G.R. Nos. 225973, 225984, 226097, 226116, 226117, 226120 & 226294.
PERALTA, J.
facts
During the campaign of the 2016 Presidential Elections, then candidate Duterte promised to allow the burial of Former President Marcos at the LNMB; Duterte won. To fulfill the promise, upon the President’s verbal instruction, Defense Secretary Lorenzana issued the questioned Memorandum above. Subsequently, AFP Rear Admiral Enriquez issued the corresponding directives to the Philippine Army Commanding General. Against these issuances, petitioners filed the instant cases with the Supreme Court.
Issues
- Did the respondents Defense Secretary and AFP Rear Admiral committed grave abuse of discretion when they issued the assailed Memorandum and Directive in compliance with the verbal order of President Duterte to implement his election campaign promise to have the remains of Marcos interred at the LNMB?
- Did the issuance and implementation of the assailed Memorandum and Directive violate the Constitution, and domestic and international laws?
- Did the historical facts, laws enacted to recover ill-gotten wealth from the Marcoses and their cronies, and the pronouncements of the Court on the Marcos regime nullify his entitlement as a soldier and former President to interment at the LNMB?
- Was the Marcos family deemed to have waived the burial of the remains of former President Marcos at the LNMB after they entered into an agreement with the Government of the Republic of the Philippines as to the conditions and procedures by which his remains shall be brought back to and interred in the Philippines?
Ruling and Discussion
- No. The President’s decision to bury Marcos at the LNMB is not done whimsically, capriciously or arbitrarily, out of malice, ill will or personal bias. Thus, there is no grave abuse of discretion in the consequent issuance of memorandum and directives by concerned officials.
The LNMB was not expressly included in the national shrines enumerated in PD 105.
P.D. No. 105 does not apply to the LNMB. Despite the fact that P.D. No. 208 predated P.D. No. 105, the LNMB was not expressly included in the national shrines enumerated in the latter. The proposition that the LNMB is implicitly covered in the catchall phrase “and others which may be proclaimed in the future as National Shrines” is erroneous because: (1) As stated, Marcos issued P.D. No. 208 prior to P.D. No. 105; (2) Following the canon of statutory construction known as ejusdem generis, 138 the LNMB is not a site “of the birth, exile, imprisonment, detention or death of great and eminent leaders of the nation,”; and (3) Since its establishment, the LNMB has been a military shrine under the jurisdiction of the PVAO.
Assuming that P.D. No. 105 is applicable, the descriptive words “sacred and hallowed” refer to the LNMB as a place and not to each and every mortal remains interred therein. Hence, the burial of Marcos at the LNMB does not diminish said cemetery as a revered and respected ground. Neither does it negate the presumed individual nor collective “heroism” of the men and women buried or will be buried therein. The “nation’s esteem and reverence for her war dead, ” as originally contemplated by President Magsaysay in issuing Proclamation No. 86, still stands unaffected. That being said, the interment of Marcos, therefore, does not constitute a violation of the physical, historical, and cultural integrity of the LNMB as a national military shrine.
The LNMB is considered as a national shrine for military memorials. The PVAO, which is empowered to administer, develop, and maintain military shrines, is under the supervision and control of the DND. The DND, in tum, is under the Office of the President.
The act of a branch of government is without grave abuse of discretion if made in accordance with the Constitution and existing laws and regulations. - No. The issuance and implementation of the assailed Memorandum and Directive did not violate the Constitution, and domestic and international laws.
There is no violation of the Constitutional provisions.
As to Secs. 2, 11, 13, 23, 26, 27 and 28 of Article II. They are not self-executing provisions (under Art. II) as declared in Tanada vs Angara. As such, they cannot give rise to a cause of action.
As to Sec. 17 of Art. VII. Under the Faithful Execution Clause, the President has the power to take “necessary and proper steps” to carry into execution the law. The mandate is self-executory by virtue of its being inherently executive in nature and is intimately related to the other executive functions. It is best construed as an imposed obligation, not a separate grant of power. The provision simply underscores the rule of law and, corollarily, the cardinal principle that the President is not above the laws but is obliged to obey and execute them.
