SATURNINO C. OCAMPO v. REAR ADMIRAL ERNESTO C. ENRIQUEZ,
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 (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.
A directive was issued thereafter to implement the above-ordered memorandum.
Dissatisfied with the foregoing issuance, the following were filed by petitioners;
- Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition filed by Saturnino Ocampo and several others, 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).
- Petition for Certiorari-in-Intervention filed by Rene A.V. Saguisag, Sr. and his son,6 as members of the Bar and human rights lawyers, and his grandchild.
- Petition for Prohibition 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, in their official capacities as duly-elected Congressmen of the House of Representatives of the Philippines.
- Petition for Prohibition filed by Loretta Ann Pargas-Rosales, former Chairperson of the Commission on Human Rights, and several others, suing as victims of State-sanctioned human rights violations during the martial law regime of Marcos.
- Petition for Mandamus and Prohibition filed by Heherson T. Alvarez, former Senator of the Republic of the Philippines, who fought to oust the dictatorship of Marcos, and several others, as concerned Filipino citizens and taxpayers.
- Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition filed by Zaira Patricia B. Baniaga and several others, as concerned Filipino citizens and taxpayers.
- Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition filed by Algamar A. Latiph, former Chairperson of the Regional Human Rights Commission, Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao, by himself and on behalf of the Moro who are victims of human rights during the martial law regime of Marcos.
- Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition18 filed by Leila M. De Lima as member of the Senate of the Republic of the Philippines, public official and concerned citizen.
Thus this petition.
ISSUEs:
1. WON President Duterte's determination to have the remains of Marcos interred at the LNMB poses a justiciable controversy. - NO
2. WON the President's action over the case in the realm of power of the President's Control? - YES
3. Would Marcos' burial be violative of the 1987 Constitution, jurisprudence and the law? - NO
RULINGs:
1. NO. Pres. Duterte's determination to have Marcos' remains interred at LNMB doesn't pose a 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. (issue assailing the constitutionality of a governmental act should be avoided whenever possible. Sotto V. Comelec)
In this case, the absence of the first two requisites, which are the most essential, renders the discussion of the last two superfluous.
An "actual case or controversy" is one which involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims, susceptible of judicial resolution as distinguished from a hypothetical or abstract difference or dispute. There must be a contrariety of legal rights that can be interpreted and enforced on the basis of existing law and jurisprudence. Related to the requisite of an actual case or controversy is the requisite of "ripeness," which means that something had 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. 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. 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. As they are concerned with questions of policy and issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality of a particular measure, 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 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.
2. YES.
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. As the incumbent President, he is free (1) to amend, revoke or rescind political agreements entered into by his predecessors, and (2) to determine policies which he considers, based on informed judgment and presumed wisdom, will be most effective in carrying out his mandate.
3. NO. It is not unconstitutional. It is the President's discretion to allow who should be buried in the LNMB. In fact, even Congress may and can enact a law allowing anyone to be buried therein. Since the LNMB is under the authority of the PVAO - AFP and the Commander-in-Chief of the AFP is the President, it is within the President's discretion to allow or disallow the burial of anyone in the LNMB.
The Pantheon Law does not cover the LNMB. It is merely a national shrine converted into a memorial shrine. Hence, anyone buried therein would not be treated as a hero and would not be labeled as one who is worth emulating or who is an inspiration to the youth.
The National Pantheon does not exist at present. The Congress had deemed it wise not to appropriate any funds for its construction or the creation of the Board on National Pantheon. This indicates that the legislative will not 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.
The petitioners mistook the LNMB as covered under National Pantheon law but it was merely a national shrine for deceased military men.
CONCLUSION
In sum, there is no clear constitutional or legal basis to hold that there was 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 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.'" 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.
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 a better perspective that the passage of time provides. In the meantime, the country must move on and let this issue rest.
Dispositive Portion:
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the petitions are DISMISSED. Necessarily, the Status Quo Ante Order is hereby LIFTED.
ADDITIONAL INFO:
POLITICAL QUESTION:
- cases which challenge the way in which the Executive uses that power
- issues that the Constitution makes the sole responsibility of the Executive Branch and/or the Legislative Branch
- lawsuits that challenge the Legislative Branch's procedure for impeachment proceedings
- cases related to the Executive Branch than in cases related to the Legislative Branch.
JUDICIAL CONTROVERSY:
- involves a definite and concrete dispute touching on the legal relations of parties who are pitted against each other due to their demanding and conflicting legal interests.
JUDICIAL REVIEW - the power of the courts to test the validity of executive and legislative acts for their conformity with the Constitution. Through such power, the judiciary enforces and upholds the supremacy of the Constitution.
Requirements:
(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 (cause of the suit or action) of the case.
Comments
Post a Comment