury which the Marcos family may
be suffering would be, to discuss this, would be
amounting to an academic discussion, Your Honor.
JUSTICE CAGUIOA:
Not necessarily, we are a court of law and a court

of equity and as judges we are mandated to find a
solution to any legal controversy prescinding from
the emotions. . .
Your Honor. . .
JUSTICE CAGUIOA:
That is the basis of my question.
Yes, Your Honor. I agree, Your Honor, but equity

must follow the law and in this case, the laws
applicable do not consider the injuries on the family
of the deceased.
JUSTICE CAGUIOA:
So do I take it that you will not answer my

question?
Yes, Your Honor.89
_______________
89 TSN, September 7, 2016, pp. 50-51.

651
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 651

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
“[T]he painful healing of this country,”

borrowing the words of the Solicitor General, of
the wounds brought about by the Marcos martial
rule actually started with his ouster in 1986 and
has progressed significantly throughout the
ensuing three decades. Indeed, as far as Heirs of
Marcos are concerned, they have almost
regained their former political stature. At
present, there is a Marcos senator,90 who almost
made it to the Vice Presidency, a Marcos
representative91 to the Congress of the
Philippines, and a Marcos governor.92 On the
other hand, the victims of the Marcos martial
rule have partly won their day in court and have
been so far awarded sizeable judgments.93
Several laws (e.g., RA 10368) have been enacted
that recognize the deaths, sufferings, injuries,
deprivations that they endured, and accord them
reparation. In simple terms, there appears to be
no perceptible empirical correlation between the
intended burial of former President Marcos and
the supposed national healing the President
seeks to promote. To be sure, no reason has been
offered that would clothe the President’s decision
as essential to this supposed national healing.
“Genuine change,” without more, may have
been an excellent slogan during the campaign
period, but as a reason for the decision to inter

former President Marcos in the LNMB, is too
amorphous and nebulous. What is it in the
present Filipino life that requires “genuine
change,” the Solicitor General has not even
attempted to explain. How does the interment of
former President Marcos in the LNMB effect
this “genuine change?” Again, the Solicitor
General has not proffered any kind of
explanation.
As defined, forgiveness is a “conscious,
deliberate decision to release feelings of
resentment or vengeance” toward a person or
group who has caused harm, regardless of
whether such persons are deserving of the
same.94 Conversely, forgiveness does not mean
glossing over or denying
_______________
90 Ferdinand “Bongbong” R. Marcos, Jr.

91 Representative Imelda R. Marcos.
92 Ilocos Norte Governor Imee Marcos.
93 In Re: Estate of Marcos Human Rights Litigation, 910
F. Supp. 1460 (D. Haw. 1995), upheld in Hilao v. Marcos,
103. F.3d 762 (9th Cir. 1996).
94 What Is Forgiveness?, available at
<http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/toic/forgiveness/definition>,
last accessed on October 17, 2016.

652

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
the seriousness of an offense committed against

one’s person, nor does it mean condoning or
excusing offenses or legal accountability.95
Instead, forgiveness entails the recognition of
the pain that one has suffered, without letting
such pain prevent one from attaining healing or
moving on with their life.96
On the part of the Marcos heirs, the Solicitor
General quotes in their Memorandum Ilocos
Norte Governor Imee Marcos’ message97 of
“simple sorry”98 during the recent
commemoration of her father’s birthday,
wherein she purportedly “humbly sought
forgiveness.”99 Is this the forgiveness that the
President is after? But, forgiveness cannot be
exacted from the victims of the Marcos martial
rule because the State has no right to impose
the same upon them. The Court is helpless in
the absence of a reasonable and acceptable
explanation how the President’s objective of
“forgiveness” is achieved by the intended
interment.
Unlike in Marcos v. Manglapus where “from
the pleadings filed by the parties [therein], from
their oral arguments, and the facts revealed
during the briefing in chambers by the Chief of
Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and
the National Security Adviser, wherein
petitioners and respondents [therein] were
represented, there exist factual bases for the
President’s decision” to bar the return of the
Marcoses to the Philippines in the national
interest,100 the Solicitor General has not
identified any tangible and material benefit that
the nation will reap with the interment of former
President Marcos in the LNMB. Thus, the Court

is left with no alternative but to conclude that it
will only be Heirs of Marcos, who are private
citizens, who will stand to benefit from the
interment.
The Solicitor General’s postulate that the
burial of the former President’s remains in the
LNMB is “geared towards changing the national
_______________
95 Id.
96 Id.
97 Public Respondents’ Memorandum, p. 4.
98 Id.
99 Id.
100 Marcos v. Manglapus, supra note 4 at pp. 507-508;
pp. 682, 697.

653
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 653

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
psyche” is, again, as vague as the other

motherhood statements that have been bandied
about.
“Psyche” is simply defined as the soul, mind
or personality of a person or group101 and the
mental or psychological structure of a person,
especially as a motive force.102 Conversely,
“national psychology” may refer to the soul,
mind, or personality of a nation, or the mental
psychological structure of a nation.
The Solicitor General cannot just presume that

the Court is knowledgeable of the “national
psyche” that the President desires to engender
or change. The President’s intentions may be
noble, but the Court cannot be expected to
speculate as to what he understands “national
psyche” to be or how the interment will engender
or change the “national psyche.”
As to the burial of former President Marcos
being in keeping with the President’s campaign
promise, the Solicitor General effectively takes
the position that with the President’s
proclamation as such, he must now keep his
campaign promise because the electorate “has
spoken.”103
But again, this is equivocal to say the least.
To some, the campaign promise is but a political
concession to the Heirs of Marcos and to attract
the votes of the Marcos loyalists. To others, who
are perennially political cynics, campaign
promises are made to be broken, not cast in
stone, and are like debts listed on water. As to
the reasons why the voters’ preference in the
last national elections tilted in favor of the
President over the other presidential candidates,
political analysts can have their field day. The
Court should not try to second guess.
Regarding the Solicitor General’s premise
that former President Marcos’ remains have
become the symbol of polarity, again, the
necessary foundation for this was not laid.
_______________
101 “Psyche,” available at <http://www.merriam-

webster.com/dictionary/psyche>, last accessed on October 17,
2016.
102 <http://www.dictionary.com/browse/psyche>, last

accessed on October 17, 2016.
103 TSN, September 7, 2016, pp. 83-87.

654

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
What the Court can take judicial notice of is

that, at present, former President Marcos lies in
repose at the Ferdinand E. Marcos Presidential
Center,104 which is situated in Batac, Ilocos
Norte. The Center has a museum which
showcases memorabilia of the former President,
and a mausoleum where his remains lie inside a
glass-encased coffin which has been on public
display since 1993. Many flock to the mausoleum
to view the remains of former President Marcos
and he continues to be admired by his loyalists.
Those who are presently vehemently opposing
the burial of former President Marcos in the
LNMB have not, for more than 20 years,
questioned the right and decision of the Heirs of
Marcos to have his remains lie in repose at his
mausoleum. The so-called “polarity” symbolized
by the remains of the former President is, again,
not apparent.
Thus, the mere incantation of buzzwords such
as “national psyche,” “national healing,”
“genuine change,” “campaign promise” and
“effacing symbol of polarity” as the wisdom
underlying the challenged order of the President
appears — in the absence of anything other than

such incantation — is nothing more than a
legerdemain resorted to prevent the Court from
taking judicial cognition thereof and to make the
President’s action inscrutable. Without sufficient
factual bases, these magic words are ephemeral
and ambiguous. The Solicitor General has failed
to provide even the minimum specifics as to how
such objectives, as lofty as they are or pretended
to be, will be achieved if the President’s order is
implemented. Consequently, this failure to
substantiate the factual bases of the President’s
assailed action should have left the Court with
no option but to rule that the President’s
intended action is bereft of any factual basis —
and, for that reason, following Marcos v.
Manglapus, already constitutes grave abuse of
discretion.

Summation

To recapitulate: (1) there was no valid
exercise of the power to reserve under Section 14
of the RAC; (2) the President may validly order
the
_______________
104 Despite tourism loss, Batac mayor backs hero’s burial

for Marcos, available at
<http://www.rappler.com/nation/145804-batac-mayor-her-
burial-marcos>, last accessed on October 17, 2016.

655
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 655

Ocampo vs. Enriquez

LNMB pursuant to his power of control and his
duty to faithfully execute laws, provided that no
contravention of the Constitution, laws,
executive issuances, public policy, customs and
international obligations arises therefrom or is
committed; (3) the Solicitor General failed to
show any contingency for the valid exercise of
the President’s residual powers, and likewise
failed to demonstrate sufficient factual basis to
justify the interment of former President Marcos
in the LNMB.
Turning now to the relevant provisions of the
Constitution, laws, executive issuances, public
policy, customs and international obligations, I
will explain in turn how the interment violates
them, and thus, constitutes grave abuse.

The laws, executive issuances,
public policy and customs that
were violated.

