G.R. No. 225973 - Separate Opinion

G.R. No. 225973, November 8, 2016,
♦ Decision, Peralta, [J]
♦ Dissenting Opinion, Sereno, [CJ]
♦ Dissenting Opinion, Carpio, [J]
♦ Dissenting Opinion, Leonen, [J]
♦ Dissenting Opinion, Caguioa, [J]
♦ Concurring Opinion, Bersamin, [J]
♦ Separate Concurring Opinion, Brion, [J]
♦ Separate Opinion, Perez, [J]
♦ Separate Opinion, Mendoza, [J]

SATURNINO C. OCAMPO, TRINIDAD H. REPUNO, BIENVENIDO LUMBERA, BONIFACIO P. ILAGAN, NERI JAVIER COLMENARES, MARIA CAROLINA P. ARAULLO, M.D., SAMAHAN NG EXDETAINEES LABAN SA DETENSYON AT ARESTO (SELDA), REPRESENTED BY DIONITO CABILLAS, CARMENCITA M. FLORENTINO, RODOLFO DEL ROSARIO, FELIX C. DALISAY, AND DANILO M. DELAFUENTE,* PETITIONERS, VS. REAR ADMIRAL ERNESTO C. ENRIQUEZ (IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR RESERVIST AND RETIREE AFFAIRS, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES), THE GRAVE SERVICES UNIT (PHILIPPINE ARMY), AND GENERAL RICARDO R. VISAYA (IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES), DEFENSE SECRETARY DELFIN LORENZANA, AND HEIRS OF FERDINAND E. MARCOS, REPRESENTED BY HIS SURVIVING SPOUSE IMELDA ROMUALDEZ MARCOS, RESPONDENTS.

RENE A.V. SAGUISAG, SR., RENE A.Q. SAGUISAG, JR., RENE A.C. SAGUISAG III, INTERVENORS.

REP. EDCEL C. LAGMAN, IN HIS PERSONAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AND AS A MEMBER OF CONGRESS AND AS THE HONORARY CHAIRPERSON OF THE FAMILIES OF VICTIMS OF INVOLUNTARY DISAPPEARANCE (FIND); FAMILIES OF VICTIMS OF INVOLUNTARY DISAPPEARANCE (FIND), REPRESENTED BY ITS COCHAIRPERSON, NILDA L. SEVILLA; REP. TEDDY BRAWNER BAGUILAT, JR.; REP. TOMASITO S. VILLARIN; REP. EDGAR R. ERICE; AND REP. EMMANUEL A. BILLONES, PETITIONERS, VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA; DEFENSE SECRETARY DELFIN N. LORENZANA; AFP CHIEF OF STAFF LT. GEN. RICARDO R. VISAYA; AFP DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF REAR ADMIRAL ERNESTO C. ENRIQUEZ; AND HEIRS OF FERDINAND E. MARCOS, REPRESENTED BY HIS SURVIVING SPOUSE IMELDA ROMUALDEZ MARCOS, RESPONDENTS.

LORETTA ANN PARGAS-ROSALES, HILDA B. NARCISO, AIDA F. SANTOSMARANAN, JO-ANN Q. MAGLIPON, ZENAIDA S. MIQUE, FE B. MANGAHAS, MA. CRISTINA P. BAWAGAN, MILA D. AGUILAR, MINERVA G. GONZALES, MA. CRISTINA V. RODRIGUEZ, LOUIE G. CRISMO, FRANCISCO E. RODRIGO, JR., LIWAYWAY D. ARCE, AND ABDULMARI DE LEON IMAO, JR., PETITIONERS, VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA, DEFENSE SECRETARY DELFIN LORENZANA, AFP DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF REAR ADMIRAL ERNESTO C. ENRIQUEZ, AFP CHIEF OF STAFF LT. GEN. RICARDO R. VISAYA, AND PHILIPPINE VETERANS AFFAIRS OFFICE (PVAO) ADMINISTRATOR LT. GEN. ERNESTO G. CAROLINA (RET.), RESPONDENTS.

