G.R. No. 225973 - Dissenting 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.

". . . They tore my dress and then eventually they let me lay down to sleep but then early in the morning the two soldiers who stayed near me started torturing me again and by today's definition, it is rape because they fondled my breast and they inserted a long object into my vagina and although I screamed and screamed with all my might, no one seemed to hear except that I heard the train pass by . . ."

- Ma. Cristina Pargas Bawagan, Petitioner and Human Rights Victim of the Marcos Regime

"My mother is still alive but she was also ... she also undergone ... she underwent torture and sexual abuse and I hope my sister is not listening right now because she does not know this."

Under our constitutional order, Presidents, unlike kings, earn their honors. As Presidents are public servants, their position in itself should not be the basis to glorify them. Neither should their place in history be determined by a succeeding President. Only the sovereign Filipino People deserve to determine a President's place in history.

Given the present state of our Constitution, our laws, and our jurisprudence, it is illegal for the remains of Ferdinand E. Marcos to be interred at the Libingan ng mga Bayani. The Filipino People do not deserve such a symbolism.

Former President Ferdinand E. Marcos presided over a regime that caused untold sufferings for millions of Filipinos. Gross violations of human rights were suffered by thousands. The public coffers contributed to by impoverished Filipinos were raided. Ferdinand E. Marcos stood by as his family, associates, and cronies engaged in systematic plunder. The national debt ballooned during his regime.

He was eventually ousted by a public uprising. His regime and the abuses he committed during that time led to a complete rethinking of our constitutional order. The 1987 Constitution embeds most of our experiences during Martial Law. It was a reaction to the failures of governance of Ferdinand E. Marcos and his cohorts.

Ferdinand E. Marcos is no hero. He was not even an exemplary public officer. He is not worthy of emulation and inspiration by those who suffer poverty as a result of the opportunity lost during his administration, by those who continue to suffer the trauma of the violations to the human dignity of their persons and of their families. He is certainly not worthy of emulation and inspiration by those in public service, including the lawyers, judges, and justices who simply want to do what is right, protect others, and conscientiously and diligently protect public funds entrusted to them.

If we are true to the text and spirit of our Constitution and our laws as well as our history, Ferdinand E. Marcos cannot be buried at the Libingan ng mga Bayani. The proposal that he be accorded public honor is contrary to law. It is a betrayal of the Filipino spirit.

Rodrigo Roa Duterte's discretion as President is "not unconfined and vagrant" but always "canalized within banks that keep it from overflowing."1 His alleged verbal orders to cause the interment of the remains of Ferdinand E. Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani were whimsical, capricious, a grave abuse of discretion, and issued only to please a single family. Ferdinand E. Marcos invented most of his medals as a soldier. He was one of our worst Presidents.

National healing cannot simply come when the President pronounces it. It can only come through a process that leads to social justice. Justice requires accountability. Justice does not come with just forgetting. Accountability involves the recognition of the place of the perpetrator and the victim.

The victims of Martial Law, who stood by their principles and spoke to power, who were detained, made to disappear, tortured, killed, molested, and raped, were the heroes. They are the "bayani." By law, they are our heroes.

Ferdinand E. Marcos was the perpetrator. He is not the "bayani." The perpetrator cannot be a hero at the same time that his victims are heroes. This is cruel and illogical. This is impunity. This is an assurance that our People will suffer the same gross violations of human rights and plunder.

Our laws are not illogical. If they are, then they will be the cause of injustice. If our laws are unreasonable, then they will violate the "due process of law." Certainly, this Court cannot be party to an illogical and unreasonable interpretation of the law.

