On R.A. No.

289:

Primarily, the purpose of R.A. No. 289 was to build a National

Pantheon for the perpetuation of their memory and for the inspiration
of this generation and of generations still unborn 1. This was meant to
bury the heroes, patriots and Presidents of the Philippines. With this
regard, it is clear that the Former President Marcos is eligible to be
buried in the Libingan ng mga Bayani, since the title of R.A. No. 289
expressly states that the Presidents of the Philippines are to be interred
in the Libignan ng mga Bayani. The petitioners contention that Marcos
cannot be buried in the Libignan ng mga Bayani due to his corrupt
dictatorship is considered to be a political question, and not a question
of law. It is clear that the court is not a trier of facts. R.A. No. 289 does
not distinguish what type of President should be buried in the Libingan
ng mga Bayani. It does not provide qualifications that shall determine
the eligibility of the Presidents. Ubi lex non distinguit, nec nos
distinguere debemus best describes the response made by the court to
the petitioners. R.A. No. 289 does not distinguish or classify the types
of Presidents that should be buried in the Libingan ng mga Bayani. The
only qualification is that the person should be a former President of the
Philippines, regardless of whether or not the former President has
brought prosperity and progress to the country during his or her term.

In addition to this, the petitioners also contend that burying

Marcos in the Libingan ng mga Bayani violates the principles of human
rights because Marcos is not considered as a hero. It is stipulated in
R.A. 289 that the purpose for the creation of a National Pantheon was
to preserve the memory in order for it to serve as an inspiration to all
generations. The statute did not mention that a President should be
considered as a hero for him or her to be buried in the Libingan ng mga
Bayani. Heroes are allowed to be buried in the Libignan, although, a
former president being a hero is not considered to be a qualification.
According to the Public Attorneys Office (PAO) chief Atty. Persida
Acosta in an interview, she stated that there is a legal basis to allow
the burial of former President Ferdinand Marcos at the Libingan ng mga
Bayani in Taguig2. Acosta stated that the legal basis is R.A. 289, and
even mentioned that the language of the law states that past

1 An Act Providing for the Construction of a National Pantheon for Presidents of the
Philippines, National Heroes and Patriots of the Country, Republic Act No. 289,
Section 1 (1948)
2 Joseph Tristan Roxas, PAO chief: Heros burial for Marcos at Libingan ng Mga Bayani
has legal basis, GMA News, August 24, 2016, available at
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/578770/news/nation/pao-chief-hero-s-burial-
for-marcos-at-libingan-ng-mga-bayani-has-legal-basis last accessed December 23,
2016).
presidents can be buried in the Libingan ng mga Bayani3. In addition,
Acosta also cited Section 1 of R.A. 289, which indicates that past
Presidents can be buried there4. She also indicated the specifics of the
title: Atty. Acosta mentioned that there is a comma just before the
phrase national heroes and patriots5. This means that presidents do
not need to be heroes in order to qualify to be buried in the Libignan
ng mga Bayani.

According to the Court, the name given to the burial site for
national heads and figures is considered to be a misnomer 6. The
petitioners contention that Marcos should not be buried in the
Libignan ng mga Bayani because he is not considered to be a hero is
untenable. It must be remembered that the act of burying Marcos in
the site does not automatically give him the status of a hero 7. In
addition, R.A. 289 does not state that former Presidents who get buried
in the Libignan ng mga Bayani do not confer the status of a hero. The
law simply allows former Presidents to get buried in the site. It is
expressly stated in Section 2 (c) of the statute: To cause to be interred
therein the mortal remains of all Presidents of the Philippines, the
national heroes and patriots8. Index animi sermos est should be the
basis for Section 2 (c) of R.A. 289. Petitioners are not supposed to
interpret and assume that there is a hidden meaning behind the
statute allowing former Presidents to be interned in the Libingan ng
mga Bayani.

On R.A. No. 10368:

This statute is specifically intended to provide reparations for the

victims of Martial Law. These are for those whose rights have been
violated and for those who have lost their lives due to the suppression
of human rights during the Marcos Regime. While it is true that the
statute is intended to reflect on the tragedies that happened during
Martial law through the use of reparations, R.A. No. 10368 does not
expressly state that it disallows the burial of Marcos. R.A. No. 10368
indicates that the Martial Law Regime established by former President
Marcos did result to the violation of human rights, but this has nothing
to do with the issue. It does not contemplate as to whether or not
3 supra. Id.
4 supra. Id.
5 supra. Id.
6 Saturnino C. Ocampo, et al. vs. Heirs of Marcos, et al., G.R. No. 225973, (SC 2016).
7 supra. Id.
8 An Act Providing for the Construction of a National Pantheon for Presidents of the
Philippines, National Heroes and Patriots of the Country, Republic Act No. 289,
Section 1 (1948)
Marcos qualifies to be buried in the Libingan ng mga Bayani. R.A.
10368 focuses on the reparations being given to those who have been
greatly affected by Martial Law, and not on the interment of the
remains of the former President. As it has been stated in the Supreme
Court decision, using R.A. No. 10368 to determine the interment of the
former President is violative of the Courts action because the scope of
R.A. 10368 is limited to the reparations for the victims of Martial Law.
The statement of the Court regarding the scope and limit of R.A. No.
10368 are as follows:

This Court cannot subscribe to petitioners logic that the beneficial

provisions of R.A. No. 10368 are not exclusive as it includes the
prohibition on Marcos burial at the LNMB. It would be undue to
extend the law beyond what it actually contemplates. With its
victim-oriented perspective, our legislators could have easily
inserted a provision specifically proscribing Marcos interment
at the LNMB as areparation for the HRVVs, but they did not.
As it is, the law is silent and should remain to be so. This Court
cannot read into the law what is simply not there. It is
irregular, if not unconstitutional, for Us to presume the
legislative will by supplying material details into the law. That
would be tantamount to judicial legislation 9 (emphasis added).

In addition to this, the petitioners contention and use of R.A. 10368 to

establish the point that it shall affect the victims of Martial Law is
untenable. It is stated in the Supreme Court decision that the
enforcement of the HRVVs rights under R.A. No. 10368 will surely not
be impaired by the interment of Marcos at the LNMB 10. The issue
regarding the interment of Marcos has no causal connection and legal
relation to the law11. The decision given the by Supreme Court assures
the petitioners that the internment will not interfere with the benefits
and entitlements provided by the statute12.

In general, ratio legis est anima legis best describes the use of R.A.
10368 in relation to the internment of Marcos in the Libingan ng mga
Bayani. R.A. 10368 does not change or even amend the nature of the
Administrative or AFP Regulations G 161-37513. During the oral
arguments of the Office of the Solicitor General who represents in
behalf of the government, that the said AFP Regulations have nothing

9Saturnino C. Ocampo, et al. vs. Heirs of Marcos, et al., G.R. No. 225973, (SC 2016).
10 supra. Id.
11 supra. Id.
12 supra. Id.
13 supra. Id.
to do with R.A. No. 289 and are separate and distinct from one
another14. It has been mentioned by Jose Calida, the current Solicitor
General of the Philippines, that the reparations are being appropriated
from Congress. According to the Solicitor General, R.A. 289 has no
connection with AFP Regulations G 161-375, and it is a violation to
stretch the limitation and scope of the law. Therefore, R.A. 289 does
not modify the said AFP Regulations15.

On International Human Rights Laws:

It has been argued by the petitioners that the interment of

Marcos in the Libignan ng mga Bayani will not give the victims of the
violation of human rights the full and effective reparation, which is
provided under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR), the Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy
and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human
Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law,
and the Updated Set of Principles for the Protection and Promotion of
Human Rights Through Action to Combat Impunity 16. The Court finds
the argument of the petitioners untenable. Primarily, the principles
established by the United Nations are only used as a basis to create
legislative measures and national programmes. This means that these
principles are used in accordance to the constitutional processes that
the country has17. The Court has also expressed that the Philippines
has sufficiently complied with its international obligations 18, because
ever since the People Power Revolution on February 25 1986, the three
branches of government have established their share on working
towards fulfilling international obligations 19. The Court stated that while
the country has already established the laws in compliance with
international duties, the lessons learned in Martial Law and the events
that happened will always be engraved in Philippine history 20. The
internment of Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani does not
constitute a revision of the nations history21.

14 Jose Callangan Calida, Solicitor General of the Philippines, The Solicitor Generals
Opening Statement During the Supreme Court Oral Arguments on the Marcos Burial
Cases, (December 24, 2016).
15 supra. Id.
16 Saturnino C. Ocampo, et al. vs. Heirs of Marcos, et al., G.R. No. 225973, (SC
2016).
17 supra. Id.
18 supra. Id.
19 supra. Id.
20 supra. Id.
21 supra. Id.
 One of the legislative measures that have been created in order
to establish the reparations of the Martial Law victims was R.A. No.
10368 entitled Human Rights Victims Reparation and Recognition Act
of 2013. Section 2 of the said Republic Act is an indication that the law
has been passed in order to comply with the constitutional requirement
vested under Section 11 of Article II of the 1987 Constitution 22. In
addition to this, it is also expressly stated that the creation of the said
law is due to the nations compliance with the generally accepted
principles of international law, as stipulated in Section 2 of Article II of
the 1987 Constitution23. This therefore includes all of the principles of
the United Nations pertaining to human rights:

By virtue of Section 2 of Article II of the Constitution adopting

generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of
the land, the Philippines adheres to international human rights
laws and conventions, the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, including the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention Against Torture
(CAT) and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment which imposes on each State party the obligation
to enact domestic legislation to give effect to the rights
recognized by therein and to ensure that any person whose
rights or freedoms have been violated shall have an effective
remedy, even if the violation is committed by persons acting in
an official capactiy24 (emphasis added).