Republic Act No. 289

Petitioners’ reliance on RA 289 as anchor for
their argument that the intended burial of
former President Marcos is prohibited by this
law is misplaced.
RA 289 directed the construction of a
National Pantheon intended to be the burial
place for all the Presidents of the Philippines,
national heroes and patriots,105 and established
the Board of National Pantheon that is
mandated to cause the interment in the National
Pantheon of the mortal remains of all Presidents

of the Philippines, national heroes and
patriots.106 Subsequently, in Proclamation No.
431 issued by President Quirino in 1953, a
parcel of land in Quezon City was reserved.
Thereafter, by virtue of Proclamation No. 42 (S.
1954), this reservation was withdrawn. No other
property has been thus earmarked or reserved
for the construction of a National Pantheon.
I agree that RA 289 is not applicable. Reading
RA 289 together with Proclamation No. 431
leads to no other conclusion than that the land
on
_______________
105 Sec. 1, R.A. No. 289.

106 Sec. 2, id.

656

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
which the National Pantheon was to be built

refers to a discrete parcel of land that is
different from site of the LNMB. To be sure, the
history of the LNMB, is that of a parcel of land
identified by Proclamation No. 208, Series of
1967, dated May 28, 1967, which is parcel 3,
Psu-2031, consisting of 1,428,800 square meters
and whose technical description is reflected in
said Proclamation No. 208. Accordingly, it is non
sequitur to argue the applicability of RA 289, or

the standards indicated therein, to the LNMB,
which is a parcel of land that is totally different
and distinct.
That said, I fully concur with Justice Leonen
that RA 289 remains an effective law consistent
with Article 7 of the Civil Code.

PD 105, RA 10066 and
10086, and the specific
policy in the treatment
of national shrines

It has to be acknowledged that there is no
dispute that the present LNMB is rightfully a
military memorial declared as a national
shrine. The history of the LNMB, as it is
expressed in the different PDs and executive
issuances, shows that it is not an ordinary
cemetery; it is not an ordinary gravesite.
Truthfully, and legally, its status as a national
shrine is beyond cavil.
In this regard, PD 105 squarely directs how
national shrines should be regarded. And while
the decree specifically mentions several places
as national shrines, it also unequivocally
provides that all national shrines “and others
which may be proclaimed in the future as
national shrines” are to be regarded and treated
as “hallowed places.”
Thus, the third Whereas clause of PD 105
mandates that “it is the policy of the
Government to hold and keep said National
Shrines as sacred and hallowed place.”107
PD 105 is not a mere executive issuance. It is
law. And this law establishes a specific State
policy in the treatment of all national shrines
declared before and after its issuance.

Accordingly, since the LNMB has
_______________
107 P.D. No. 105, 3rd Whereas Clause.

657
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 657

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
been declared as a national shrine, the specific

State policy to hold and keep national shrines as
a “sacred and hallowed place” necessarily covers
the LNMB. To be sure, this policy extends to the
LNMB despite the fact that its declaration as a
national shrine predated PD 105 as there is no
rational basis why the LNMB, already declared
a national shrine by Proclamation No. 208 in
1967, should be treated differently from those
sites that have been declared as national shrines
after PD 105.
The argument that PD 105 applies only to
places of birth, exile, imprisonment, detention or
death of great and eminent leaders of the nation
is too narrow and myopic a reading that it
deserves scant consideration. Indeed, this
interpretation is contradicted and belied by the
very language of PD 105 itself which recognizes
all other national shrines that “may be declared
in the future” as also being sacred and hallowed
places. The Court can take judicial notice of a
number of places declared as national shrines
after PD 105 — and therefore to be treated as

sacred and hallowed places — that are not
places of birth, exile, imprisonment, detention or
death of great and eminent leaders, such as the
Kiangan War Memorial Shrine which was
established to perpetuate the surrender site for
the Japanese Imperial Forces and to serve as a
reminder of the “uselessness of war as a means
of solving international differences,”108 the
Quezon Memorial Circle which was established
in memory of the late President Manuel L.
Quezon even as President Quezon died in New
York, and the Balete Pass109 which was a
battlefield where the Americans and the
Filipinos fought against the Japanese Imperial
Forces. To insist that the provisions of PD 105,
and the proscription against the prohibited acts
listed therein, will apply to a national shrine
only if said national shrine is the place of birth,
exile, imprisonment, detention or death of a
great and eminent leader is plainly ridiculous
and downright error.
I find that PD 105 is applicable. No
proposition is being made to expand the import
of the decree beyond its express terms; no
penalty is sought against any act involved in
this case. What is inescapable, however, is the
explicit statement of government policy to hold
national
_______________
108 Presidential Decree No. 1682.

109 R.A. No. 10796 (2016).

658

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
shrines sacred. As well, the same policy is

reiterated in RA 10066 and RA 10086 — order
the preservation or conservation of the cultural
significance of national shrines.
In this connection, the policy of PD 105 to
hold and keep the LNMB as a “sacred and
hallowed place” is in keeping with, and
completely aligned with, the esteem and
reverence that Proclamation No. 89 accords to
the fallen soldiers, war dead and military
personnel who were meant to be buried in the
LNMB.
As admitted by the Solicitor General during
oral arguments, the words “esteem and
reverence” in Proclamation No. 89 and “sacred
and hallowed” in PD 105 are not empty and
meaningless. The words “esteem and reverence”
set and mandate how the LNMB, in particular,
should be regarded, whereas the words “sacred
and hallowed” direct how national shrines, in
general, should be treated.
Truly, it is precisely because of the country’s
collective regard of the LNMB as the memorial
in honor of the heroism, patriotism and
nationalism of its war dead as well as its fallen
soldiers and military personnel that President
Duterte held the rites honoring the country’s
national heroes at the LNMB in the morning of
August 29, 2016.110 There is no question that
LNMB has traditionally been the site where

National Heroes Day is commemorated.
The main premise of the ponencia appears to
be that the LNMB is still primarily and
essentially a military memorial, or a military
shrine, notwithstanding the fact that it was
purposely excluded from the military reservation
for national shrine purposes by Proclamation
No. 208. The military nature of the LNMB is
seemingly relied upon to argue that standards
relating to national shrines in general, and to
the LNMB in particular, outside of the
standards expressly embodied in the AFP
Regulations, cannot apply.
To me this is egregious error. The dual nature
of the LNMB as a military memorial and a
national shrine cannot be denied.
_______________
110
<http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/579292/news/nation/duterte-
leads-national-heroes-day-rites>; <http://news.abs-
cbn.com/news/08/29/16/look-duterte-leads-national-heroes-
day-rites>, last accessed on October 17, 2016.

659
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 659

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Former President Marcos himself appeared to

have recognized the distinction in the discerning
manner that he declared sites as military
memorials or shrines and national shrines —

some he declared solely as military shrines or
memorial shrines, while others sites with
military significance were declared as national
shrines. To illustrate, he declared the Tirad Pass
National Park,111 Fort San Antonio Abad,112
“Red Beach” (the landing point of General
Douglas MacArthur and the liberating forces),113
and an area of Mt. Samat,114 as national shrines,
while a parcel of land in Cavinti was declared as
a memorial shrine.115
The best exemplar, perhaps, is the Bantayog
ng Kiangan, the site in Ifugao where General
Yamashita surrendered to the Allied Forces. On
July 9, 1975, former President Marcos issued
Proclamation No. 1460, declaring the same as a
military shrine under the administration and
control of the Military Memorial Division,
Department of National Defense.116 Two years
later, on October 17, 1977, he issued
Proclamation No. 1682, declaring the previously
declared military shrine as a national shrine.117
Even PD 1076,118 issued by former President
Marcos on January 26, 1977, that transferred
the functions of administration, maintenance
and
_______________
111 July 23, 1968 (Declaring the Tirad Pass National

Park as Tirad Pass National Shrine, Proclamation No. 433
[1968]).
112 May 27, 1967 (Reserving for National Shrine
Purposes a Certain Parcel of Land of the Private Domain
Situated in the District of Malate, City of Manila,
Proclamation No. 207 [1967]).
113 Reserving Certain Parcel of Land of the Private

Domain in Baras, Palo, Leyte for the Province of Leyte,
Proclamation No. 1272 [1974].
114 April 18, 1966 (Excluding from the Operation of
Proclamation No. 24,
S. 1945, Proclamation No. 25 [1966]).
115 March 27, 1973 (Reserving for Memorial Shrine for
the War Dead a Certain Parcel of Land of the Public Domain
in Cavinti, Laguna, Proclamation No. 1123 [1973]).
116 Declaring the “Bantayog sa Kiangan” as a Military
Shrine, Proclamation No. 1460 [1975].
117 Declaring the Kiangan War Memorial Shrine in
Linda, Kiangan, Ifugao as a National Shrine, Proclamation
No. 1682 [1977].
118 Amending Part XII (Education) and Part XIX
(National Security) of the Integrated Reorganization Plan,
Presidential Decree No. 1076 [1977].

