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 challenging the decision of then-President Rodrigo Duterte to allow the burial of former President Ferdinand E. Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani (LMB). The petitioners, including victims of human rights violations during Martial Law, their families, legislators, and other concerned citizens, argued that such a burial would violate the Constitution, statutory standards, and judicial pronouncements. They contended it would contradict the anti-Martial Law and human rights underpinnings of the 1987 Constitution, dishonor the heroic struggle of the Filipino people, and sanction the atrocities of the Marcos regime. The respondents, including government officials and the heirs of Marcos, argued that there was no express legal prohibition against the burial and that the President’s decision was an exercise of executive discretion not subject to judicial review.

ISSUE

Whether the Court should review and potentially restrain the President’s decision to allow the burial of former President Ferdinand Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani, based on allegations that it constitutes grave abuse of discretion, violates the spirit and letter of the Constitution, contravenes statutory standards, and undermines judicial doctrines related to the Marcos regime.

RULING

The dissenting opinion of Chief Justice Sereno argues that the Court has a bounden duty to exercise judicial review. The thesis that the absence of an express prohibition renders the President’s decision unreviewable is fundamentally wrong and diminishes the Judiciary’s constitutional role. The Court must holistically analyze the extent of presidential discretion and measure it against constitutional, statutory, and judicial standards. The implications of the case go to the core of governmental powers and the stability of Philippine democracy. The Court must examine whether the decision contradicts the anti-Martial Law and human rights foundations of the 1987 Constitution. Failure to address this principal question would weaken the Court’s role as the protector of constitutional liberties, dissipate its moral strength, and render it unable to protect the people from governmental excesses that mimic the authoritarian past. The Court must defend both the Constitution and itself by painstakingly examining the claims to see if they undermine the Constitution’s intellectual and moral fiber.