Ocampo v. Enriquez G.R. No.

225973
Facts:

On 7 August 2016, respondent Secretary of National Defense Delfin N. Lorenzana issued a

Memorandum to respondent Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) General Ricardo
R. Visaya to implement the verbal command of President Duterte to initiate the steps for the burial of
Marcos at the LNMB.The day after, respondent AFP Rear Admiral Ernesto C. Enriquez issued a directive
to the Philippine Army Commanding General to, among others, provide Marcos with military honors
accorded to a President. Eight petitions were filed in reaction to these issuances.

ISSUE:

Whether President Duterte’s determination to have Marcos’ remains buried in the LNMB posed a
justiciable controversy, and, whether the President acted with grave abuse of discretion.

RULING:

The Court, voting 9-5-1, dismissed the petitions. Speaking through Justice Diosdado M. Peralta, the
Court ruled, to wit —

“The Court agrees with the [Office of the Solicitor General] that President Duterte’s decision to have the
remains of Marcos interred at the LNMB involves a political question that is not a justiciable
controversy. In the exercise of his powers under the Constitution and the Executive Order (E.O.) No.
29239 (otherwise known as the Administrative Code of 1987) to allow the interment of Marcos at the
LNMB, which is a land of the public domain devoted for national military cemetery and military shrine
purposes, President Duterte decided a question of policy based on his wisdom that it shall promote
national healing and forgiveness. There being no taint of grave abuse in the exercise of such discretion,
as discussed below, President Duterte’s decision on that political question is outside the ambit of judicial
review. Furthermore, the Court concluded —

In sum, there is no clear constitutional or legal basis to hold that there was a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction which would justify the Court to interpose its authority to
check and override an act entrusted to the judgment of another branch. Truly, the President’s discretion
is not totally unfettered. ‘Discretion is not a freespirited stallion that runs and roams wherever it pleases
but is reined in to keep it from straying. In its classic formulation, ‘discretion is not unconfined and
vagrant’ but ‘canalized within banks that keep it from overflowing.’’ At bar, President Duterte, through
the public respondents, acted within the bounds of the law and jurisprudence. Notwithstanding the call
of human rights advocates, the Court must uphold what is legal and just [—] [a]nd that is not to deny
Marcos of his rightful place at the LNMB. For even the [f]ramers of our Constitution intend that full
respect for human rights is available at any stage of a person’s development, from the time he or she
becomes a person to the time he or she leaves this earth.