G.R. No. 225973, November 8, 2016
SATURNINO C. OCAMPO, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. REAR ADMIRAL ERNESTO C. ENRIQUEZ, ET AL., RESPONDENTS. (Consolidated Cases)

FACTS

These consolidated petitions sought to prevent the interment of the late President Ferdinand E. Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani (LNMB). Petitioners, including human rights victims, legislators, and activists, argued that such an interment would violate constitutional principles, dishonor human rights victims, and insult the nation’s collective memory due to the documented atrocities during the Marcos regime. The legal challenge was precipitated by President Rodrigo R. Duterte’s verbal directive to the Department of National Defense (DND) to prepare for the burial, which was subsequently formalized through a DND Memorandum and implementing orders from the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP).
The petitioners contended that the President’s directive and the subsequent memoranda constituted grave abuse of discretion. They invoked, among other laws, Republic Act No. 289 (which provides for a National Pantheon for Presidents and heroes) and Republic Act No. 10368 (the Human Rights Victims Reparation and Recognition Act of 2013), arguing these laws implicitly or explicitly rendered Marcos unfit for burial at a heroes’ cemetery. They asserted that allowing the interment would condone the abuses of his regime and distort history.

ISSUE

Did President Rodrigo R. Duterte commit grave abuse of discretion in authorizing the interment of former President Ferdinand E. Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani?

RULING

No, the President did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic of the concurring opinion, as articulated by Justice Bersamin, rests on the absence of a specific legal prohibition and the President’s discretionary authority over the LNMB. The opinion clarifies that the LNMB is distinct from the National Pantheon envisioned under Republic Act No. 289; the LNMB was established by executive act as a military cemetery. The governing rules for interment are found in AFP Regulations G 161-375, which list specific disqualifications: dishonorable separation from military service or final conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude.
The concurrence emphasizes that Ferdinand Marcos, as a former President, soldier, and Medal of Valor awardee, met the positive qualifications for interment. Critically, he did not fall under any of the stated disqualifications. His ouster from office was a political act, not equivalent to a dishonorable discharge from the military. The invocation of Republic Act No. 10368 was found unpersuasive, as the law provides for victim compensation but does not contain any provision expressly barring Marcos’s burial at the LNMB. Therefore, in the absence of a clear statutory prohibition, the President’s decision, made within his executive prerogative and in fulfillment of a campaign promise, did not amount to a capricious or whimsical exercise of power constituting grave abuse of discretion. The petitions were dismissed.