HEHERSON T. ALVAREZ, JOEL C. LAMANGAN, FRANCIS X. MANGLAPUS, EDILBERTO C. DE JESUS, BELINDA O. CUNANAN, CECILIA GUIDOTE ALVAREZ, REX DEGRACIA LORES, SR., ARNOLD MARIE NOEL, CARLOS MANUEL, EDMUND S. TAYAO, DANILO P. OLIVARES, NOEL F. TRINIDAD, JESUS DELA FUENTE, REBECCA M. QUIJANO, FR. BENIGNO BELTRAN, SVD, ROBERTO S. VERZOLA, AUGUSTO A. LEGASTO, JR., AND JULIA KRISTINA P. LEGASTO, PETITIONERS, VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA, DEFENSE SECRETARY DELFIN LORENZANA, AFP CHIEF OF STAFF LT. GEN. RICARDO R. VISAYA, AFP DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF REAR ADMIRAL ERNESTO C. ENRIQUEZ, AND PHILIPPINE VETERANS AFFAIRS OFFICE (PVAO) OF THE DND, RESPONDENTS.

ZAIRA PATRICIA B. BANIAGA, JOHN ARVIN BUENAAGUA, JOANNE ROSE SACE LIM, JUAN ANTONIO RAROGAL MAGALANG, PETITIONERS, VS. SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE DELFIN N. LORENZANA, AFP CHIEF OF STAFF RICARDO R. VISAYA, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE PHILIPPINE VETERANS AFFAIRS OFFICE ERNESTO G. CAROLINA, RESPONDENTS.

ALGAMAR A. LATIPH, PETITIONER, VS. SECRETARY DELFIN N. LORENZANA, SUED IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, LT. GEN. RICARDO R. VISAYA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES AND LT. GEN. ERNESTO G. CAROLINA (RET.), IN HIS CAPACITY AS ADMINISTRATOR, PHILIPPINE VETERANS AFFAIRS OFFICE (PVAO), RESPONDENTS.

LEILA M. DE LIMA, IN HER CAPACITY AS SENATOR OF THE REPUBLIC AND AS TAXPAYER, PETITIONER, VS. HON. SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA, DEFENSE SECRETARY DELFIN LORENZANA, AFP CHIEF OF STAFF LT. GEN. RICARDO R. VISAYA, UNDERSECRETARY ERNESTO G. CAROLINA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PHILIPPINE VETERANS AFFAIRS OFFICE (PVAO) ADMINISTRATOR AND B/GEN. RESTITUTO L. AGUILAR, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SHRINE CURATOR AND CHIEF VETERANS MEMORIAL AND HISTORICAL DIVISION AND HEIRS OF FERDINAND EDRALIN MARCOS, RESPONDENTS.

On 25 February 1986, during the snap election term of Ferdinand Marcos Sr., the EDSA People Power Revolution transpired. With US aid, the Former President, together with his family, was forced into exile. On 28 September 1989, he died in Honolulu, Hawaii. Two weeks before his death, the Supreme Court upheld then sitting President Corazon Aquino's firm decision to bar the return of the Marcos family.1 In a statement, President Aquino said:

"In the interest of the safety of those who will take the death of Mr. Marcos in widely and passionately conflicting ways, and for the tranquility of the state and order of society, the remains of Ferdinand E. Marcos will not be allowed to be brought to our country until such time as the government, be it under this administration or the succeeding one, shall otherwise decide."2

Pursuant to a written agreement executed between the Philippine Government, then represented by Former President Fidel V. Ramos, and the Marcos family, the remains of the late strongman was returned to the Philippines on 5 September 1993. The mortal remains of Former President Marcos was allowed to be returned to the Philippines, under the following conditions:

1. The body of President Marcos would be flown straight from Hawaii to Ilocos Norte province without any fanfare;3

2. President Marcos would be given honors befitting a major, his last rank in the AFP;4 and

The Former President was eventually interred in a Mausoleum, with his remains currently kept in a refrigerated crypt in Batac, Ilocos Norte.