660

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
development of national shrines to the PVAO,

found its impetus, not on the ground that PVAO
should have exclusive jurisdiction over these
national shrines, but on the fact that the (then)
Department of Defense had greater capabilities
and resources to more effectively administer,
maintain and develop the national shrines, and
exercised functions more closely related to the
significance of the national shrines.119
Verily, the argument that the LNMB was

initially, primarily, or truly a military memorial
to maintain that only the express
disqualifications in the AFP Regulations should
control in the determination of who may be
interred therein, to the exclusion of the
provisions of the Constitution, laws and
executive issuances, disregards the fact that its
status as a national shrine has legal
consequences.
The policy of PD 105 with respect to national
shrines is reiterated, or more accurately,
expanded in the statement of policy in RA
10066120 that has the objective of protect[ing],
preserv[ing], conserv[ing] and promot[ing] the
nation’s cultural heritage, its property and
histories;121 and RA 10086122 that states the
policy of the State to conserve, promote and
popularize the nation’s historical and cultural
heritage and resources.123 Even assuming that
PD 105 does not apply to the LNMB, there can
be no argument that the later expression of
legislative will in RA 10066 and RA 10086
accords even fuller protection to national
shrines, which includes the LNMB.
The term “national shrine” escapes express
legal definition. However, sufficient guidance is
found in RA 10066124 that uses different
permutations of the term: “national historical
shrines” is a category of cultural property125
while the term “historical shrines” is defined to
refer to historical sites or structures hallowed
and revered for their history or asso-
_______________
119 Second and Third Whereas Clauses of PD No. 1076.
120 NATIONAL CULTURAL HERITAGE ACT OF 2009, Republic

Act No. 10066, March 24, 2010.
121 Article 2(a), id.
122 STRENGTHENING PEOPLES’ NATIONALISM THROUGH
PHILIPPINE HISTORY ACT, Republic Act No. 10086, May 12,
2010.
123 Section 2, id.
124 Republic Act No. 10066, supra.
125 Section 4, id., uses the term “national historical
shrine.”

661
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 661

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
ciation as declared by the National Historical

Institute.126 Thereafter, RA 10066 uses the term
“national shrines” in its penal provision127 which
could only mean national historical shrine
previously defined. Under this law, the National
Historical Institute (“NHI”), the body once given
powers of administration over the LNMB, was
responsible for significant movable and
immovable cultural property that pertains to
Philippine history, heroes and the conservation
of historical artifacts.128
In RA 10086, “national historical shrines”
refers to “sites or structures hallowed and
revered for their history or association declared
as such by the NHCP,”129 which is the successor
of the NHI mentioned in RA 10066. RA 10086
interchangeably uses shrines130 and national
shrines.131 In both laws, the word “conservation”
is defined as “processes and measures of

maintaining the cultural significance of a
cultural property including, but not limited to,
physical, social or legal preservation,
restoration, reconstruction, protection,
adaptation or any combination thereof,”
respectively,132 which is consistent with, and in
fact expanded the protection beyond, what may
be argued as merely prohibiting physical
desecration in PD 105. The clear legislative
mandate in RA 10066 and 10086 require
conservation, not only of the physical integrity of
national shrines as cultural and historical
resources, but also of the cultural significance
thereof.
These laws operate to accord legal protection
to the LNMB so that the standard applicable to
it, in particular, esteem and reverence in
Proclamation No. 86, and to national shrines, in
general, as sacred and hallowed under PD 105,
will be upheld and maintained. In other words, if
a person who is not worthy of or held in esteem
and reverence is sought to be interred in the
LNMB, then this would be contrary to the policy
to hold LNMB as a sacred and hallowed place —
and the Court must step in to preserve and
protect LNMB’s cultural significance.
Relevantly, the
_______________
126 Section 3, id.

127 Section 48, id.
128 Section 31, id.
129 Section 3(n), RA No. 10086.
130 Sections 7(d) and (n), id.
131 Sections 3(b), 7(e) and 20, id.
132 Section 3(i) in RA No. 10066 and Section 3(c), id.

662

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
NHCP, which has the mandate to discuss and

resolve, with finality, issues or conflicts on
Philippine history under Section 7 of RA 10086,
opposes the interment — another fact completely
disregarded by the ponencia.
Verily, the interment of former President
Marcos constitutes a violation of the
physical, historical and cultural integrity
of the LNMB as a national shrine, which
the State has the obligation to conserve.

AFP Regulations

Concededly, the LNMB is also a military
grave site. The Quartermaster General of the
Armed Forces of the Philippines (“AFP”)
exercises overall supervision in the
implementation of the AFP Regulations
concerning burials at the LNMB, specifically,
AFP Regulations 161-373 dated April 9, 1986
and the subsequent regulations (AFP
Regulations G 161-374 dated March 27, 1998,133
and AFP Regulations G 161-375 dated
September 11, 2000134 [the AFP Regulations]
while the Graves Services Unit (“GSU”) is
charged with the registration of deceased/graves,
allocation of specific section/area, preparation of

grave sites, and supervision of burials at the
LNMB.135
The fact that the LNMB is an active military
grave site or cemetery, however, does not
diminish, and cannot be used as an excuse to
denigrate, its status as a national shrine. The
PDs discussed above are laws while the
presidential issuances have the force of law.
They must be observed in the use of the LNMB.
National Heroes Day is a regular holiday
under Act No. 3827 intended for the Filipinos to
reflect on the heroism of our countrymen. This
Court can take judicial notice of the custom136 or
tradition of the sitting President to celebrate
this national holiday by visiting the
_______________
133 Annex 6, Consolidated Comment.

134 Annex 7, id.
135 AFP Regulations G 161-375.
136 The Requisites of Custom are (1) a number of acts;
(2) uniformity; (3) juridical intent; (4) lapse of time; and not
contrary to law. 1 Manresa p. 76.

663
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 663

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
LNMB, which, if accorded a most reasonable

interpretation, can be taken to mean that LNMB
does symbolize heroism, or that it is the place
where the nation’s heroes lie. To argue,

therefore, that the word “bayani” in the LNMB
is a misnomer, and that no symbolism of
heroism should be attached thereto or to those
that lie therein as heroes, is, at the very least,
contrary to well-established custom.
And this is precisely how the provisions in the
AFP Regulations regarding those who are not
qualified to be interred in the LNMB should be
construed — as an acknowledgment that it is a
national shrine, and must be treated as a
“sacred and hallowed” resting place. Surely, if
“personnel who were dishonorably
separated/reverted/discharged from service” are
to be interred in the LNMB, then LNMB, being a
“sacred and hallowed place,”137 would be
desecrated. In the same vein, if “authorized
personnel who were convicted by final judgment
of an offense involving moral turpitude”138 are
to be interred in the LNMB, then the status of
LNMB as a national shrine would be tarnished.
Without these disqualifications, the sacredness
and hallowedness of the LNMB would be hollow
and meaningless.
In other words, it would be, as it is, error, to
view or understand the AFP Regulations in a
vacuum, independent of or apart from, the policy
expressed in Proclamation No. 86 which
renamed the Republic Memorial Cemetery as
“Libingan ng mga Bayani” (Cemetery of the
Heroes)139 and established therein the
standards of “ESTEEM and REVERENCE,”
Proclamation No. 208 which constituted LNMB
as a national shrine, PD 105 which specifically
provides the specific policy that all national
shrines shall be sacred and hallowed places, RA
10086 that characterizes LNMB as a “national
historic shrine” or a historical site or structure

hallowed and revered for its history or
association.
These laws and presidential proclamations
that have the force of law should be read into,
and considered part of, the AFP Regulations.
_______________
137 AFP Regulations G 161-374; AFP Regulations G 161-

375. Emphasis supplied.
138 Id.; id. Emphasis supplied.
139 <http://corregidorisland.com/bayani/libingan.html.>

664

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Basic is the principle in statutory

construction that interpreting and harmonizing
laws is the best method of interpretation in
order to form a uniform, complete, coherent, and
intelligible system of jurisprudence, in
accordance with the legal maxim interpretare et
concordare leges legibus est optimus
140
interpretandi modus.
Thus, the disqualifications contemplated
under the AFP Regulations should be construed
under the aegis of the foregoing laws and
executive issuances and their interpretation
should not be narrowed by the language used
therein. Accordingly, I fully agree with Justice
Carpio’s position that when Marcos was forcibly

taken out of office and removed as a President
and a Commander-in-Chief by the sovereign act
of the people expressed in the EDSA Revolution
— which is an act higher than an act of a
military tribunal or of a civilian administrative
tribunal — then it can reasonably be said that
he was dishonorably separated as a President
and dishonorably discharged as a Commander-
in-Chief. During the oral arguments, Justice
Carpio further clarified that a military
personnel, who is a Medal of Valor awardee,
retires from the military, joins the government,
and while in government, he is dishonorably
separated for an offense, then upon his death, he
should not be qualified to be interred in the
LNMB pursuant to the AFP Regulations
themselves because LNMB, being a sacred and
hallowed ground, would be besmirched.141
In the same manner, the disqualification of
those who have been convicted by final judgment
of an offense involving moral turpitude should
be understood in its normal and ordinary
acceptation. In his concurring opinion in Teves v.
COMELEC,142 Justice Brion cites the Black’s
Law Dictionary definition of moral turpitude as
an “act of baseness, vileness, or the depravity in
private and social duties which man owes to his
fellowman, or to society in general,” and
Bouvier’s Law Dictionary as including
“everything which is done contrary to justice,
honesty, modesty, or good morals.” Citing In re
Basa143 and Zari v. Flores,144 Justice
_______________
140 Pabillo v. Commission on Elections En Banc, G.R.

Nos. 216098 & 216562, April 21, 2015, 756 SCRA 606, 672.
141 TSN, August 31, 2016, p. 55.
142 604 Phil. 717, 735-742; 587 SCRA 1, 10 (2009).
143 41 Phil. 275 (1920).

