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

FACTS

Multiple consolidated petitions were filed assailing the planned interment of former President Ferdinand E. Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani (LNMB). The petitioners, including victims of human rights violations during the Marcos regime, their families, legislators, and concerned citizens, argued that the burial would violate constitutional principles, statutes such as Republic Act No. 289 (which governs the creation of a national pantheon for heroes), and international human rights law. They contended that the act constitutes a grave abuse of discretion, dishonors human rights victims, and distorts historical truth. The public respondents, including the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Secretary of National Defense, defended the burial, citing President Rodrigo R. Duterte’s directive and asserting that it was in accordance with AFP Regulations governing eligibility for interment at the LNMB, which they argued grant the President discretionary authority.

ISSUE

Whether the Court can exercise its power of judicial review over the President’s decision to allow the burial of former President Marcos at the LNMB, and if so, whether such decision constitutes grave abuse of discretion.

RULING

The majority dismissed the petitions. It held that there was no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the President and the public respondents. The majority reasoned that the issue involved a political question, as the decision on who to bury at the LNMB is vested by law and regulation in the executive branch, particularly the President and the AFP. It found that the AFP Regulations provide the sole criteria for entitlement and disqualification, and that former President Marcos, as a former President and soldier, was not expressly disqualified under these rules. The majority concluded that the petitioners failed to establish a clear constitutional or legal basis to nullify the President’s discretionary act.
In his dissenting opinion, Justice Caguioa argued that the case presented a justiciable controversy ripe for judicial review. He emphasized that the expanded judicial power under the 1987 Constitution, which includes the duty to determine grave abuse of discretion by any government branch, has bounded the political question doctrine. He contended that the burial was not merely a political act but one with profound legal implications, potentially violating the Constitution’s spirit, relevant laws, and the state’s obligations under international human rights law to provide reparations and prevent the recurrence of violations. For the dissent, the Court had the duty to scrutinize whether the exercise of discretion transgressed legal and constitutional norms, which it failed to do by deferring solely to the AFP Regulations.