During his campaign for president in the 2016 national elections, candidate Rodrigo R. Duterte publicly declared that he will cause the burial of the former President in the Libingan ng mga Bayani (LNMB). After his election as president, President Rodrigo R. Duterte ordered the implementation of his campaign declaration. On 11 July 2016, President Duterte verbally directed Marcos' burial in the LNMB. In compliance with the verbal order, Secretary of National Defense Delfin N. Lorenzana issued a Memorandum dated 7 August 2016, addressed to General Ricardo R. Visaya, Chief of Staff of the AFP, directing him to "undertake the necessary planning and preparations to facilitate the coordination of all agencies concerned specially the provisions for ceremonial and security requirements"6 and to "coordinate closely with the Marcos family regarding the date of interment and the ransport of the late former President's remains from Ilocos Norte to the LNMB."7 Conforming to the 7 August 2016 Memorandum, AFP Chief of Staff General Visaya instructed Deputy Chief of Staff for Reservist and Retiree Affairs Rear Admiral Ernesto C. Enriquez to issue a directive addressed to the Philippine Army.8 According to the 9 August 2016 Directive, the Army is required to provide vigil, bugler/drummer, firing party, military host/pallbearers, escort and transportation, and arrival and departure honors.9

Five different petitions, praying for a Temporary Restraining Order to restrain respondents from proceeding with the burial were filed and consolidated. Petitioners likewise sought the nullification of the 7 August 2016 Memorandum and the 9 August 2016 Directive, and a permanent prohibition from allowing the interment of the remains of Former President Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani.

The first petition (Ocampo petition) was filed on 15 August 2016 by Saturnino C. Ocampo, Trinidad G. Repuno, Bienvenido Lumbera, Bonifacio P. Hagan, Neri Javier Colmenares, Maria Carolina P. Araullo, all of whom alleged that they were human rights violations victims and members of the class suit in the human rights litigation against the Estate of Ferdinand Marcos in MDL No. 840, CA No. 88-0390 in the US Federal District Court of Honolulu, Hawaii. The Samahan ng Ex-Detainees Laban sa Detensyon at Aresto (SELDA), an organization of political prisoners and former political detainees in the country, also took part in the petition.

The second petition (Lagman petition) was also filed on 15 August 2016 by Rep. Edcel C. Lagman, Rep. Teddy Brawner Baguilat, Jr., Rep. Tomasito S. Villarin, Rep. Edgar R. Erice, Rep. Emmanuel A. Billones, and the Families of Victims of Involuntary Disappearance (FIND). The incumbent members of the House of Representatives sued as legislators with duties including the protection of appropriated funds from being misused for void, illegal and improvident activities.

The third petition (Rosales petition) was filed on 19 August 2016 by the former chairperson of the Commission on Human Rights, Loretta Ann Paragas-Rosales; Hilda B. Narciso; Aida F. Santos-Maranan; Jo-Ann Q. Maglipon; Zenaida S. Mique; Fe B. Mangahas; Ma. Cristina P. Bawagan; Mila D. Aguilar; Minerva G. Gonzales; Ma. Cristina V. Rodriguez; Francisco E. Rodrigo, Jr.; Louie G. Crismo; Abdulmari De Leon Imao, Jr.; and Liwayway D. Arce. All the petitioners sued as victims of allegedly State sanctioned human rights violations during Martial Law.

The fourth petition (Alvarez petition) was filed on 22 August 2016 by Former Senator Heherson T. Alvarez; Joel C. Lamangan, a martial law victim; Francis X. Manglapus; Edilberto C. De Jesus; Belinda O. Cunanan; Cecilia G. Alvarez; Rex De Garcia Lores; Arnold Marie Noel Sr.; Carlos Manuel; Edmund S. Tayao; Danilo P. Olivares; Noel F. Trinidad; Jesus Dela Fuente; Rebecca M. Quijano; Fr. Benigno Beltran, SVD; Roberto S. Verzola; Augusto A. Legasto, Jr.; Julia Kristina P. Legasto, all of whom came to court Filipino citizens and tax payers.

The fifth petition (Baniaga petition) was filed on 22 August 2016 by Zaira Patricia B. Baniaga, John Arvin Buenaagua, Joanne Rose Sace Lim, and Juan Antonio, also as Filipino citizens and taxpayers.

The Respondents are Honorable Salvador C. Medialdea, in his capacity as the Executive Secretary of the Republic of the Philippines; Honorable Delfin N. Lorenzana, in his capacity as the Secretary of the Department of National Defense; General Ricardo R. Visaya, in his capacity as Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines; Rear Admiral Ernesto C. Enriquez, in his capacity as Deputy Chief of Staff for Reservist and Retiree Affairs of the Armed Forces of the Philippines; Lt. Gen. Ernesto G. Carolina (Ret.), in his capacity as Administrator of the Philippine Veterans Affairs Office (PVAO); and the heirs of Marcos.