665
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 665

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Brion lists, among others, estafa, theft, murder,

whether frustrated or attempted, attempted
bribery, robbery, direct bribery, embezzlement,
extortion, frustrated homicide, falsification of
document, fabrication of evidence, evasion of
income tax, and rape as crimes involving moral
turpitude. The commission by a person of any
such crimes when proven should surely
disqualify him from being buried in the LNMB
as it would blacken the sacredness and
hallowedness of the LNMB.
In Republic v. Sandiganbayan,145 a certiorari
petition filed by the Republic of the Philippines
(Republic) against the Sandiganbayan, former
President Marcos, represented by his heirs:
Imelda R. Marcos, Maria Imelda [Imee] Marcos-
Manotoc, Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr. and Irene
Marcos-Araneta, and Imelda Romualdez Marcos,
which sought to reinstate the Sandiganbayan’s
earlier decision dated September 19, 2000 that
forfeited in favor of the Republic Swiss bank
accounts in the aggregate amount of
US$658,175,373.60 as of January 31, 2002,
claimed by the Marcoses as theirs and held in

escrow in the Philippine National Bank (PNB),
this Court made this factual finding and ruling:
In the face of undeniable circumstances and the

avalanche of documentary evidence against
them, respondent Marcoses failed to justify the
lawful nature of their acquisition of the said
assets. Hence, the Swiss deposits should be
considered ill-gotten wealth and forfeited in favor of
the State in accordance with Section 6 of RA 1379[.]146
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

In Marcos, Jr. v. Republic,147 this Court ruled
that all the assets, properties and funds of
Arelma, S.A., an entity created by former
President Marcos, with an estimated aggregate
amount of US$3,369,975.00 as of 1983, which
the Marcos claimed as theirs, were declared ill-
gotten wealth and forfeited in favor of the
Republic.
This Court, in Republic v. Sandiganbayan
and Marcos, Jr. v. Republic, noted with approval
the Solicitor General’s evidence, culled from the
_______________
144 Adm. No. (2170-MC) P-1356, November 21, 1979, 94

SCRA 317.
145 453 Phil. 1059; 406 SCRA 190 (2003).
146 Id., at p. 1149; pp. 273-274.
147 686 Phil. 980; 671 SCRA 280 (2012).

666

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Income Tax Returns (ITRs) and Balance Sheets

filed by the Marcoses, that showed their total
income from 1965 to 1984 in the amount of
P16,408,442.00, with 67.71% thereof or
P11,109,836.00 allegedly coming from the legal
practice of the former President as compared to
the official salaries of former President Marcos
and Imelda R. Marcos of P2,627,581.00 or
16.01% of the total, and the Solicitor General’s
findings that:
x x x FM [Ferdinand Marcos] made it appear that

he had an extremely profitable legal practice before he
became a President (FM being barred by law from
practicing his law profession during his entire
presidency) and that, incredibly, he was still receiving
payments almost 20 years after. The only problem
is that in his Balance sheet attached to his 1965
ITR immediately preceding his ascendancy to
the presidency he did not show any Receivables
from client at all, much less the P10.65M that he
decided to later recognize as income. There are
no documents showing any withholding tax
certificates. Likewise, there is nothing on
record that will show any known Marcos client
as he has no known law office. As previously
stated, his networth was a mere P120,000.00 in
December, 1965. The joint income tax returns of FM
and Imelda cannot, therefore, conceal the skeletons of
their KLEPTOCRACY.148 (All caps and its emphasis
supplied)

This Court also observed the very thorough

presentation of the Solicitor General’s evidence,
viz.:
The following presentation very clearly and

overwhelmingly show in detail how both respondents
clandestinely stashed away the country’s wealth to
Switzerland and hid the same under layers upon
layers of foundations and other corporate entities to
prevent its detection. Through their
dummies/nominees, fronts or agents who formed those
foundations or corporate entities, they opened and
maintained numerous bank accounts. x x x149
_______________
148 Republic v. Sandiganbayan, supra note 145 at p.

1091; p. 223; Marcos, Jr. v. Republic, id., at pp. 1003-1004;
pp. 300-301.
149 Id., at p. 1093; p. 224.

667
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 667

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Marcos v. Manglapus150 recognized the

plunder of the economy attributed to the
Marcoses and their cronies and relied thereon as
basis to bar the return of the remains of former
President Marcos to the country, viz.:
We cannot also lose sight of the fact that the

country is only now beginning to recover from the
hardships brought about by tbe plunder of the

economy attributed to the Marcoses and their
close associates and relatives, many of whom are
still here in the Philippines in a position to destabilize
the country, while the Government has barely
scratched the surface, so to speak, in its efforts
to recover the enormous wealth stashed away
by the Marcoses in foreign jurisdictions. Then,
We cannot ignore the continually increasing burden
imposed on the economy by the excessive foreign
borrowing during the Marcos regime, which stifles
and stagnates development and is one of the root
causes of widespread poverty and all its attendant ills.
The resulting precarious state of our economy is of
common knowledge and is easily within the ambit of
judicial notice. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

In PCCG v. Peña,151 this Court recalled the
economic havoc engendered by the Marcos
regime through the plunder of the country’s
wealth, viz.:
x x x Given the magnitude of the [Marcos] regime’s

“organized pillage” and the ingenuity of the
plunderers and pillagers with the assistance of the
experts and best legal minds available in the market,
it is a matter of sheer necessity to restrict access to
the lower courts, which would have tied into knots
and made impossible the Commission’s gigantic task
of recovering the plundered wealth of the nation,
whom the past regime in the process had saddled and
laid prostrate with a huge $27 billion foreign debt
that has since ballooned to $28.5 billion.

Indeed, as correctly pointed out by petitioner
Latiph, this Court has referred to former
President Marcos as a dictator in 20 cases and

his rule was characterized as authoritarian in 18
cases.
_______________
150 Marcos v. Manglapus, supra note 4 at p. 509; p. 698.

151 243 Phil. 93, 107; 159 SCRA 556, 566 (1988).

668

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
That is not all. Section 2 of RA 10368 is a

recognition by legislative fiat that “summary
execution, torture, enforced or involuntary
disappearance and other gross human rights
violations [were] committed during the regime of
former President Ferdinand E. Marcos covering
from September 21, 1972 to February 25, 1986.”
In two United States cases, the United States
District Court of Hawaii152 awarded US$1.2
Billion in exemplary damages and over US$770
Million in compensatory damages to 10,059
plaintiffs for acts of torture, summary execution,
disappearance, arbitrary detention and
numerous other atrocities, which the jury found
former President Marcos personally liable for,
and the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals,153
applying the “command responsibility” principle,
ruled that the district court properly held former
President Marcos liable for human rights abuses
which occurred and which he knew about and

failed to use his power to prevent.
The NHCP, in its study, “Why Ferdinand
Marcos should not be buried at the Libingan ng
mga Bayani,” which it undertook as part of its
mandate to conduct and disseminate historical
research and resolve historical controversies,
has concluded, among others, that former
President Marcos had lied about receiving U.S.
medals and that certain actions committed by
him as a soldier amounted to “usurpation” and
could be characterized as “illegal” and “malicious
criminal act.” Significantly, the NHCP opposes
the proposed burial of former President
Marcos.154
In the Memorandum filed by petitioners
Rosales, et al., they question the basis of the
Solicitor General’s claim that former President
Marcos was a Medal of Valor Awardee. Based on
a copy of General Order No. 167 dated October
16, 1958 (“GO 167”), which is Annex “A” to the
Rosales Memorandum, former President Marcos
obtained not a Medal of Valor but a Medal for
Valor. A reading of the contents of GO 167 re-
_______________
152 In Re Estate of Marcos Human Rights Litigation, 910

F. Supp. 1460 (D. Haw. 1995).
153 Hilao v. Marcos, 103 F.3rd 762 (9th Cir. 1996).
154 The NHCP is the independent government entity
that has the mandate to resolve, with finality, issues or
conflicts on Philippine history.

669
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 669

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
veals that the account of the purported Marcos’

bravery therein had been debunked in the
aforementioned study of the NHCP. There is
thus reliable basis to seriously doubt the
authenticity of the Medal of Valor award of
former President Marcos. As the NHCP
concluded:
Mr. Marcos’s military record is fraught with myths,

factual inconsistencies, and lies. The rule in history is
that when a claim is disproven — such as Mr.
Marcos’s claims about his medals, rank, and guerilla
unit — it is simply dismissed. When, moreover, a
historical matter is under question or grave doubt, as
expressed in the military records about Marcos’s
actions and character as a soldier, the matter may not
be established or taken as fact. A doubtful record also
does not serve as sound, unassailable basis of
historical recognition of any sort, let alone burial in a
site intended, as its name suggests, for heroes.

This Court’s and the United States courts’
pronouncements, the provisions of RA 10368,
coupled with the observations of the NHCP, on
the perniciousness, gravity and depravity of the
acts (e.g., plunder, falsification, human rights
abuse, dictatorship, authoritarianism) that
former President Marcos perpetrated and
allowed to be perpetrated are sufficient to
qualify them as acts involving moral turpitude,
justifying the application of the provision on
disqualification in the AFP Regulations. The
overwhelming import of all these simply cannot
be cast aside as irrelevant just because former

President Marcos was not convicted of such
crimes by a criminal court. Certainly, this Court
cannot close its eyes to these established facts
from which it can be legitimately concluded that
former President Marcos was guilty of crimes
involving moral turpitude, and would have been
convicted thereof were it not for his flight and
his subsequent death. Unfortunately, the
ponencia is content to brush aside these
determinations on the ground that without a
conviction these do not amount to a
disqualification provided in the AFP
Regulations.
Just as the LNMB should be looked at as one
integral whole, as one and indivisible national
shrine, despite the presence of a military grave
site within its confines, former President Marcos
should be viewed and judged in his totality. His
soldier persona cannot be separated from his
private citizen cum former President persona,
and vice versa, unless by

670

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
some miracle one can be excised from the other.

