Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

OCAMPO v ENRIQUEZ (LNMB CASE) CONCURRING OPINIONS a.

faithfully standard = vague, not-easily determinable; may


amount to the Court placing itself in a higher plane, and can
paralyze executive discretion on how it implements/executes
BERSAMIN laws
1. Discretion of Duterte as Chief Executive (control over AFP which in turn b. faithfulness should not be the standard to test the legality of
has control over LNMB), hence beyond review by the Court (political the Presidents acts
question) c. Faithful execution clause = take-care clause in US Constitution
a. Different facts from Marcos v. Manglapus: imminent impact then adopted in our 1935 Constitution in US jurisprudence, the
(return of the Marcos could put to danger the nations peace take-care clause has never been used to question the manner
and security), no longer imminent today by which the Presidents executive power is exercised
2. Laws cited by petitioners not relevant to LNMB 4. The burial does not violate international obligations
a. LNMB is not the National Pantheon because Proc.431 a. Principles do not create legally binding obligations
mandated that the National Pantheon will be in East Ave., QC b. The burial order does not rewrite jurisprudence and excuse the
while LNMB (then called the Republic Memorial Cemetery) is in ills of the Marcos admin nor amend RA10368
Fort William McKinley, Rizal c. Provisions of RA10368, although critical of Marcos regime do
b. Relevance of RA10368 (on reparations for HRVV) not not amount to a prohibition barring the interment of his remains
persuasively shown in a resting place duly reserved by law for soldiers
c. No Consti provision or existing law prohibits interment of 5. Divining the spirit of the constitution is acceptable only to clarify
Marcos in LNMB ambiguities in its provisions, and not to create entirely new provisions
3. None of the disqualifications in the AFP Regulations G 161-375 apply to a. Constitutional intent does not embody a right and by itself is not
Marcos a basis for the enforcement of a right. Neither does it provide a
a. People power revolution not the same as dishonorable standard on how the President should act and enforce the laws,
discharge must be discharged from military service, not without prior reference to specific provisions or legislations
ousted from presidency applying the intent of the Constitution.
i. Art.II Sec.27 and Art.XI Sec.1 (not self-executing)
BRION enshrine values but cannot be claimed as basis, in the
1. Issued presented by petitioners are outside judicial authority, thus no absence of clear and concrete legislation embodying
actual case or controversy actionable standards, for the petitioners claims. They
a. Emotions and beliefs of HRVV should not influence the faithful only describe our aspirations for our government but do
discharge of duties of the Court not dilute the Presidents political moves.
b. Symbol of Justice: blindfolded lady carrying scales = decisions b. No express constitutional bar to the interment
based not on who litigants are (and their political, emotional, c. The Court is not a judge of history; it a judge of the
financial clout) but on law and evidence interpretation and application of the terms of the Constitution
2. On Courts expanded jurisdiction d. The Court is not a Court of public opinion but of law. On matters
a. Alternative approach: there must first be prima facie showing of of policy, it cannot substitute its wisdom over that of political
grave abuse of discretion on the part of the government in branches
cases involving constitutional violations 6. When Duterte promised Marcos burial during his campaign, people
b. If violations of statutes only, recourse should be in other voted for him despite or because of this plan
judicial remedies or proceedings, subject only to review of the
SC. MENDOZA
c. Doctrines that conflict with direct recourse to SC for violations 1. Issues involved are truly political questions which are non-justiciable
of statutes: a. Truly-political questions are still recognized despite expanded
i. Hierarchy of courts judicial power
ii. Primary jurisdiction i. lies in the answer to the question of whether there are
iii. Exhaustion of administrative remedies constitutionally imposed limits on powers or
3. Faithful execution clause does not allow the constitutionalization of functions conferred upon political bodies (Francisco v
issues that, if proven to be true, would amount to violation of statutes HRET) a.k.a if with limit on powers, court review ok; if
none, no court review
b. If grave abuse is not established, the Court will not PEREZ
substitute its judgment for that of the official concerned and 1. NO GAD. A Libingan Burial for Marcos was a promise made by