As to Sec. 3(2) of Art. XIV. This provision refers to the constitutional duty of educational institutions in teaching the values of patriotism and nationalism and respect for human rights. This does not provide for any prohibition for Marcos’ interment at the LNMB.
As to Sec. 1 of Art. XI. The provision invoked is likewise not self-executing. Accordingly, the Congress enacted the Code of Conduct on Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, the Ombudsman Act of 1989, Plunder Act, and Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007. The Executive issued various orders and instructions to complement these laws.
As to Sec. 26 of Art. VIII. This is a transitory provision on sequestration or freeze orders in relation to the recovery of Marcos’ ill-gotten wealth. There is likewise no direct or indirect prohibition to Marcos’ interment at the LNMB.
There is no violation of domestic laws, namely:
As to RA No. 289. This authorizes the construction of a National Pantheon as the burial place of the mortal remains of all the Presidents of the Philippines.
The petitioners failed to provide legal and historical bases as to their supposition that the LNMB and the National Pantheon are one and the same. The National Pantheon does not exist at present. And it seems the legislative intent is not to pursue the same at the moment. Further, applying the standards of RA No. 289 to the LNMB, that it is reserved only for the “decent and the brave” or “hero” would be violative of public policy as it will put into question the validity of the burial of each and every mortal remains resting therein. Applying RA No. 289 to LNMB will infringe upon the principle of separation of powers since the allocation of plots at the LNMB is based on the grant of authority to the President under existing laws and regulations. The proposed interment does not confer upon Marcos the status of a “hero.” Without final determination of the specifics as to the kind of burial or honors that will be accorded to the remains of Marcos, the petitioners’ claims and references to “hero’s burial and “state honors” will remain speculative.
As to RA No. 10368. Human Rights Victims Reparation and Recognition Act of 2013. The beneficial provisions of the law do not extend to the prohibition on Marcos’ burial at the LNMB. There is no express provision in the law to that effect. It will be judicial legislation to apply the law to matters which it does not contemplate. Marcos’ interment will not have any effect on the subject law whether as to the enforcement of human rights victims’ rights or their entitlements to the benefits provided therein.
There is no violation of international human rights law. The burial of Marcos at the LNMB will not violate the rights of the HRVVs to “full” and “effective” reparation, provided under the relevant international laws. When we regained our democracy in 1986, the three branches did their fair share to respect, protect and fulfill the country’s human rights obligations. The Constitution itself has afforded human rights protection; the Congress passed laws to the same end; the Executive issued orders geared toward the same goal; and the Judiciary, aside from the available judicial remedies (e.g. habeas corpus, amparo, habeas data), issued Administrative Orders to curtail human rights violations.
The SC said: our nation’s history will not be instantly revised by a single resolve of the President to bury Marcos at the LNMB. The lessons of Martial Law are already engraved in the hearts and minds of the present generation of Filipinos. As to the unborn, it must be said that the preservation and popularization of our history is not the sole responsibility of the Chief Executive; it is a joint and collective endeavor of every freedom-loving citizen of this country.
While the Constitution is a product of our collective history as a people, its entirety should not be interpreted as providing guiding principles to just about anything remotely related to the Martial Law period such as the proposed Marcos burial at the LNMB. - No. The historical facts, laws enacted to recover ill-gotten wealth from the Marcoses and their cronies, and the pronouncements of the Court on the Marcos regime did not nullify his entitlement as a soldier and former President to interment at the LNMB.
Marcos is eligible to interment at LNMB under AFP Regulations G-161-375.
In the absence of any executive issuance or law to the contrary, the AFP Regulations G 161-375 remains to be the sole authority in determining who are entitled and disqualified to be interred at the LNMB.