Either the entire remains of former President
Marcos are allowed to be buried in the LNMB or
none of his parts. Whether as a soldier or as a
President, former President Marcos does not
deserve a resting place together with the heroes

at the LNMB.
In the end, the argument that burying former
President Marcos in the LNMB does not make
him a hero disregards the status of the LNMB as
a national shrine. And, even if the standards set
forth in the AFP Regulations were to be
followed, former President Marcos would still be
disqualified to be interred in the LNMB.
Thus, recalling the earlier discussion on the
second requirement of the President’s power to
reserve, it is now clear that the interment
violates the specific public purpose, i.e., national
shrine purposes/policies, for which the LNMB
was reserved.
To recapitulate, the order to inter former
President Marcos in the LNMB is clearly
contrary to law (PD 105, RA 10066, RA 10086,
and the presidential issuances above
mentioned), the AFP Regulations, and the public
policy that the said laws, executive issuances,
and regulations espouse and advance. In light of
the foregoing violations, it is also clear that the
interment cannot be justified by the exercise of
the President’s power of control and duty to
faithfully execute laws.

The 1987 Constitution

The ponencia disposes of petitioners’
invocation of the provisions of Article II of the
Constitution by holding that these are not self-
executing, citing Tañada v. Angara. However, it
fails to recognize at the same time that, since
then, several laws have been passed that
“enabled” Article II, Section 11, among which are
RA 10353155 and RA 10368. In this respect, the
applicability of these laws, especially RA 10368,

as basis to oppose the proposed interment will be
addressed below.
_______________
155 “ANTI-ENFORCED OR INVOLUNTARY DISAPPEARANCE ACT OF
2012.”

671
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 671

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
The applicable treaties and

international law principles
stand to be violated with the
burial of former President
Marcos in the LNMB.

Article II, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution
provides that the Philippines “adopts the
generally accepted principles of international
law as part of the law of the land and adheres to
the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom,
cooperation, and amity with all nations.” One of
these principles — as recognized by this Court in
a long line of decisions156 — is the rule of pacta
sunt servanda in Article 26157 of the 1969
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties158
(“VCLT”), or the performance in good faith of a
State’s treaty obligations. Borrowing the words
of this Court in Agustin v. Edu,159 “[i]t is not for
this country to repudiate a commitment to which
it had pledged its word. The concept of pacta

sunt
_______________
156 Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative

Region v. Muñoz, G.R. No. 207342, August 16, 2016, 800
SCRA 467; Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Pilipinas
Shell Petroleum Corporation, 727 Phil. 506; 736 SCRA 623
(2014); Bayan (Bagong Alyansang Makabayan) v. Zamora,
396 Phil. 623; 342 SCRA 449 (2000); Magallona v. Ermita,
G.R. No. 187167, August 16, 2011, 655 SCRA 476; Bayan
Muna v. Romulo, 656 Phil. 246; 641 SCRA 244 (2011); CBK
Power Company Limited v. Commissioner of Internal
Revenue, G.R. Nos. 193383-84 & 193407-08, January 14,
2015, 746 SCRA 93; Abaya v. Ebdane, Jr., 544 Phil. 645; 515
SCRA 720 (2007); Department of Budget and Management
Procurement Service v. Kolonwel Trading, 551 Phil. 1030;
524 SCRA 591 (2007); Deutsche Bank AG Manila Branch v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 716 Phil. 676; 704 SCRA
216 (2013); Secretary of Justice v. Lantion, 379 Phil. 165; 322
SCRA 160 (2000); La Chemise Lacoste, S.A. v. Fernandez,
214 Phil. 332; 129 SCRA 373 (1984); Tañada v. Angara, 338
Phil. 546, 592; 272 SCRA 18, 66 (1997); Pharmaceutical and
Health Care Association of the Philippines v. Duque III, 561
Phil. 386; 535 SCRA 265 (2007).
157 “Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it
and must be performed by them in good faith.”
158 1155 U.N.T.S. 331, 8 I.L.M. 679, opened for signature
May 23, 1969, entered into force Jan. 27, 1980.
159 No. L-49112, February 2, 1979, 88 SCRA 195.

672

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
servanda stands in the way of such an attitude,

which is, moreover, at war with the principle of
international morality.”160
The Philippines became signatory to the
Universal Declaration on Human Rights
(“UDHR”),161 and State-party, without
reservations, to the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”)162 on
October 23, 1966, the Rome Statute163 on August
30, 2011, and the Convention Against Torture
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”) on June 18,
1986.164
The UDHR is an international document
recognizing inalienable human rights, which
eventually led to the creation of several legally-
binding treaties, such as the ICCPR and
International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights (“ICESCR”).165 The Philippines
signed the UDHR because of its recognition of
the rights and values enumerated in the UDHR,
and it is that same recognition that led the
Philippines to sign and ratify both the ICCPR
and the ICESCR.166
_______________
160 Id.
161 Adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on
December 10, 1948; see Poe-Llamanzares v. Commission on
Elections, G.R. Nos. 221697 & 221698-700, March 8, 2016,
786 SCRA 1. (Dissenting Opinion)
162 999 UNTS 171 and 1057 UNTS 407 / (1980) ATS 23 /
6 ILM 368 (1967); the Philippines signed the ICCPR on
December 19, 1966 and ratified the same on October 23,
1986.
163 A/CONF.183/9 of 17 July 1998.
164 The Philippines ratified the CAT on June 26, 1987.
165 The Philippines signed the ICESCR on December 19,
1966 and ratified the same on June 7, 1974; see: J. von
Bernstorff, “The Changing Fortunes of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights: Genesis and Symbolic
Dimensions of the Turn to Rights in International Law” 19
(5) European Journal of International Law 903, 913-914
(2008), cited in Poe-Llamanzares v. Commission on Elections,
supra.
166 See: Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo, 589
Phil. 1, 50-51; 568 SCRA 1, 54 (2008) and Separate Opinion
of CJ. Puno in Republic v. Sandiganbayan, in Poe-
Llamanzares v. Commission on Elections, id.

673
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 673

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Article VII, Section 21167 and Article II,

Section 2 of the Constitution168 adopt the
doctrine of transformation. Treaties, which have
been duly entered and ratified pursuant to the
Constitution, must be transformed into
municipal law so that they can be applied to
domestic conflicts.169 Once so transformed,
treaty obligations enjoy the same legal force and
effect as domestic statutes.170
The CAT was transformed by virtue of

Republic Act 9745 or the “Anti-Torture Act of
2009.”171 Subsequently, echoing its commitment
to the UDHR, the Philippines transformed its
obligations under the ICCPR and the CAT, on
July 23, 2012, with the enactment of Republic
Act No. 10368. The enactment of RA 10368 is, in
truth, in fulfillment of the country’s duty under
Article 2(2) of the ICCPR to “take the necessary
steps, in accordance with its constitutional
processes and with the provisions of the present
Covenant, to adopt such laws or other measures
as may be necessary to give effect to the rights
recognized in the present Covenant.”
Section 2 of RA 10368, echoing the State’s
policy enshrined in Article II, Section 11 of the
Constitution on the value of the dignity of every
human person and the guarantee of full respect
for human rights, is an acknowledgment of the
Philippines’ obligations as State-party to the
UDHR, ICCPR, and the CAT.
_______________
167 Art. VII, Sec. 21. “No treaty or international

agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by
at least two-thirds of all the members of the Senate.”
168 Art. II, Sec. 2. “The Philippines renounces war as
an instrument of national policy, adopts the generally
accepted principles of international law as part of the law of
the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice,
freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations.”
169 Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association of the
Philippines v. Duque III, supra note 156; Commissioner of
Customs v. Eastern Sea Trading, No. L-14279, October 31,
1961, 3 SCRA 351, 356, cited in Intellectual Property
Association of the Philippines v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 204605,

July 19, 2016, 797 SCRA 134.
170 Secretary of Justice v. Lantion, supra note 156.
171 AN ACT PENALIZING TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL,
INHUMAN AND DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT AND
PRESCRIBING PENALTIES THEREFOR, November 10, 2009.

674

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Particularly, in enacting RA 10368, the

Philippines categorically recognized its
obligation to: (1) “give effect to the rights
recognized [in the UDHR, ICCPR and the
CAT]”172 (2) ensure that any person whose rights
or freedoms have been violated shall have an
effective remedy, even if the violation is
committed by persons acting in an official
capacity; (3) “recognize the heroism and
involuntary disappearance and other gross
February 25, 1986”; and (4) “restore the victims’
honor and dignity.”
More importantly, the Philippines
acknowledged, through RA 10368, its “moral and
legal obligation to recognize and/or provide
reparation to said victims and/or their families
for the deaths, injuries, sufferings, deprivations

and damages they suffered under the Marcos
regime” and to “acknowledge the sufferings and
damages inflicted upon persons whose properties
or businesses were forcibly taken over,
sequestered or used, or those whose professions
were damaged and/or impaired, or those whose
freedom of movement was restricted, and/or such
other victims of the violations of the Bill of
Rights.”173
The obligations listed in Section 2 of RA
10368 are not to be read in a vacuum. Neither
should they be read as bounded by the four
corners of that law.
_______________
172 R.A. No. 10368, Sec. 2. “x x x By virtue of Section 2

of Article II of the Constitution adopting generally accepted
principles of international law as part of the law of the land,
the Philippines adheres to international human rights laws
and conventions, the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, including the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention Against
Torture (CAT) and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment which imposes on each State
party the obligation to enact domestic legislation to give
effect to the rights recognized therein and to ensure that any
person whose rights or freedoms have been violated shall
have an effective remedy, even if the violation is committed
by persons acting in an official capacity. x x x”
173 Id.