Our laws do not allow the burial of the remains of the perpetrator at the Libingan ng mga Bayani for any or all of the following reasons:

First, the President's verbal orders, which were the basis for the issuance of the questioned orders of public respondents, are invalid because they violate Republic Act No. 289. Republic Act No. 289 was never repealed. The law covers the subject of AFP Regulations No. 161-373 (1986),2 AFP Regulations No. 161-374 (1998),3 and AFP Regulations No. 161-375 (2000) (collectively, AFP Regulations).4 Yet, these AFP Regulations ignore the requirements of Republic Act No. 289. Therefore, the basis of the Memorandum5 of Secretary of National Defense Delfin Lorenzana (Lorenzana Memorandum) and the Directive6 of Rear Admiral Emesto Enriquez (Enriquez Orders) are ultra vires and, therefore, are null, void, and inexistent.

Second, assuming without accepting that AFP Regulations were valid when issued, still President's verbal orders, the Lorenzana Memorandum, and the Enriquez Orders all violate the requirement in Section 1 of Republic Act No. 289 that those buried must have led lives worthy of "inspiration and emulation."

Third, assuming without accepting that the AFP Regulations were valid when issued, public respondents gravely abused their discretion when they failed to show that there was an examination of the sufficiency of the facts that would reasonably lead them to believe that the burial of the remains of Ferdinand E. Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani would be in accordance with Republic Act No. 289 or the various Proclamations that identified the location of the Libingan, considering the findings of the National Historical Commission of the Philippines (National Historical Commission), the provisions of our laws including Republic Act No. 10368, and this Court's jurisprudence.

The President's verbal orders do not provide for a definite and complete reason for transferring the remains of Former President Ferdinand E. Marcos from its originally intended site as shown in the agreement signed by Former Secretary Rafael Alunan III (Former Secretary Alunan) and Imelda Marcos to the Libingan ng mga Bayani. It was whimsical, capricious, and an abuse of discretion, and could have been done only to accommodate the private interest of the Heirs of Marcos.

Fourth, the President's verbal orders, the Lorenzana Memorandum, and the Enriquez Orders were issued with grave abuse of discretion because they violate Republic Act No. 10368, otherwise known as the Human Rights Victims Reparation and Recognition Act of 2013.

Fifth, the President's verbal orders, the Lorenzana Memorandum, and the Enriquez Orders cannot be justified even under the provisions of the Administrative Code of 1987. Given the established circumstances of the Marcos regime and the participation of Ferdinand E. Marcos, there remains no public purpose to the interment of the remains of Ferdinand E. Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani.

Sixth, the actions of public respondents are contrary to the President's oath of office because they encourage impunity. Impunity is the result of rewarding the person who presided over human rights violations and who personally participated in the plunder of the public treasury.

This case resolves Petitions for certiorari,7 prohibition,8 and mandamus:9 (i) questioning the validity of the verbal orders of President Rodrigo Roa Duterte (President Duterte) to bury Ferdinand E. Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani; (ii) seeking to nullify the Memorandum dated August 7, 2016 issued by Secretary of National Defense Delfin Lorenzana (Secretary Lorenzana) and the Directive dated August 9, 2016 of Rear Admiral Emesto Enriquez (Rear Admiral Enriquez) implementing President Duterte's verbal orders; and (iii) praying for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction.1aшphi1

After World War II, the Republic Memorial Cemetery was established in Fort William McKinley10 as a burial place for Filipino soldiers who died during the war.11 On October 23, 1954, Executive Order No. 7712 was issued by Former President Ramon Magsaysay (Former President Magsaysay). The Executive Order directed the remains of all Filipino soldiers who died in the war be removed from their places of burial and transferred to the Republic Memorial Cemetery, since "in the national observance of the occasion honoring the memory of those war dead, it is fitting and proper that their remains be interred in one national cemetery."13

On October 27, 1954, through Proclamation No. 86, Former President Magsaysay renamed the Republic Memorial Cemetery to Libingan ng mga Bayani as the name "Republic Memorial Cemetery ... is not symbolic of the cause for which our soldiers have died, and does not truly express the nation's esteem and reverence for her war dead."14

