Ocampo vs Enriquez, GR No. 225973| 11/8/2016
Doctrines:
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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, national heroes and patriots. It also provided for the creation of a Board on National Pantheon to implement the law.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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 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.
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 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. 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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])
Facts:
In 2016, then Philippine presidential candidate Rodrigo Duterte publicly announced that he would allow the burial of former President Ferdinand Marcos at the Libingan Ng Mga Bayani (LNMB) if he won the election. After winning the election with 16,601,997 votes, Duterte assumed office on June 30, 2016. On August 7, 2016, the Secretary of National Defense, Delfin Lorenzana, issued a memorandum to the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), General Ricardo Visaya, regarding the interment of Marcos at the LNMB. The memorandum instructed the AFP to coordinate with the Marcos family regarding the date of interment and the transport of the former president's remains from Ilocos Norte to the LNMB.
Two days later, Rear Admiral Ernesto Enriquez issued directives to the Philippine Army Commanding General, instructing them to provide funeral honors and services for Marcos, including a vigil, bugler/drummer, firing party, military host/pallbearers, escort and transportation, and arrival/departure honors. The date of interment was not yet set at the time of the directives.
Following these issuances, several petitions were filed by different individuals and organizations who were dissatisfied with the decision to bury Marcos at the LNMB. Petitioners included human rights advocates, human rights violation victims, members of the bar and human rights lawyers, elected Congressmen of the House of Representatives of the Philippines, victims of state-sanctioned human rights violations during the martial law regime of Marcos, concerned Filipino citizens and taxpayers, and a former Chairperson of the Regional Human Rights Commission in Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao.
These petitions sought certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus relief, with the petitioners arguing that Marcos was not qualified to be buried at the LNMB due to his record of human rights violations and corruption during his regime. After a lengthy legal battle, the Supreme Court ultimately ruled in November 2016 that there was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of Duterte and other government officials in allowing Marcos to be buried at the LNMB. Despite the court's decision, Marcos' burial at the LNMB remains a controversial and divisive issue in the Philippines.
Issue:
(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
Held:
1.
No.
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.
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.
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 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 the better perspective that the passage of time provides. In the meantime, the country must mov'e on and let this issue rest.
Dispositive Portion:
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the petitions are DISMISSED. Necessarily, the Status Quo Ante Order is hereby LIFTED.