The regulation enumerated those who are eligible for interment at the LNMB. Similar to AFP Regulations G 161-374, the following are not qualified to be interred in the LNMB: (a) personnel who were dishonorably separated/reverted/discharged from the service; and (b) authorized personnel who were convicted by final judgment of an offense involving moral turpitude.
The purpose of the LNMB, both from the legal and historical perspectives, has neither been to confer to the people buried there the title of “hero” nor to require that only those interred therein should be treated as a “hero.”
The privilege of internment at the LNMB has been loosen up through the years to include not only those who rendered active military service or military-related activities but also non-military personnel who were recognized for their significant contributions to the Philippine society, as well as the widows of select officials. It is indubitable that Marcos had rendered significant active military service and military-related activities making him are eligible for interment at the LNMB under G-161-375.
Petitioners did not dispute that Marcos was a former President and Commander-in-Chief, a legislator, a Secretary of National Defense, a military personnel, a veteran, and a Medal of Valor awardee. For his alleged human rights abuses and corrupt practices, we may disregard Marcos as a President and Commander-in-Chief, but we cannot deny him the right to be acknowledged based on the other positions he held or the awards he received. In this sense, We agree with the proposition that Marcos should be viewed and judged in his totality as a person. While he was not all good, he was not pure evil either. Certainly, just a human who erred like us.
Marcos also does not have any of the disqualifications enumerated above.
Marcos was honorably discharged from military service. PVAO expressly recognized him as a retired veteran pursuant to R.A. No. 6948, as amended. The word “service” in AFP Regulations G 161-375 should be construed as that rendered by a military person in the AFP, including civil service, from the time of his/her commission, enlistment, probation, training or drafting, up to the date of his/her separation or retirement from the AFP. Civil service after honorable separation and retirement from the AFP is outside the context of “service” under AFP Regulations G 161-375. Thus his ouster from Presidency does not constitute dishonorable dismissal within the contemplation of the AFP Regulation.
Marcos was not convicted by final judgment of an offense involving moral turpitude.
There is no violation of the equal protection clause. (a) There is a real and substantial distinction between a military personnel and a former President. The conditions of dishonorable discharge under the Articles of War attach only to the members of the military. The classification between a military personnel and a former President is germane to the purposes of Proclamation No. 208 and P.D. No. 1076; (b) there is also no substantial distinction between Marcos and the three Philippine Presidents buried at the LNMB. Thus they must be treated in the same manner. - No. The Marcos family was not deemed to have waived the burial of the remains of former President Marcos at the LNMB after they entered into an agreement with the Government of the Republic of the Philippines as to the conditions and procedures by which his remains shall be brought back to and interred in the Philippines.
The presidential power of control over the Executive Branch of Government is a self-executing provision of the Constitution and does not require statutory implementation, nor may its exercise be limited, much less withdrawn, by the legislature.
President Duterte is not bound by the alleged 1992 Agreement between former President Ramos and the Marcos family to have the remains of Marcos interred in Batac, Ilocos Norte. As the incumbent President, he is free to amend, revoke or rescind political agreements entered into by his predecessors, and to determine policies which he considers, based on informed judgment and presumed wisdom, will be most effective in carrying out his mandate.
Moreover, under the Administrative Code, the President has the power to reserve for public use and for specific public purposes any of the lands of the public domain and that the reserved land shall remain subject to the specific public purpose indicated until otherwise provided by law or proclamation. At present, there is no law or executive issuance specifically excluding the land in which the LNMB is located from the use it was originally intended by the past Presidents. The allotment of a cemetery plot at the LNMB for Marcos as a former President and Commander-in-Chief, a legislator, a Secretary of National Defense, military personnel, a veteran, and a Medal of Valor awardee, whether recognizing his contributions or simply his status as such, satisfies the public use requirement.
Presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty prevails over Ocampo, et al.’s highly disputed factual allegation that, in the guise of exercising a presidential prerogative, the Chief Executive is actually motivated by utang na loob (debt of gratitude) and bayad utang (payback) to the Marcoses.
Dispositive
Petitions dismissed. Status Quo Ante Order lifted.