In addition to this, R.A. 10368 is also in compliance with Basic

Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for
Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and
Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law. This resolution
coming from the United Nations obliges countries to adopt the
stipulated basic principles and guidelines, in order to ensure respect
for human rights law and the international humanitarian law 25. It is
stipulated in the resolution that in order for a country to expressly
prove that they are complying with the remedy, it should emanate
from: (a) Treaties to which a State is a party; (b) Customary

22 An Act Providing for the Reparation and Recognition of Victims of Human Rights
Violations during the Marcos Regime, Documentation of said Violations, Appropriating
Funds Therefor and for Other Purposes, Republic Act No. 10368, Section 2 (2012)
23 supra. Id.
24 supra. Id.
25 Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for
Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations
of International Humanitarian Law, G.A. Res. 60/147, Art. 1, U.N. Doc. Res. 60/147
(Dec. 16, 2005).
international law; (c) The domestic law of each State 26. With this in
mind, R.A. No. 10368 is considered to be the domestic law that
recognizes and adopts the U.N Resolution. Also, it is also mentioned in
Article II number 3 of the Resolution, that the scope of the obligation
expressly states that the national government should implement a
remedy through a law: (a) take appropriate legislative and
administrative and other appropriate measures to prevent violations27.

R.A. No. 10368 also complies with the scope and obligation
provided by the resolution, which states that there should be a law or
an act that shall investigate violations in an effective manner and take
action against those who are responsible in accordance with domestic
and international law28. In R.A. No. 10368, Chapter II of the law has a
Human Rights Victims Claims Board, which comprises of a total of nine
members29 that shall investigate and evaluate the applications for the
Act, and shall ensure that the victims of Martial Law shall receive their
proper claims30. Overall, the national government of the Philippines has
complied with the requirements stipulated under the said U.N.
Resolution. The interment of Marcos in the Libingan ng mga Bayani
does not affect the rights of the Martial Law victims and their claim to
their reparation.

Lastly, this is also supported by the statement made by the Solicitor

General of the Philippines. In his fourth point, the Solicitor General
expressly stated that the interment of Marcos at the Libingan is not
violative of International Laws and norms because the State has
already enacted and made available the required legislations and
judicial remedies31:

. . . the State has already complied with the pertinent

international laws and norm through the enactment and availability of
legislations and judicial remedies, including, but not limited to, the

26 supra. Id.
27 Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for
Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations
of International Humanitarian Law, G.A. Res. 60/147, Art. 2, U.N. Doc. Res. 60/147
(Dec. 16, 2005).
28 supra. Id.
29 An Act Providing for the Reparation and Recognition of Victims of Human Rights
Violations during the Marcos Regime, Documentation of said Violations, Appropriating
Funds Therefor and for Other Purposes, Republic Act No. 10368, Section 8 (2012)
30 An Act Providing for the Reparation and Recognition of Victims of Human Rights
Violations during the Marcos Regime, Documentation of said Violations, Appropriating
Funds Therefor and for Other Purposes, Republic Act No. 10368, Section 10 (2012)
31 Jose Callangan Calida, Solicitor General of the Philippines, The Solicitor Generals
Opening Statement During the Supreme Court Oral Arguments on the Marcos Burial
Cases, (December 24, 2016).
 following: 1.) R.A. No. 9851 (Philippine Act on Crimes Against
International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes
Against Humanity); 2.) R.A. No. 10353 (Philippine Act on
Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and
Other Crimes Against Humanity); 3.) R.A. No. 9745 (Anti-
Torture Act of 2009); 4.) R.A. No. 9201, (National Human Rights
Consciousness Week of 2002); and 5.) R.A. No. 10368 (Human
Rights Victims Reparation and Recognition Act of 2013); and
6.) Writ of Habeas Corpus and the Writ of Amparo32(emphasis
added).

The Executive and Legislative has passed various statutes in

great consideration of international human rights and social justice. As
opposed to the petitioners contention, a single act done by President
Duterte in allowing the interment of Marcos at the LNMB will not
changed our nations history. The pain and suffering experienced by
the people who were alive during Martial Law is carved within their
memories. 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 endeavour of every freedom-
loving citizen of this country33.

32 supra. Id.
33 Ocampo vs. Enriquez, G.R. No. 225973, November 8, 2016, at 28, available at
http://jlp-law.com/blog/ferdinand-marcos-burial-case-supreme-court-decision-in-
ocampo-et-al-vs-enriquez-g-r-nos-225973-full-text/ (last access December 20, 2016)