decide a matter which by its nature or by law is for the latter President Duterte, which promise was opposed by petitioners, in spite of
alone to decide (Marcos v Manglapus) which opposition, candidate Duterte was elected President.
i. Ex. Court cannot question Pres recognition of foreign a. As judicial admissions in their petition, petitioners state as fact
govt (even if it appears premature), presidential pardon that the burial of Marcos at LNMB is a matter about which the
(even if beneficiary is undeserving), or amend Consti to Filipino public was consulted as a campaign promise of Duterte
resolve disputes (power reserved to people) b. Issue was made public and resolved upon Dutertes election as
2. Interment of President Marcos in LNMB is a discretionary act of President juxtaposition of two concepts: people and suffrage.
President Duterte Sovereign political power in a democratic state remains with
a. Any act pursuant to the faithful execution clause (Sec 17 Art VII the people. (aka it is the people who will decide and here the
1987C) should be deemed a political question because it relies majority of the people decided to vote for Duterte)
not on legality but on wisdom/propriety of act of President c. By word and deed, petitioners have accepted that the issue they
b. Discretionary vs Ministerial Act (Spouses Marquez v Spouses now, losing the vote, present before the Court is a political
Alindog) issue.
i. Ministerial = duty performed by official in a given state i. This gives the Court right away to dismiss the petition
of facts and prescribed manner w/o need of his own because clearly the petitioners did not prevail in the
judgment political exercise that was the National Elections 2016
ii. Discretionary = duty imposed on an official and gives ii. Their prayers are no different from those publicly
him right to decide how or when to perform it debated proceeding to a conclusion unacceptable to
c. Discretionary applies in Pres exercise of judgment as long as them; just that now their cause has legal clothing (???)
he faithfully executes the law d. Argument regarding this view:
d. Authority also derived from residual powers (Pres task to i. Not all of those who voted for Duterte did so because
attend to maintenance of peace, order and domestic tranquility), they favored Marcos burial at LNBM!: that may be
Presidents reason being for national healing, reconciliation, and plausible, but what cannot be questions is that Duterte
forgiveness. (ugh) did not lose because of his burial pronouncement.
3. No GAD 2. RA10368 is a complete law. The definition of what their rights are in this
a. No violation of any constitutional provision or law, and in fact law limits any further inclusions except perhaps through the same
complies with it (AFP Regulation G 161-375 as sole legal basis legislative action. The Court cannot allow the collected petitions at bar to
in determining who are qualified to be buried in LNMB) interfere with that wisdom.
b. Constitution neither expressly nor impliedly prohibits Marcos a. SolGen during oral argument did not agree that Marcos burial in
interment in LNMB LNMB will retraumatize HRVVs. He defended the Presidents
c. Not contrary to RA289 and RA10368 policy of reconciliation and national healing and assumed that
i. National Pantheon referred to in RA289 is different the President, in taking every matter into consideration,
from LNMB, hence not applicable considered the pain and sufferings of HRVs too.
ii. RA10368 neither expressly nor impliedly prohibits
Marcos interment in LNMB; burial not incongruous with Whether the policy of healing and reconciliation over and above the pain and
honoring HRVVs because it doesnt intend to confer suffering of HRV is in grave abuse of executive discretion or not is answered by
upon him the title of hero; State can continue provide the evidently substantial Marcos vote during the fresh and immediately preceding
recognition and reparation to HRVVs notwithstanding national elections of 2016. The election result is a showing that, while there may
his burial in LNMB have once been, there is no longer a national damnation of President Ferdinand
E. Marcos; that the constitutionalization of the sin and its personification is no
Lest it be misunderstood, the Court is not passing judgment on whether longer of national acceptance. A Marcos vote came out of the elections,
President Marcos truly deserves to be buried in the LNMB. It is merely exercising substantial enough to be a legitimate consideration in the executive policy
judicial restraint as the issues at hand are truly political in nature and, therefore, formulation. (!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
are best left to the discretion of the President. ()