SATURNINO C. OCAMPO V REAR ADMIRAL ERNESTO C.

ENRIQUEZ
G.R. NO. 225973
AUGUST 8, 2017
FACTS:
The court dismissed the petitions challenging the intended burial of the mortal remains of
Ferdinand E. Marcos, former President of the Philippines at the Libingan ng Mga Bayani. Ten
days after the promulgation of the judgment and prior to the filing of petitioners’ separate
motions for reconsideration, Marcos’ was finally laid to rest at the Libingan ng Mga Bayani.
Motions for reconsideration and petition for the exhumation of Marcos’ remains at the Libingan
ng Mga Bayani were filed.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Court has the duty to review decisions that were formerly considered
political questions in order to determine whether there is a grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of a public officer.
RULING:
There is no merit in petitioners’ contention that the issue of whether public respondents
committed grave abuse of discretion is a question of law that the Court has to resolve. The issue
of allowing Marcos’ burial at the Libingan ng Mga Bayani involves a truly political question
which is within the full discretionary authority and wisdom of the President to decide. There is
no constitutionally imposed limits on the power or functions conferred upon him, much less
grave abuse of discretion in the exercise thereof. Similarly, public respondents cannot be faulted
for issuing the intermittent directive in their official capacities pursuant to the President’s verbal
order and to a valid and binding administrative regulation.
 JESULITO A. MANALO V PEDRO G. SISTOZA
G.R. NO. 107369
AUGUST 11, 1999
FACTS:
On March 10, 1992, fifteen respondent police officers were appointed to the positions in
the Philippine National Police with the rank of Chief Superintendent to Director 2. These
appointments were not submitted to the Commission on Appointments for confirmation but were
issued by the President. The said police officers took their oath and assumed their respective
positions. Thereafter, the Department of Budget and Management authorized disbursements for
their salaries and other emoluments. On October 21, 1992, petitioner assailed the legality of the
subject appointments and disbursements.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent officers acted without or in excess of their jurisdiction or
with grave abuse of discretion in assuming their offices and discharging their functions despite
their invalid appointments.
RULING:
The respondent officers did not act without or in excess of their jurisdiction or with grave
abuse of discretion because their appointments were valid and constitutional.
Under the Constitution, the officers of the government that are to be appointed by the
President are the following:
1. Offices of appointments are vested in him in the Constitution
2. All other officers of the government whose appointments are not otherwise provided
for by law
3. Those whom the President may be authorized by law to appoint
4. Officers lower in rank whose appointments are by Congress may by law vest in the
President alone
The petitioner’s argument that the Philippine National Police is under the first category
being the same with the Armed Forces of the Philippines, whose appointments require
confirmation by the Commission on Appointments, is not valid, since the police force is civilian
in character and that no element of the police force shall be military nor shall any position
thereof be occupied by active members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines.
Thereunder, the police force is different from and independent of the armed forces and
the ranks in the military are not similar to those in the Philippine National Police. Thus, the
respondent police officers, do not fall under the first category of presidential appointees requiring
the confirmation by the Commission on Appointments.