On May 28, 1967, Former President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Proclamation No. 208, reserving a portion of land in the Fort Bonifacio Military Reservation for national shrine purposes.15

On January 24, 1973, Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Presidential Decree No. 105, declaring national shrines to be hallowed places and punishing their desecration, which included the acts of "disturbing their peace and serenity by digging, excavating, defacing, causing unnecessary noise and committing unbecoming acts within the premises of said National Shrines[.]"16

On April 9, 1986, the Armed Forces of the Philippines issued AFP Regulations No. 161-373,17 which prescribed the allocation of cemetery plots at the Libingan ng mga Bayani. This was amended on March 27, 1998 by AFP Regulations No. 161-374,18 and then again on September 11, 2000 by AFP Regulations No. 161-375.19 Both amendments were issued by the Former Secretaries of National Defense.20

In 1989, Ferdinand E. Marcos passed away in Hawaii while in exile.21 Thereafter, in 1992, Former President Fidel V. Ramos (Former President Ramos), on behalf of government, signed an agreement with the Marcos Family pertaining to the return of Ferdinand E. Marcos' remains.22 Under this agreement, the Marcos Family was allowed to fly Ferdinand E. Marcos' remains to the Philippines from Hawaii, subject to the following conditions: (1) that Ferdinand E. Marcos' remains would be flown straight from Hawaii to Ilocos Norte; (2) that Ferdinand E. Marcos would only be given honors befitting a major of the Armed Forces of the Philippines; (3) that his remains would not be permitted to be paraded around Metro Manila; and (4) that the burial would be done in Ilocos Norte, and not at the Libingan ng mga Bayani.23

However, before signing the agreement, and without informing any representative of government, Imelda R. Marcos crossed out the word "buried" and replaced it with the words "temporarily interred."24 Former Secretary Alunan, during the Oral Arguments on August 31, 2016, stated that this was viewed by Former President Ramos as a sign of bad faith:

During a press conference in May 2016, then President-elect Duterte stated he would allow the burial of Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani:

President Duterte reiterated his position on Ferdinand E. Marcos' burial sometime in August 2016, stating that "[a]s a former soldier and former [P]resident of the Philippines, [he] [saw] nothing wrong in having Marcos buried at the Libingan ng mga Bayani."27

On July 11, 2016, President Duterte gave verbal orders to respondent Secretary Lorenzana to carry out the interment of Ferdinand E. Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani.28

In response to President Duterte's pronouncements, the National Historical Commission published a study entitled "Why Ferdinand Marcos Should Not Be Buried at the Libingan ng mga Bayani"29 on July 12, 2016.30 The National Historical Commission reported that Ferdinand E. Marcos' military records were not deserving of the honors that would be bestowed upon him should he be buried at the Libingan ng mga Bayani as they were "fraught with myths, factual inconsistencies, and lies." In particular, the National Historical Commission found that:

Despite the National Historical Commission's report, on August 7, 2016, Secretary Lorenzana issued the Lorenzana Memorandum directing respondent Armed Forces of the Philippines Chief of Staff General Ricardo R. Visaya (General Visaya) "to undertake the necessary planning and preparations to facilitate the coordination of all agencies concerned" and to "coordinate closely with the Marcos family" as to the transfer of Marcos' remains to the Libingan ng mga Bayani.32 Secretary Lorenzana designated the Philippine Veterans Affairs Office as the office of primary responsibility for the Marcos burial.33 Reportedly, under this directive, General Visaya gave instructions to Rear Admiral Enriquez, Deputy Chief of Staff for Reservist and Retiree Affairs, pertaining to the Marcos burial.34