All the contentions espoused by the five petitions pivot around the alleged grave abuse of discretion committed by public respondents when they allowed the burial of the remains of the Former President Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani.1aшphi1

All the petitioners argue that the Memorandum and Directive for the burial mock and are in contravention of Republic Act No. 289 (An Act Providing for the Construction of a National Pantheon for Presidents of the Philippines, National Heroes and Patriots of the Country), which petitioners argue created the Libingan ng mga Bayani. They cite Section 1 of the statute that the purpose of the construction of the National Pantheon is "to perpetuate the memory of all presidents of the Philippines, national heroes and patriots for the inspiration and emulation of this generation and of generations still unborn."10 The petitioners contend that the Former President's transgressions against the Filipino people hardly make him an inspiration and do not make him worthy of emulation by this generation and the next.11 The petitioners further aver that the public respondents had no authority to allow the burial, considering that only members of the Board of the National Pantheon may cause to be interred therein the mortal remains of all presidents, national heroes, and patriots.12 The Board is composed of the Secretary of Interior, Secretary of Public Works and Communications, and the Secretary of Education, and two private citizens to be appointed by the President of the Philippines with the consent of the Commission on Appointments.13

Petitioners who took part in the Ocampo, Lagman and Rosales petitions maintain that the Memorandum and the Directive are inconsistent with Republic Act No. 10368 (Human Rights Victims Reparation and Recognition Act of 2013), a law which serves as an indubitable validation by the Legislative and Executive departments of the widespread human rights violations attributable to the late President Marcos under his martial law regime.14 In their petitions, great weight is attributed to Section 2 of the law, which reads:

"x x x [I]t is hereby declared the policy of the State to recognize the heroism and sacrifices of all Filipinos who were victims of summary execution, torture, enforced or involuntary disappearance and other gross human rights violations committed during the regime of former President Ferdinand E. Marcos covering the period from September 21, 1972 to February 25, 1986 and restore the victims' honor and dignity. The State hereby acknowledges its moral and legal obligation to recognize and/or provide reparation to said victims and/or their families for the deaths, injuries, sufferings, deprivations and damages they suffered under the Marcos regime."15

Thus, for petitioners, allowing the burial is inconsistent with the declared policy of the State. The Lagman Petition in particular, espouses the view that R.A. No. 10368 amended the burial requirements and entitlements issued by the Armed Forces of the Philippines respecting the Libingan ng mga Bayani by excluding the Former President from being interred therein.16 Similarly, those who took part in the Ocampo and the Lagman petitions assert that a hero's burial at the Libingan ng mga Bayani for the Former President is contrary to public policy, premised on the fact that he committed crimes involving moral turpitude against the Filipino People.17

The Ocampo, Rosales, and Alvarez petitions attack the constitutionality of the Memorandum and Directive. Petitioners therein contend that a burial at the Libingan ng mga Bayani will amount to a denial of the history of authoritarian rule and a condonation of the abuses committed by the Marcos Regime.18 For those who took part in the Rosales petition, burying the Former President at the Libingan ng mga Bayani, a place supposedly for heroes and patriots, is to desecrate the raison d'etre of the 1987 Constitution.19 That the burial of the Former President at the Libingan ng Bayan runs counter to judicial pronouncements is another argument raised in the Rosales and the Lagman petitions. In support of such argument, judicial decisions of the Philippine Supreme Court, as well as foreign courts, which established the culpability of Former President Marcos for human rights atrocities and plunder were cited.20

The Baniaga and the Alvarez petitions advance a related argument, with petitioners therein maintaining that the Memorandum and Directive are violative of the Faithful Execution Clause of the 1987 Constitution.21 Citing Article VII Section 17 of the Constitution, petitioners argue that President Duterte, acting through his alter ego, respondent Sec. Lorenzana, would not be faithfully executing R.A. No. 10368 and R.A. No. 289 by burying Former President Marcos in the Libingan ng mga Bayani.22 The Baniaga petition likewise argues that the Memorandum and Directive violate the equal protection guaranteed by the Constitution,23 given that the Former President is in a different class from the other Presidents already buried in the Libingan ng mga Bayani.

