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 seeking to prohibit and annul the planned interment of former President Ferdinand E. Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani (LNMB). The petitioners, including human rights victims, legislators, and citizens, argued that such burial would violate constitutional principles, laws, and public policy, given the historical record of the Marcos regime. They contended that Marcos was not a hero, having been ousted by the 1986 People Power Revolution, and that his burial at the LNMB would insult the victims of martial law, distort history, and violate their right to dignity.
The respondents, including the Secretary of National Defense and AFP officials, defended the burial based on President Rodrigo Duterte’s order and existing military regulations (AFP Regulations G 161-375). They argued that Marcos, as a former President and soldier, was qualified for interment at the LNMB, and that the President’s decision was a political question involving executive discretion that the judiciary should not review.

ISSUE

Whether the proposed burial of former President Ferdinand E. Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani is lawful under the Constitution, statutes, and applicable regulations.

RULING

The Court, in a 9-5 vote, dismissed the petitions and upheld the legality of the burial. The majority ruled that there was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondents in proceeding with the interment. The legal logic centered on the absence of a clear constitutional or statutory prohibition against burying Marcos at the LNMB. The Court deferred to the executive branch’s discretionary power, particularly the President’s prerogative as Commander-in-Chief to decide on military honors and burials for soldiers and former presidents, as outlined in the AFP regulations.
The majority held that Marcos, having held the positions of former President, Commander-in-Chief, and Medal of Valor awardee, possessed the technical qualifications for LNMB interment under the cited rules. It emphasized that the LNMB is a national cemetery for military personnel and public officials, not a declaration of heroic status. The determination of historical significance and “heroism” was deemed a political question unsuitable for judicial resolution. The Court found that the petitioners failed to present a sufficient legal standard to override the executive’s discretionary act, concluding that the burial did not violate any law, the Constitution, or public policy.