Thus, on August 12, 2016, the Armed Forces of the Philippines, through its Army Chief of Public Affairs, issued a press release entitled "Army receives interment directive for former Pres. Marcos." The press release stated that the Philippine Army had received a directive from Rear Admiral Enriquez under the command of General Visaya for the Marcos burial at the Libingan ng mga Bayani.35 It stated that under this directive, the Army was required to provide vigil, bugler/drummer, firing party, military host/pallbearers, escort and transportation, as well as arrival and departure honors.36 It also stated that the Army had designated a protocol officer to coordinate laterally with the Marcos Family regarding the details of the Marcos burial.37

President Duterte confirmed in various interviews that he had allowed Ferdinand E. Marcos' interment at the Libingan ng mga Bayani, as this was a promise he had made during his campaign for the presidency.38

Thus, petitioners separately filed the present Petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus, mainly seeking that the execution of the Executive Department's decision to allow the burial of Ferdinand E. Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani be reversed, set aside, and enjoined.39 After respondents filed their respective Comments, oral arguments were held on August 31 and September 7, 2016. The parties then filed their respective Memoranda.

The AFP Regulations are ultra vires. They violate Republic Act No. 289, which is still an existing law. Therefore, the verbal orders of the President, the Lorenzana Memorandum, and the Enriquez Orders based on the AFP Regulations are null and void.

Republic Act No. 28940 creates a National Pantheon "to perpetuate the memory of all the Presidents of the Philippines, national heroes and patriots for the inspiration and emulation of this generation and of generations still unborn[.]"41 The National Pantheon is, by law, intended to be the "burial place of their mortal remains."42 Thus:

SECTION 1. To perpetuate the memory of all the Presidents of the Philippines, national heroes and patriots for the inspiration and emulation of this generation and of generations still unborn, there shall be constructed a National Pantheon which shall be the burial place of their mortal remains.

The clear intention of the legislature in enacting Republic Act No. 289 was to create a burial place to perpetuate the memory of the Presidents of the Philippines, national heroes, and patriots, for the inspiration and emulation of generations of the Filipino People.43 An examination of the evolution of what is now known as the Libingan ng mga Bayani shows that it is precisely the burial ground covered by Republic Act No. 289.

The Libingan ng mga Bayani, similar to the National Pantheon, is there to hold the remains and "perpetuate the memory of all the Presidents of the Philippines, national heroes and patriots for the inspiration and emulation of this generation and generations still unborn."

Republic Act No. 289 does not specify what the name of the National Pantheon shall be. The Libingan ng mga Bayani may not be called the "National Pantheon," but nothing in Republic Act No. 289 prohibits naming the National Pantheon as the Libingan ng mga Bayani.

Republic Act No. 289 does not specify where the National Pantheon is to be located. Under Republic Act No. 289, the suitable site is yet to be determined by a Board, who has the duty:

(a) To determine the location of a suitable site for the construction of the said National Pantheon, and to have such site acquired, surveyed and fenced for this purpose and to delimit and set aside a portion thereof wherein shall be interred the remains of all Presidents of the Philippines and another portion wherein the remains ofheroes, patriots and other great men of the country shall likewise be interred[.]44 (Emphasis supplied)

Wherever the mortal remains of Presidents of the Philippines, national heroes, and patriots are buried is, thus, the burial place envisioned by the legislature, subject to the provisions of Republic Act No. 289.

The space where the Libingan ng mga Bayani is now located was once the Republic Memorial Cemetery, which initially served as burial grounds for the war dead.45

Prior to the law's enactment, in 1947, the Republic Memorial Cemetery was established as a burial ground for soldiers who died during World War II.

While Republic Act No. 289 was effective and apparently without the action of the Board of National Pantheon, Former President Magsaysay issued Executive Order No. 77, transferring the remains of the war dead to the Republic Memorial Cemetery:

This change-relocating the nation's war dead to one national cemetery-created a burial ground that, by its express purpose, necessarily glorifies and honors those buried as war heroes. This re-interment of all of the dead war heroes to the Republic Memorial Cemetery transformed it the National Pantheon, covered by Republic Act No. 289.