Tackling the issue from a broader perspective, the parties who took part in the Rosales petition maintain that a burial at the Libingan ng mga Bayani violates the international duties of the Philippines to combat impunity and to guarantee non-repetition of violations of international human rights law.24 Petitioners insist that allowing the burial could potentially hinder and violate human rights victims' remedies and could lead to a distortion of the findings of previous authorities thus, creating an injustice to the victims rightly afforded a remedy from the Former President's actions.25 For the petitioners, such injustice would put the Philippines in violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, specifically Section 2 thereof, viz:

At the core of all the controversy is AFP Regulation G 161-373: Allocation of Cemetery Plots at the LNMB, as amended by AFP Regulation G 161-375. The regulation was issued on 9 April 1986 by then AFP Chief of Staff Fidel V. Ramos and then President Corazon Aquino. The said Regulation provides that the following deceased persons are qualified to be interred in the Libingan ng mga Bayani:

In the same vein, the regulation disallows the interment in the Libingan ng mga Bayani of the following:

1. Personnel who were dishonorably separated, reverted, and/or discharged from the service

2. Authorized personnel who were convicted by final judgment of an offense involving moral turpitude

Petitioners who took part in the Ocampo, Rosales, and Baniaga petitions submit that notwithstanding the fact that Ferdinand E. Marcos was a Former President, he is disqualified from being buried in the Libingan ng mga Bayani because he falls under the category of "personnel who were dishonorably separated or discharged from the service".26 Therein petitioners emphasize that the Former President was deposed and removed from the presidency because of the atrocities he committed during his tenure. Insisting that such facts are matters of judicial notice, petitioners maintain that such removal through revolution is tantamount to being dishonorably separated or discharged from the service, thereby effectively disqualifying him from being buried at the Libingan ng mga Bayani. Alternatively, the Ocampo petition attacks the legality and constitutionality of the AFP Regulation. Petitioners therein submit that the AFP Regulation unduly expands the parameters of R.A. No. 289 by allowing one unworthy to be considered an inspiration and unworthy of emulation by generations to be buried at the Libingan ng mga Bayani.27

Finally, for those who took part in the Ocampo, Lagman, and Rosales petitions, even if it be conceded that Former President Marcos is qualified under the law and the AFP Regulation, whatever benefits and courtesies due him have already been waived and contracted away by the Marcos family when they agreed to bury him in Batac, Ilocos Norte pursuant to their agreement with then President Fidel V. Ramos. It was likewise submitted that the 1993 Agreement should be treated as a compromise agreement that was voluntarily entered into by the Philippine Government and the Marcos family, making it the law between the parties.28 Stated otherwise, petitioners contend that respondents are bound to observe the terms of the Agreement as it is a binding contract between the parties. Petitioners insist that the High Court should take judicial notice of such Agreement as it was an official act of the Executive Department.29 Moreover, it is averred that an abandonment of the Agreement, a reboot of the entire process, by allowing the burial at the Libingan ng mga Bayani is tantamount to reliving the terror and horrors of the victims.30

I join the opinion to dismiss the consolidated petitions for the issuance in their favor and against the respondents, of the special writ of certiorari. President Rodrigo R. Duterte did not gravely abuse his discretion, was neither whimsical nor capricious when upon assumption of the office to which he was elected he forthwith proceeded to implement his election promise to have the remains of the late President Ferdinand E. Marcos buried in the Libingan ng mga Bayani.

This position is fixed and firmed by the ongms of the petitions so impressively presented in the petition itself in G.R. No. 225973:

"10. During the campaign period for the 2016 Presidential Elections then candidate Rodrigo Duterte publicly announced that he will allow the burial of former President Ferdinand Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani. He reiterated this public pronouncement when he became president without giving details on how this will be implemented, leaving the Marcoses to process the same with the proper authorities.

"11. These pronouncements were met with opposition by various sectors including victims or relatives of human rights violations of torture, illegal arrest, arbitrary detention, disappearances and summary executions during martial law. Family members of the thousands who died during martial law also protested these public pronouncements with the hope that the plan will not push through."

As judicial admissions,31 petitioners state as fact that the burial of former President Marcos as the Libingan ng mga Bayani is a matter about which the Filipino public was consulted as a campaign promise of candidate Duterte who, when he became president redeemed the pledge.

Significantly, petitioners further admitted that they, as "the various sectors" participated in the election of options and met with opposition the pronouncements favoring the Libingan as burial of Marcos' remains and protested the public pronouncements of the promisor.

