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

Multiple petitions were filed to prevent the interment of the late President Ferdinand E. Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani (LNMB). The petitioners, including human rights victims, legislators, and citizens, argued that such an interment would violate constitutional principles, dishonor human rights victims, and illegally use public funds for a private purpose. They contended that Marcos, having been ousted by the 1986 People Power Revolution, was not a hero and that his burial at a national heroes’ cemetery would sanction the atrocities of his martial law regime.
The public respondents, led by the Department of National Defense (DND), defended the interment based on DND Memorandum dated August 7, 2016, and AFP Regulation G 161-375, which lists former Presidents and military personnel as among those qualified for burial at the LNMB. They asserted that the decision was a discretionary act of the Executive, involving political questions, and that Marcos, as a former President and soldier, met the technical qualifications for interment.

ISSUE

Whether the DND Memorandum and the act of interring the remains of former President Ferdinand E. Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani are valid and constitutional.

RULING

The Court, in its Decision, dismissed the petitions and upheld the validity of the DND Memorandum. The majority ruled that there was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondents. The Court held that the President, as Chief Executive, has the authority to decide on matters concerning the use of government property like the LNMB. It found that AFP regulations provide sufficient standards, listing former Presidents as qualified for interment, and that the petitioners failed to present a clear constitutional or legal right that was violated. The Court also deemed the issue as political in nature, falling within the Executive’s prerogative.
In his dissenting opinion, Justice Carpio argued for granting the petitions. He posited that the DND Memorandum was issued with grave abuse of discretion. His legal logic centered on statutory and constitutional interpretation. First, he argued that AFP Regulation G 161-375, when properly construed, disqualifies Marcos. The regulation qualifies “former Presidents” for interment, but Carpio contended that the term “former President” refers to one who served the full term or legally resigned, not one who was forcibly ousted. Citing the Court’s ruling in Lawyers League v. Aquino, he maintained that Marcos ceased to be President upon his ouster, which was a sovereign act of the people, and thus he does not fall under the category of a “former President” contemplated by the rules.
Second, Justice Carpio invoked the constitutional principle that public funds and property shall be used solely for public purpose. He argued that interring Marcos at the LNMB, a national shrine for heroes, serves no public purpose given his established record of human rights violations and plunder, as recognized by Philippine courts and a United States District Court judgment. Since Marcos was dishonorably discharged from office by the people, his burial is a private affair of his family. Therefore, using public property for his interment violates the constitutional mandate on the use of public resources.