On October 27, 1954, Former President Magsaysay issued Proclamation No. 86, changing the name of the Republic Memorial Cemetery to express the nation's esteem and reverence for those buried in the cemetery, the war dead:

Proclamation No. 86 purposefully and expressly altered the nature of the Republic Memorial Cemetery. The name was changed specifically to honor those who died in the war, as "bayani," the heroes of war.

On July 12, 1957, Former President Carlos P. Garcia issued Proclamation No. 423, which reserved for military purposes, under the administration of the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, certain parcels of land in Pasig, Taguig, Parañaque, Province of Rizal, and Pasay City.46 Under this Proclamation, the Armed Forces of the Philippines issued various regulations expanding the scope of the types of individuals who could be buried at the Libingan ng mga Bayani. Thus, the nature of what once was the Republic Memorial Cemetery changed further. The most recent AFP Regulations, AFP Regulations No. 161-375 (2000), invoked by public respondents, reads:

Again, the Republic Memorial Cemetery was created specifically as a burial place for the war dead,48 and then renamed to Libingan ng mga Bayani with the express purpose of revering the nation's war dead.49 Now, progressing from the renaming, and under AFP Regulations, the cemetery is no longer primarily a cemetery for the nation's war dead. Remains of individuals who have nothing to do with the military-much less any war have been interred there. This includes, among others, three (3) former Chief Justices of this Court,50 as well as Former Presidents Elpidio R. Quirino and Diosdado P. Macapagal.51

As admitted by the Solicitor General, the Armed Forces of the Philippines has determined that those who have contributed to society, despite not having served as soldiers, may be buried at the Libingan ng mga Bayani:

Unlike for national artists, the expansion of the coverage of the Libingan ng mga Bayani is without cover of law and, in some cases, contrary to Republic Act No. 289. For instance, the inclusion of widows of Former Presidents or widows of Former Secretaries of National Defense at the Libingan ng mga Bayani has no purpose and is contrary to the nature of the Libingan.

The change of its name from Republic Memorial Cemetery to Libingan ng mga Bayani and the scope of individuals that could be buried through subsequent AFP Regulations are operative facts that put the cemetery under the coverage of Republic Act No. 289. What once may have been a military cemetery has been converted, over time, into what is the National Pantheon envisioned by the legislature when it passed Republic Act No. 289.

It is true that in 1953, Proclamation No. 431, entitled Reserving as Site for the National Pantheon a Certain Parcel of Land Situated in Quezon City, reserved a parcel of land in Quezon City for the construction of the National Pantheon. However, this was subsequently revoked by Proclamation No. 42, entitled Revoking Proclamation Nos. 422 and 431, Both Series of 1953, and Reserving the Parcels of Land Embraced Therein Situated in Quezon City for National Park Purposes to be Known as Quezon Memorial Park. There is no National Pantheon in Quezon City.

The revoked attempt to locate the National Pantheon in Quezon City does not amend Republic Act No. 289. Quezon City is not a definitive part of the National Pantheon, and Proclamation No. 431 is wholly irrelevant to the validity of Republic Act No. 289.

The ponencia suggests that the lack of appropriation from Congress for the creation of a National Pantheon shows a "legislative will not to pursue" the establishment of a National Pantheon. It further suggests that "[p]erhaps, the Manila North Cemetery, the Manila South Cemetery, and other equally distinguished private cemeteries already serve the noble purpose but without cost to the limited funds of the government."53

The failure to provide appropriation for a law does not repeal the law. Moreover, the failure to provide the appropriate budget for the execution of a law is a violation of the President's duty to faithfully execute all laws. Certainly, the lack of appropriation does not suspend standards laid down by the legislature in a valid and subsisting law.

