Scribd
Upload
47 views4 pages

Case Digest

Justice Leonen dissents from the majority ruling allowing the burial of former President Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani. In 3 sentences: The dissent finds that Marcos' interment is illegal and violates laws acknowledging human rights victims, as Marcos' regime was responsible for widespread atrocities and cannot be considered a life worthy of inspiration; burying Marcos with honors contradicts the purpose of the cemetery and fails to accurately portray the human rights violations of the Marcos regime; and the actions of the President and other public respondents in ordering the burial constitute a grave abuse of discretion under the law.

Uploaded by

Ally Nisce
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
47 views4 pages

Case Digest

Justice Leonen dissents from the majority ruling allowing the burial of former President Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani. In 3 sentences: The dissent finds that Marcos' interment is illegal and violates laws acknowledging human rights victims, as Marcos' regime was responsible for widespread atrocities and cannot be considered a life worthy of inspiration; burying Marcos with honors contradicts the purpose of the cemetery and fails to accurately portray the human rights violations of the Marcos regime; and the actions of the President and other public respondents in ordering the burial constitute a grave abuse of discretion under the law.

Uploaded by

Ally Nisce
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

De La Salle University

Ramon V. Del Rosario


College of Business
cib
Case Digest of Justice Leonen’s Dissenting Opinion

In Partial Fulfilment of the


Course Requirements for

CONSLAW K32
2nd Term, SY 2016-2017

Submitted by:
Del Mundo
Estrada
Lim
Nisce
Rebosa
Sabayle
Tan

Submitted to:
Atty. Mikaela Lagarde
FACTS OF THE CASE:

President Duterte made a promise during the campaign period of the Presidential
Elections that he would allow the burial of former President Marcos at the Libingan ng mga
Bayani. On August 7, 2016 Secretary of National Defense Delfin N. Lorenzana issued a
Memorandum to the Chief of Staff of the AFP, General Ricardo R. Visaya in conformity with
President Duterte’s order. The subject of this Memorandum was the burial of former President
Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani. 2 days later, Chief of Staff of the AFP, General Ricardo
R. Visaya issued a directive to the AFP about the Funeral Honors and Service for President
Marcos.

Since many found this order offensive, petitioners filed a petition for Certiorari and
Prohibition. The petitioners are:

1) Saturnino, et. al., in their capacity as human rights advocates and victims.
2) Rene Saguisag and his son as members of the BAR and Human Rights Lawyers.
3) Edcel Lagman as a member of Congress and Leila de Lima as a member of the Senate.
4) Loretta Pargas-Rosales as victims of State sanctioned human rights violations during the
Martial law.
5) Heherson Alvarez and Zaira Baniaga as concerned citizens and taxpayers.
6) Algamar Latiph as a representative of Moros who were victims during the Martial law.

ISSUES:

I. Procedural
A. Whether President Rodrigo Duterte’s determination to the interment of Ferdinand
Marcos’ remains at the Libingan ng mga Bayani poses a justiciable controversy
B. Whether the petitioners have locus standi in filing the petitions
C. Whether the petitioners committed a violation of the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies and the hierarchy of courts
II. Substantive
A. Whether the Defense Secretary Lorenzana and Real Admiral Ernesto Enriquez
acted in grave abuse of discretion by issuing the memorandum and carrying out
the directive to bury Ferdinand Marcos in the Libingan ng mga Bayani.
B. Whether Lorenzana’s Memorandum and Enriquez’s Directive violated any laws.
C. Whether or not the remains of former President Marcos is qualified to be buried at
the Libingan ng mga Bayani as one who led a life worthy of inspiration and
emulation
D. Whether the Marcos family waived the possible burial of Ferdinand Marcos in the
Libingan ng mga Bayani by entering into an agreement to allow Marcos’ remains
to be interred in the Philippines.

RULING:

Justice Marvic Leonen votes to dismiss the case.

The General Orders which were the basis for the issuance of the questioned orders of
public respondents through the are invalid because they violate R.A. 289 where it is stated in
Section 1 that those who are buried in the Libingan must have led lives worthy of inspiration and
emulation. The awards accorded to Ferdinand Marcos by military standards are fallacious and do
not separate him from the fact that he was a human rights violator, dictator, and plunderer. The
Lorenzana Memorandum and Enriquez’ Orders are ultra vires acts since it is clear that the
widespread acts of torture, summary execution, disappearance, arbitrary detention, and numerous
other atrocities during the Marcos Regime are enough to convince that his life was worthy of
inspiration and emulation.

President Rodrigo Duterte’s verbal orders, the memorandum of the Secretary of National
Defense, and the orders of respondent Enriquez were issued with grave abuse of discretion
because they violate R.A. 10368. Section 2 of R.A. 10368 states that the state must acknowledge
its moral and legal obligation to recognize and/or provide reparation to victims and/or their
families for the deaths, injuries, sufferings, deprivations and damages they suffered under the
Marcos regime. Human rights victims and violations during September 21, 1972 to February 25,
1986 were so abundant that the legislature created a Human Rights Victims’ Claims Board and
there are 75,730 claims of human rights victims for reparation and recognition. Marcos’
interment produces an inaccurate account of the violations committed and fails to educate all
sectors of society and all generations of the human rights violations committed.

There is no public purpose for the interment of Marcos’s remains at the Libingan ng Mga
Bayani and cannot be justified under the provisions of the Revised Administrative Code. The act
of burying in itself has always been more than an act of disposing of dead bodies. A burial is a
manner of memorializing and paying respects to a deceased person. Proclamation No. 86 by
States that The Republic Memorial Cemetery was renamed to Libingan ng Mga Bayani for
symbolic purposes, to express esteem and reverence for those buried there. If there was no
intention to give recognition upon Marcos as a hero, then he should not be buried at the Libingan
ng mga Bayani. Furthermore, before ordering the interment, the President did not amend the
name through a presidential proclamation. Therefore, the intent to bury him with honors is
clearly legible, totally unequivocal, and dangerously palpable.

Actions done by the public respondents are contrary to the oath of office of the president
and a grave abuse of discretion is committed since the faithful execution clause is not a separate
grant of power but an obligation vested upon Duterte. The President is, therefore, not above the
law or above judicial interpretation. To allow the petition to bury Marcos’ remains contribute to
the impunity against human rights abuses and the plunder of our public trust by giving the public
a retraumatization of the events that happened during the period of Martial Law.

The interment of Ferdinand Marcos at the LNMB, given the present state of our
Constitution, our laws, and our jurisprudence, is illegal and Justice Leonen demands the instant
petition be hereby DISMISSED.1

1Ocampo et al., Petitioners, v. Enriquez et al., 1, 94 (2016) (9-5 decision) (Leonen, M., dissenting).

You might also like