675
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 675

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Considering that the enactment of RA 10368

was precisely to “give effect”174 to the rights of
human rights victims recognized in the ICCPR
and the CAT, which the Philippines ratified
without reservations,175
_______________
174 Id. “x x x By virtue of Section 2 of Article II of the

Constitution adopting generally accepted principles of
international law as part of the law of the land, the
Philippines adheres to international human rights laws and
conventions, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
including the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention Against Torture (CAT)
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
obligation to enact domestic legislation to give effect to the
rights recognized therein and to ensure that any person
whose rights or freedoms have been violated shall have an
effective remedy, even if the violation is committed by
persons acting in an official capacity. In fact, the right to a
remedy is itself guaranteed under existing human rights
treaties and/or customary international law, being
peremptory in character (jus cogens) and as such has been
Consistent with the foregoing, it is hereby declared the
policy of the State to recognize the heroism and sacrifices of
all Filipinos who were victims of summary execution,
torture, enforced or involuntary disappearance and other
gross human rights violations committed during the regime
of former President Ferdinand E. Marcos covering the period
from September 21, 1972 to February 25, 1986 and restore
the victims’ honor and dignity. The State hereby

acknowledges its moral and legal obligation to recognize
families for the deaths, injuries, sufferings, deprivations and
damages they suffered under the Marcos regime. x x x”
175 On May 23, 1969 — the very same day the
Convention was opened for signature — the Philippines
signed the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
(“VCLT”) (1155 U.N.T.S. 331, 8 I.L.M 679, opened for
signature May 23, 1969, entered into force Jan. 27, 1980) and
ratified the same on November 15, 1972. Enshrined in
Article 26 of the VCLT is the principle of pacta sunt
servanda, which requires that “[e]very treaty in force is
binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by
them in good faith.” (1969 VCLT 1155 U.N.T.S. 331, 8 I.L.M
679, Art. 26)
Further, pursuant to the principle of pacta tertiis nec
nocent nec prosunt (1969 VCLT, Art. 34. “A treaty does not
create either obligations or rights for a third State without its
consent”; see in Brownlie, Principles of Public International
Law, p. 598, 6th ed., 2003) under Article 34 of the VCLT,
treaties bind only States parties to it. (id.) Consequently, in
cases where a State does not want certain provisions of a
treaty to apply to it, such exception must be expressed by

676

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
then RA 10368 must be understood and

interpreted within the broader context of the
treaties which it effectuates. Consistent with

this, I concur with the Chief Justice’s discussion
on the proper interpretation of the rights of
HRVVs and the corollary state obligations under
RA 10368.
It is very significant to note that RA 10368,
Section 2 which provides: “x x x the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, including the
International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention Against
Torture (CAT) and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment which
imposes on each State party the obligation to
enact domestic legislation to give effect to the
rights recognized therein and to ensure that any
person whose rights or freedoms have been
violated shall have an effective remedy, even if
the violation is committed by persons acting in
an official capacity” is an almost verbatim
reproduction of Article 2(3) of the ICCPR,176
which provides:

undertakes:

an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the
violation has been committed by persons acting in an
official capacity x x x.
_______________
the State by means of a reservation, done at the time the

State ratifies the treaty. (Art. 2[1][d], 1969 VCLT)
A reservation is a unilateral statement made by a State
whereby the State “purports to exclude or to modify the legal
effect of certain provisions of the treaty in their application

to that State.” (Art. 2[1][d], 1969 VCLT) In addition, the
reservation must be made “when signing, ratifying,
accepting, approving, or acceding to a treaty.” (Id.) In effect,
a reservation removes the obligation referred to by the State
from its legal obligations arising from that treaty. (Rhona
K.M. Smith, Texts and Materials on International Human
Rights, p. 67 [2013]) No such reservations have been made
by the Philippines when it to the ICCPR, the Rome Statute,
and the CAT.
176 Sec. 2.

677
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 677

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
In addition, in interpreting the State’s

obligations relative to human rights violations,
Article 38(1)(d)177 of the Statute of the
International Court of Justice (“ICJ Statute”)178
specifically recognizes “judicial decisions and the
teachings of the most highly qualified publicists
(“MHQPs”) of the various nations, as subsidiary
means for the determination of rules of law.” In
this regard, it is significant to note that as
original member of the United Nations (“UN”),
the Philippines is ipso facto State-party to the
ICJ Statute in accordance with Article 93,
Chapter XIV of the UN Charter.179 In other
words, the Court can rely on what are called
subsidiary sources of international law such as
judicial decisions and teachings of MHQPs.
Finally, decisions of various tribunals180

authorize the use of the text of the relevant
convention as an aid to interpretation even if the
statute does not incorporate the convention or
even refer to it.
Given the foregoing, which are the
parameters that are considered in
understanding and interpreting RA 10368, the
question before the Court is how to determine
whether petitioners, who claim to be victims of
human rights violations under the Marcos
martial law regime,181 can rightfully be
considered HRVVs.
In an attempt to strip MLHRV petitioners of
their characterization as HRVVs and to dilute
their rights as such, the Solicitor General argues
that the lack of specific mention of “state agents”
in Sec. 3 of RA 10368 means that former
President Marcos could not be held liable as
Com-
_______________
177 Art. 38(1)(d). “[S]ubject to the provisions of Article

59, judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly
qualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary
means for the determination of rules of law.”
178 3 Bevans 1179; 59 Stat. 1031; T.S. 993; 39 AJIL
Supp. 215 (1945).
179 Article 93(1). All Members of the United Nations
are ipso facto parties to the Statute of the International
Court of Justice.
180 Brownlie, Ian, Principles of Public International Law,
p. 45 (6th ed., 2003), citing Salomon v. Commissioners of
Customs and Excise [1967], 2 QB 116, CA, at 141 (per Lord
Denning, MR), 143 (per Diplock, LJ); ILR 41; Post Office v.
Estuary Radio [1967] 1 WLR 1396, CA at 1404; [1968] 2 QB
740 at 757; Cococraft Ltd. v. Pan American Airways Inc.

[1969] 1 QB 616; [1968] 3 WLR 1273, CA at 1281.
181 Hereinafter referred to as “MLHRV.”

678

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
mander-in-Chief for human rights abuses

suffered by them.182 This argument, however,
fails to consider the 2001 Articles on
Responsibility of States for Internationally
Wrongful Acts or the Articles on State
Responsibility (“ASR”).183
Contrary to the Solicitor General’s claims, the
absence of the words “state agents” in RA 10368
does not, by itself, remove the basis for holding
former President Marcos liable as Commander-
in-Chief of the armed forces for the crimes
committed during his martial law regime. To
begin with, the principle of “state agents” would
only be relevant for purposes of attributing
responsibility to a State, as reflected in Article 4
of the ASR, viz.:
Article 4. Conduct of organs of a State.—

1. The conduct of any State organ shall be
considered an act of that State under international
law, whether the organ exercises legislative,
executive, judicial or any other functions, whatever
position it holds in the organization of the State, and
whatever its character as an organ of the central

Government or of a territorial unit of the State.

2. An organ includes any person or entity which has
that status in accordance with the internal law of the
State.

In these petitions, responsibility for the
martial law regime is anchored not on the
attribution to the State through state agents, but
on attribution to former President Marcos, as an
individual and Commander-in-Chief.
It is also incorrect to argue that the
application of “command responsibility” to
former President Marcos would violate the
constitutional prohibition on bills of attainder
and ex post facto laws.184
_______________
182 OSG Memorandum, par. 245, p. 93.

183 53 UN GAOR Supp. (No. 10) at 43, U.N. Doc. A/56/83
(2001).