Thus did the petitioners admit that the determination of the issue can be, if not ought to be, left to the will of the people. True to the admission, petitioners sought to forge that will into the shape they hoped for. The petitioners objected against the publicly announced Marcos Libingan burial; they protested the pronouncement. Indeed the issue was made public and was resolved through a most political process, a most appropriate process: the election of the President of the Republic.32 A juxtaposition of two concepts, people and suffrage, show this. In his treatise, as old as it is respected, Dean Vicente Sinco expounds:

The people or the qualified voters elected as president of the Philippines the candidate who made the election pronouncement, objected to by the persons who are now the petitioners, that he will allow the burial of former President Ferdinand Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani.

As things are, it is hardly debatable that, by word and deed, petitioners have accepted that the issue they now, after losing the vote, present before the Court is a political issue, defined over and over again, by variations of phrases that have one meaning:

"... What is generally meant, when it is, said that a question is political, and not judicial, is that it is a matter which, is to be exercised by the people in their primary political capacity, or that it has been specifically delegated to some other department or particular officer of the government, with discretionary power to act. See State vs. Cunningham, 81 Wis. 497, 51 L. R. A. 561; In Re Gunn, 50 Kan. 155; 32 Pac. 470, 948, 19 L. R. A. 519; Green vs. Mills, 69 Fed. 852, 16, C. C. A. 516, 30 L. R. A. 90; Fletcher vs. Tuttle, 151 Ill. 41, 37N. E. 683,25 L. R. A. 143,42 Am. St. Rep. 220. Thus the Legislature may in its discretion determine whether it will pass a law or submit a proposed constitutional amendment to the people. The courts have no judicial control over such matters, not merely because they involve political question, but because they are matters which the people have by the Constitution delegated to the Legislature. The Governor may exercise the powers delegated to him, free from judicial control, so long as he observes the laws and acts within the limits of the power conferred. His discretionary acts cannot be controllable, not primarily because they are of a political nature, but because the Constitution and laws have placed the particular matter under his control. But every officer under a constitutional government must act according to law and subject him to the restraining and controlling power of the people, acting through the courts, as well as through the executive or the Legislature. One department is just as representative as the other, and the judiciary is the department which is charged with the special duty of determining the limitations which the law places upon all official action. The recognition of this principle, unknown except in Great Britain and America, is necessary, to the end that the government may be one of laws and not men'-words which Webster said were the greatest contained in any written constitutional document." (pp. 411, 417; emphasis supplied.).

In short, the term "political question" connotes, in legal parlance, what it means in ordinary parlance, namely, a question of policy. In other words, in the language of Corpus Juris Secundum (supra), it refers to "those questions which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the Legislature or executive branch of the Government." It is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality, of a particular measure.35

There were ripostes. They were feeble though; and, notably they concern not the political nature of the issue but rather the indications of the electoral response.

There was reference to the nitpicked significance of "majority" in the definition of "people" the argument being that the 16,601,997 votes in favor of the promising candidate is not the majority of the total number of those who voted for the position. What makes the observation specious is the fact that it was only candidate Duterte who made the serious and specific promise of a Libingan burial for Marcos. The other four candidates for president were unclear about their preference. The votes for the four cannot be definitely counted as against the burial.

Referring to the variety of the electoral issues, there were those who submit that not all those who voted for Duterte did so because they favored the burial of Marcos at the Libingan. It is contended that the votes for Duterte were determined by items in his platform other than the burial issue. That may be plausible; but what cannot be questioned is that Duterte did not lose because of his burial pronouncement.

It was urged that the Libingan allowance was not a commitment to the nation, not a principled promise, a mere propaganda pitch. Thus, was the issue sought to be reduced as a promise made to be broken, treacherous trap for undiscerning electors. That the allegations are unfounded is clearly shown by the prefatory phrase in the memorandum36 of respondent Secretary of National Defense Delfin N. Lorenzana to respondent Gen. Ricardo R. Visaya, AFP:

The Marcos internment at Libingan, borrowing the petitioners' words, was a principled commitment which President Duterte firmly believed was so when he offered it to the Filipino voters whom he considered capable of intelligent choice such that upon election he had to "implement his election promise." That, precisely, resulted in the filing of the consolidated petitions before the Court.