679
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 679

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
In Hilao v. Estate of Ferdinand Marcos,185 the

“command responsibility” principle was applied
to hold former President Marcos liable for

human rights abuses during his martial law
regime, which occurred and which he knew
about and failed to use his power to prevent. In
In Re: Estate of Marcos,186 it was ruled that the
estate of former President Marcos was not
immune even if the acts of torture, execution,
and disappearance were clearly acts outside of
his authority as President and were not taken
within any official mandate.
While the foregoing cases were decided by
United States of America courts, the rulings
therein are binding in this jurisdiction by virtue
of the act of state doctrine. The act of state
doctrine is the “recognition by a country of the
legal and physical consequences of all acts of
state in other countries,”187 and “a recognition of
the effects of sovereignty, the attributes and
prerogatives of sovereign power.”188 In
Presidential Commission on Good Government v.
Sandiganbayan and Officeco Holdings N.V.,189
this Court had occasion to rule that the act of
state doctrine prohibits States from sitting in
judgment on the acts of the government of
another State done within its territory.190 It
requires the forum court to exercise restraint in
the adjudication of disputes by foreign courts
performed within its jurisdiction.191
_______________
185 Maximo HILAO, Class Plaintiffs, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. Estate of Ferdinand Marcos, Defendant-Appellant, No. 95-
15779, December 17, 1996.
186 In re: Estate of Ferdinand Marcos, 25 F.3d at p. 1472
(9th Cir. 1994).
187 Berstein v. Van Heyden Fieres Societe’ Anonyme, 163

F.2d 246, 249 (2nd Cir. 1947) (L. Hand, J.), in Achebe,
Ifeanyi, The Act of State Doctrine and Foreign Sovereign
Immunities Act of 1976: Can They Coexist?, 13 Md. J. Int’l L.
247 (1989).
188 Achebe, id.
189 556 Phil. 664; 530 SCRA 13 (2007).
190 Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398,
84 S.Ct. 923 (1964), citing Blad v. Bamfield, 3 Swans. 604,
36 Eng.Rep. 992; PCGG v. Sandiganbayan and Officeco
Holdings N.V., id., at p. 678; p. 26, citing Evans, M.d. (Ed.),
International Law (First Edition), Oxford University Press,
p. 357; Underhill v. Hernandez, 168 U.S. 250, 18 S.Ct. 83, 42
L.Ed. 456 (1897).
191 PCGG v. Sandiganbayan and Officeco Holdings N.V.,
id., citing Evans, id.

680

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
Simply put, convicting former President

Marcos for whatever past crimes he might have
committed would not only be legally untenable
but also absurd; however, the Court must
recognize what has already been previously and
legally determined and settled.
In light of the foregoing, and given the fact
that MLHRV petitioners, who by their personal
accounts (narrated during the Oral Arguments
held on August 31, 2016)192 and as alleged under
oath in their respective petitions, have suffered

human rights violations during martial law,
there is no legal obstacle in recognizing them as
HRVVs as this is defined under RA 10368. As
HRVVs, they have several rights under
international law, which the State has the duty
to protect.
As culled from the primary sources of
international law (the ICCPR and the CAT), and
the subsidiary sources of international law —
namely, the United Nations Basic Principles and
Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and
Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of
International Human Rights Law and Serious
Violations of International Humanitarian Law
(“UN Guidelines”) — as well as RA 10368,
HRVVs are entitled to the following rights: (1)
the non-derogable right to an effective remedy;
(2) the right against re-traumatization; (3) the
right to truth and the State’s corollary duty to
preserve memory; and (4) the right to
reparation.

1. The right to an effective remedy

Prescinding from the various laws that have
been enacted by the Philippine legislature to
promote and protect human rights193 and the
availability of judicial remedies,194 it must be
clarified that the Philippines’ obligations do not
cease by the mere enactment of laws or the
availability of judicial remedies. Article 2 of the
ICCPR provides:
Article 2(3). Each State Party to the present

Covenant undertakes:


an effective remedy, notwith-
_______________
192 TSN, August 31, 2016, pp. 199-215.

194 Id.

681
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 681

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
standing that the violation has been committed by

persons acting in an official capacity.

In turn, General Comment No. 31 to the
ICCPR states that the purpose of Article 2 will
be defeated if there is no concurrent obligation
on the part of the State-party to take measures
to prevent a recurrence of a violation of the
ICCPR.195 In other words, when RA 10368
recognized the obligation of the Philippines to
provide an effective remedy to HRVVs, this can
only be understood as the Philippines also
having the concurrent obligation to prevent a
recurrence of the violation of the ICCPR.
This is not the first time this Court has been
asked to recognize the obligatory nature of the
ICCPR and the General Comments interpreting
their provisions. In Echegaray v. Secretary of
Justice,196 the Court recognized the binding

nature of the ICCPR and relied on General
Comment 6 (to Article 6 of the ICCPR) to resolve
the issues raised by petitioner Echegaray with
respect to the death penalty allegedly violating
the Philippines’ international obligations. In
Razon, Jr. v. Tagitis197 the Court relied upon the
U.N. Human Rights Committee’s (“UNHRC”)
interpretation of Article 2 of the ICCPR on the
right to an effective domestic remedy. According
to the UNHRC, the act of enforced
disappearance violates Articles 6 (right to life), 7
(prohibition on torture, cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment) and 9
(right to liberty and security of the person) of the
ICCPR, and the act may also amount to a crime
against humanity.198
_______________
195 General Comment No. 31, par. 17, The Nature of the
General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the
Covenant, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add. 1326 May 2004. See par.
17, which states:
17. In general, the purposes of the Covenant would be
defeated without an obligation integral to Article 2 to take
measures to prevent a recurrence of a violation of the
Covenant.
196 358 Phil. 410; 297 SCRA 754 (1998).
197 621 Phil. 536; 606 SCRA 598 (2009).
198 Id., at pp. 603-604; p. 676.

682

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
The obligation to provide effective remedy,

and concurrently, to prevent a recurrence, by its
nature, is not discharged by the mere passage of
laws. This obligation, by necessity, is a
continuing one.

2. The right to be protected
from re-traumatization

Petitioner Latiph claims that the burial of
former President Marcos in “a state funeral as a
hero and extending to him full military
honors”199 violates the Philippines’ obligations
under the UN Guidelines.200 In response, the
Solicitor General merely stated that the premise
of these alleged violations is “flawed,”201 in that
there is no causal relation between the
Philippines’ compliance with its international
law obligations and former President Marcos
burial at the LNMB.
First of all, the claim that the Philippines is
not bound by the UN Guidelines because they
are merely “guidelines” and “not treaties”202 or
“sources of international law”203 is inaccurate.
While it is true that a treaty only binds States
parties to it and generally does not create
obligations for States not parties to it pursuant
to the principle of pacta tertiis nec nocent nec
prosunt,204 the rule does not operate to preclude
the application of the UN Guidelines to the
Philippines. This is because the UN Guidelines
do not create new international or domestic
legal obligations, but merely identify
mechanisms, modalities, procedures and

methods for the implementation of existing
legal obligations under international human
rights law.205
Quite the contrary, and as earlier adverted
to,206 the UN Guidelines constitute subsidiary
sources of International Law under Article 38(1)
(d)
_______________
199 Latiph Petition, p. 22.

200 See also OSG Memorandum, par. 310, p. 110.
202 Id., par. 344, p. 119.
203 Id.
204 ICJ Statute, Art. 34.
205 Preamble to the Principles and Guidelines, par. 7.
206 ICJ Statute, supra.

683
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 683

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
of the ICJ Statute. Principle 10 of the UN

Guidelines, pertaining to the treatment of
victims, provides:
10. Victims should be treated with humanity and

respect for their dignity and human rights, and
appropriate measures should be taken to ensure their
safety, physical and psychological well-being and
privacy, as well as those of their families. The State
should ensure that its domestic laws, to the extent

possible, provide that a victim who has suffered
violence or trauma should benefit from special
consideration and care to avoid his or her re-
traumatization in the course of legal and
administrative procedures designed to provide justice
and reparation.
Significantly, Principle 10 is mirrored by

Article II, Section 11 of the Constitution and
Section 2 of RA 10368, stating that the “State
values the dignity of every human, person and
guarantees full respect for human rights.”
Based on the narrations of the HRVV
petitioners, it is the intended interment that
would reopen wounds and re-traumatize them.
In this regard, international law has recognized
that impunity must be considered as a continued
and ongoing form oftorture.207 To bury the
architect of martial law in the LNMB would be
an act of impunity.

3. The right to truth and the States’
duty to preserve memory208

Under Principle 2 of the UN Principles on
Impunity,209 the right to truth pertains to the
right to know about past events concerning the
violations and about the circumstances and
reasons that led to the perpetration of those
crimes.
_______________
207 Sveass, Nora, Gross human rights violations and

reparation under international law: Approaching
rehabilitation as a form of reparation, European Journal of
Psychotraumatology, Eur J Psychotraumatol, p. 4, May 8,

2013.
208 Rosales Petition.
209 Subsidiary source of international law under Article
38(1)(d) of the ICJ Statute, supra note 204.

684

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
The duty to preserve memory, in Principle 3

of the UN Principles on Impunity, requires that
people’s knowledge of the history of its
oppression be part of its heritage and as such,
must be ensured by appropriate measures in
fulfilment of the State’s duty to preserve
archives and other evidence concerning
violations of human rights and humanitarian
law and to facilitate knowledge of those
violations. Such measures shall be aimed at
preserving the collective memory from extinction
and, in particular, at guarding against the
development of revisionist and negationist
arguments.
The burial of former President Marcos in the
LNMB which, as already explained, is not a
mere cemetery but a memorial for heroes, will
certainly not further or advance the Philippines’
obligation to accord HRVVs their right to truth
and preserve memory. Indeed, such an act would
blur the real role of former President Marcos in
the country’s history and in the human rights
abuses that the HRVVs suffered under his

martial law regime. This is the causal
connection between the proposed interment and
the violation of the HRVV’s right to truth, and
the Philippines’ duty to preserve memory.