Quite obviously, the petitions were submitted because the petitioners did not prevail in the political exercise that was the National Elections of 2016. Right away, we have the reason why the petitions should be dismissed. The petitions with premises and prayer no different from those that were publicly debated, for or against, between and among the people including petitioners themselves proceeding to a conclusion unacceptable to them, cannot be pursued in lieu of the failed public submission.

Adamant in their position, petitioners nonetheless went to Court with their cause now in legal clothing. Still, petitioners cannot thereby bring the matter within the adjudication of the Court.

There was heavy reference to R.A. No. 10368, titled "An Act Providing for Reparation and Recognition of Victims of Human Rights Violations during the Marcos Regime, Documentations of Said Violations, Appropriating Funds Therefor And For Other Purposes." Notably, the petitioners, as they described themselves, are the same persons for whose favor the statute was enacted; the reasons they mention in their petition consisting of the provisions of the Constitution and of the international agreement are the same reasons mentioned in Section 2 of the statute in the "Declaration Policy." Quite specifically the statute defines "Human Rights Violation" as any act or omission committed during the period from September 21, 1972 to February 25, 1986 carried out pursuant to the declaration of Martial Law by former President Ferdinand E. Marcos including warrantless arrest, ASSO, PCO, PDA, torture, killing, involuntary disappearances, illegal takeover of business, confiscation of property, sexual offenses and "analogous" abuses. And, it is provided that Human Rights Violations Victim (HRVV) refers to a person whose human rights were violated by persons acting in an official capacity and to qualify for reparations "the human rights violation must have been committed during the period from September 21, 1972 to February 25, 1986".

Clearly, as proclaimed human rights victims, they squarely fall under the definition of R.A. No.10368. For the same reasons and basis that they are now before this Court, petitioners have already, by the proper political body, been given the recognition and reparation due them, in specific, direct and detailed provisions that even include the creation of a Human Rights Victims' Claims Board to implement the recognition and reparation granted to them by statute.

R.A. No. 10368 is a complete law. It has defined their rights, not just for reparation for damages suffered as HRV's but also they will have by the law their names enshrined in a Roll of Human Rights Victims. A Memorial/Museum/Library shall be established in their Honor. A compendum of their sacrifice shall be prepared and be readily viewed in the internet. There will even be a Human Rights Violations Victims' Memorial Commission. The definition of what their rights are limits any further inclusions except, perhaps, through the same legislative action. There too is significance in the "sunset clause" of the law which states that the Human Rights Victims' Claims Board shall complete its work within two years from the effectivity of the IRR promulgated by it, after which it shall become functus officio. By its concrete and definite terms, R.A. No. 10368 is a completed exercise of legislative wisdom. The Court cannot allow the collected petitions at bar to interfere with that wisdom.

The urgings for judicial action inspite of the limits of R.A. No. 10368 can be gleaned from the presentation by petitioners during the oral arguments. They testified on the details of their suffering during the term of President Ferdinand E. Marcos and pleaded that the burial of Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani would "retraumatize" them. They supported the claim and prayer with the submission that their suffering accompanied by the other commission of Marcos, was a national experience that became sovereign contempt culminating in a revolt against Marcos and eventually the "constitutionalization" of both sin and sinner. Hence, the prayer that the allowance of the burial at the Libingan ng mga Bayani of the constitutionalized offender is in grave abuse of discretion.

Relative to the petitioners' prayer, an explanation was made by the Solicitor General:

Whether the policy of healing and reconciliation "over and above the pain and suffering of the human rights victims" is in grave abuse of executive discretion or not is answered by the evidently substantial Marcos vote during the fresh and immediately preceding national elections of 2016. The election result is a showing that, while there may have once been, there is no longer a national damnation of President Ferdinand E. Marcos; that the "constitutionalization" of the sin and its personification is no longer of national acceptance. A Marcos vote came out of the elections, substantial enough to be a legitimate consideration in the executive policy formulation. To go back, a Libingan Burial for Marcos was a promise made by President Duterte, which promise was opposed by petitioners, inspite of which opposition, candidate Duterte was elected President.

All in all, the redemp ion of an election pledge and the policy which has basis in the result of the election, cannot be tainted with grave abuse of discretion. As things are the issue presented by the petitioners should not even be touched by the Court since it is a political question already resolved politically.