4. The right to specific forms of
reparation for harm suffered
under Principles 19, 21, 22,
23 of the UN Guidelines

The Solicitor General claims that the
“Philippines had already taken legislative and
other measures to give effect to human rights,
and provided not only adequate remedies
against human rights violations and procedures
for the investigation of these violations and for
the prosecution of the perpetrators thereof and
the penalties therefor, but also reparation to
victims.”210 He further claims that RA 10368 has
no bearing on the powers of the President and
his subordinates under the Constitution and
E.O. 292 and that HRVVs can be very assured
that the interment of the remains of the former
President Marcos at the Libingan will neither
prevent them from claiming any entitlements to
repa-
_______________

685
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 685

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
rations under RA 10368 nor dilute their claims,

moral or legal, monetary or nonmonetary,
thereunder.211
In other words, the Solicitor General is saying
that the existence of several laws212 and the
judicial decisions describing former President
Marcos as a plunderer and human rights
violator already “restored the dignities and
reputation of the victims of the regime”213 and
constitute sufficient reparation to the HRVVs.
I cannot agree. The UN Guidelines, as cited
in the CHR’s Memorandum, and as explained by
CHR Chairman Chito Gascon during the Oral
Arguments, provide five general forms of
reparation: (1) restitution, (2) compensation, (3)
rehabilitation, (4) satisfaction, and (5)
guarantees of non-repetition.
Restitution requires that the victim be
restored to the original situation before the gross
serious violations of international humanitarian
law occurred.
Compensation is provided for any
economically assessable damage resulting from
gross violations of human rights. In this regard,
Article 14 of the CAT requires State-parties to
ensure in its legal system that “the victim of an
act of torture obtains redress and has an
enforceable right to fair and adequate
compensation, including the means for as full [a]
rehabilitation as possible. In the event of the
death of the victim as a result of an act of
torture, his dependents shall be entitled to
compensation.”
Rehabilitation includes medical and

psychological care as well as legal and social
services. There are a number of definitions of
rehabilitation.214 General Comment 3 to Article
14 of the CAT suggests that reha-
_______________
211 Id., par. 238, p. 91.

212 R.A. No. 9851 or the “PHILIPPINE ACT ON CRIMES
AGAINST INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW, GENOCIDE, AND
OTHER CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY”; R.A. NO. 10353 OR THE
“ANTI-ENFORCED OR INVOLUNTARY DISAPPEARANCE ACT OF 2012”;

R.A. NO. 9201 OR THE “NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS CONSCIOUSNESS
WEEK ACT OF 2002” and R.A. No. 10368; id., par. 332, p. 116.
213 Rosales Petition, par. 8.7, pp. 63-64; id., par. 400, p.
136.
214 Redress, Rehabilitation as a form of reparation under
international law, 2009. Dec, retrieved April 5, 2011, from
<http://www.redress.org/smartweb/reports/reports>, in
Sveass, supra note 207.

686

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
bilitation “should be holistic and include medical

and psychological care as well as legal and social
services.” Rehabilitation for victims should aim
to restore, as far as possible, their independence,
physical, mental, social and vocational ability;
and full inclusion and participation in society.215
Satisfaction includes, among others: (i) the

“verification of the facts and full and public
disclosure of the truth to assist the victim or
prevent the occurrence of further violations,” (ii)
an official declaration or a judicial decision
connected with the victim, (iii) a public apology,
(iv) commemorations and tributes to victims,
and (v) the inclusion of an accurate account of
the violations that occurred in international
human rights law and international
humanitarian law training and in educational
material at all levels.
Guarantees of non-repetition pertain to
measures that may be taken which will
contribute to the prevention of the reoccurrence
of the human rights violations. This includes
“strengthening the independence of the
judiciary.”
Notably, the Human Rights Committee, in
General Comment No. 2 (1992) and General
Comment No. 31 (2004)216 defined rehabilitation
as a form of reparation. In particular, General
Comment No. 20 states that amnesties are
unacceptable, among other reasons, because
they would “deprive individuals of the right to
an effective remedy, including compensation and
such full rehabilitation as may be possible.”
The arguments of the Solicitor General are
thus belied, and shown to be erroneous, by the
breadth and extensiveness of the above
described forms of reparation.
To summarize, there is sufficient basis to rule
that the burial of former President Marcos in the
LNMB will violate certain international law
principles and obligations, which the Philippines
has adopted and must abide by, and RA 10368

which transformed the principle and State policy
expressed in Article II, Section 11 of the
Constitution which states: “The
_______________
215 General Comment No. 3, Art. 14, CAT.

216 Human Rights Committee, General comments to the
international covenant on civil and political rights (ICCPR)
1992/2004.

687
VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 687

Ocampo vs. Enriquez
State values the dignity of every human person

and guarantees full respect for human rights.”
In this sense, therefore, a violation of RA 10368
is tantamount to a violation of Article II, Section
11 of the Constitution.

Summation

For all the reasons stated, the directive to
inter former President Marcos in the LNMB
constitutes grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction for being in
violation of: (1) Presidential Proclamations 86
and 208, (2) PD 105, (3) RA 10066, (4) RA 10086,
(5) AFP Regulations G 161-375, and (6) RA
10368, which is tantamount to a violation of
Article II, Section 11 of the Constitution.
When all is said and done, when the cortege

led by pallbearers has reached the plot in the
LNMB dedicated to the newest “hero” of the land
and the coffin containing what is claimed to be
the remains of former President Marcos has
been finally buried in the ground or entombed
above ground, this DISSENT, along with the
dissents of the Chief Justice and Justices Carpio
and Leonen, will be a fitting eulogy to the
slaying of the might of judicial power envisioned
in the 1987 Freedom Constitution by the
unbridled exercise of presidential prerogative
using vox populi as the convenient excuse.
Above all, this is a tribute to the fallen,
desaparecidos, tortured, abused, incarcerated
and victimized so that the dictator could
perpetuate his martial rule, and to those who
fought to attain the freedom which led to the
very Constitution from which this Court derives
the power to make the decision that it reached
today — that their sacrifices, sufferings and
struggles in the name of democracy would be
duly acknowledged and immortalized.

688

ANNOTATED
Ocampo vs. Enriquez
“For the survivor who chooses to testify, it is clear: his

duty is to bear witness for the dead and for the living.
He has no right to deprive future generations of a past
that belongs to our collective memory. To forget would
be not only dangerous but offensive; to forget the dead

would be akin to killing them a second time.”
- Elie Wiesel, Night217

For these reasons, I vote to grant the
petitions.
Petitions dismissed, status quo ante order

lifted.
Note.—Since every law is presumed valid,

the presumption of constitutionality can be
overcome only by the clearest showing that there
was indeed an infraction of the Constitution, and
only when such a conclusion is reached by the
required majority may the Court pronounce, in
the discharge of the duty it cannot escape, that
the challenged act must be struck down.
(Remman Enterprises, Inc. vs. Professional
Regulatory Board of Real Estate Service, 715
SCRA 293 [2014])

——o0o——
_______________
217 Wiesel, E., Night, xv (2006 translation with preface

to the new translation); Eliezer “Elie” Wiesel (September 30,
1928-July 2, 2016) was born in the town of Sighet,
Transylvania. He was a teenager when he and his family
were taken from their home in 1944 to the Auschwitz
concentration camp, and then to Buchenwald. Night is the
terrifying record of his memories of the death of his family,
the death of his own innocence, and his despair as a deeply
observant Jew confronting the absolute evil of man.
© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Ocampo v. Enriquez PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ocampo v. Enriquez PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ocampo v. Enriquez PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

8/18/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 807

G.R. No. 225973. November 8, 2016.*

RENE A.V. SAGUISAG, SR., RENE A.Q.

G.R. No. 225984. November 8, 2016.*

224 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

G.R. No. 226097. November 8, 2016.*

G.R. No. 226116. November 8, 2016.*

MARIE NOEL, CARLOS MANUEL, EDMUND

G.R. No. 226117. November 8, 2016.*

VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 225

DELFIN N. LORENZANA, AFP CHIEF OF

VETERANS AFFAIRS OFFICE ERNESTO G.

G.R. No. 226120. November 8, 2016.*

G.R. No. 226294. November 8, 2016.*

Constitutional Law; Judicial Department;

governmental act may be heard and decided by the

226 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

opportunity; and (d) the issue of constitutionality

rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims,

assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the

VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 227

human rights violations victims, legislators,

is allowed to seek the intervention of the court, one

while the Constitution is a product of our collective

228 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

tions still unborn, Republic Act (RA) No. 289

date, the Congress has deemed it wise not to

and should remain to be so. This Court cannot read

VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 229

Same; Executive Department; Our nation’s history

therein. Hence, the burial of Marcos at the LNMB

230 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

tary personnel, a veteran, and a Medal of Valor

Interestingly, even if they were empowered to do so,

VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 231

dates that a person shall not be held to answer for

the Court must uphold what is legal and just. And

Constitutional Law; Judicial Department;

232 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

Duterte to allow the burial of Marcos at the

Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) in excess of its

effectively prohibit the incumbent President from

VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 233

Libingan ng mga Bayani; View that whether

Same; View that the Armed Forces of the

the persons who may be interred in the LNMB must

234 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

tion and the laws. To allow him to exercise his

rights cannot suffice for the purpose of fulfilling the

VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 235

Same; View that to permit the burial would be to

disgraced president. Consequently, he is clearly

236 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

Same; View that the private interest of the Marcos

proposed public expenditure for the burial.—Needless

Libingan ng mga Bayani; View that Marcos is not

Marcos is not qualified to be interred at the LNMB,

VOL. 807, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 237

ousted from the Presidency by the nonviolent