The legislative policy in Republic Act No. 289 includes delegating the powers related to the National Pantheon to a specially constituted board composed of the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Public Works and Communications, the Secretary of Education, and two (2) private citizens appointed by the President, with the consent of the Commission on Appointments (Board).54 Under Republic Act No. 289, it is the Board-not the President directly nor the Secretary of National Defense-that has the power to perform all the functions necessary to carry out the purposes of the law.55

However, the Lorenzana Memorandum and the Enriquez Orders to have the remains of Ferdinand E. Marcos transferred to the Libingan ng mga Bayani, today's National Pantheon, were made without the authority of the Board. Consequently, the Lorenzana Memorandum and the Enriquez Orders are void for being ultra vires. There is no showing that the Board recommended to the President the burial of the remains of Ferdinand E. Marcos at the Libingan. The issuances of public respondents are ultra vires and have no effect whatsoever. The continued implementation of these issuances would be an act beyond their jurisdiction, or grave abuse of discretion, because they violate existing law.

In public respondents' opening statement, the Solicitor General argues that the provisions of Republic Act No. 289 do not apply to the Libingan ng mga Bayani because Republic Act No. 289 is a "defunct law," established by the clear expressions of the legislative and executive will to abandon Republic Act No. 289 altogether, namely: (1) the inaction on the part of Congress, (2) the withdrawal of the reservation of land for the Pantheon by President Magsaysay.56

A law cannot be repealed by inaction or tradition. Neither can a law be repealed by a President. A President who does not follow a law is a President that violates his or her duties under the Constitution.

Article 7 of the Civil Code provides that laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, and their violation or non-observance shall not be excused by disuse, custom, or practice to the contrary. This Court has repeatedly held that only a law can repeal another law,57 and a law subsists when it has not been repealed nor expressly amended by any other law.58 Likewise, "repeals by implication are not favored and will not be decreed, unless it is manifest that the legislature so intended."59

No law has been passed amending or repealing Republic Act No. 289, and no manifest intention on the part of the legislature to repeal Republic Act No. 289 has been shown. It cannot be disputed; therefore, Republic Act No. 289 is a valid and binding law.

Further, the effectivity of a law cannot be made to depend on a future event or act. Otherwise, it would "rob the Legislature of the power to act wisely for the public welfare whenever a law is passed relating to a state of affairs not yet developed, or to things future and impossible to fully know." In Securities and Exchange Commission v. Interport Resources Corporation:60

The effectivity of Republic Act No. 289 does not depend on a Board being constituted or on the naming of a plot of land as the ''National Pantheon." If a government agency creates a burial place that clearly and factually comprises the burial place contemplated in Republic Act No. 289, the legislative policy must still govern.

The majority's position is that Republic Act No. 289 can be simply ignored by the President. The President, however, will gravely abuse his discretion when he does.

The Solicitor General insists that the disparate histories of the site of the Libingan ng mga Bayani and Republic Act No. 289 reveal that the two are unrelated. Hence, the provisions of Republic Act No. 289 do not apply to the Libingan ng mga Bayani.62

The Solicitor General starts with a narration of the history of the land where the Libingan ng mga Bayani, as nothing but a renamed Republic Memorial Cemetery,63 intended only to be a national military cemetery for the interment of those who died during the war.64 He then proceeds to insist that the Libingan ng mga Bayani has been operating as a military shrine and cemetery.65 In his view, the National Pantheon, on the other hand, was never constructed.66 Its intended site was in Quezon City under Proclamation No. 431.67 However, in 1954, this site was later withdrawn under Proclamation No. 42.68

The Solicitor General implies that simply because Proclamation No. 431 was later withdrawn by another presidential proclamation, the law has ceased to become effective.

The Solicitor General then argues that the standards laid down in Republic Act No. 289 do not apply to the Libingan ng mga Bayani. Public respondents point out that the standards under Republic Act No. 289 are not stated in any of the issuances pertinent to the Libingan ng mga Bayani, namely: Proclamation No. 208, Presidential Decree No. 1076, or Executive Order No. 292.69 Thus, as the National Pantheon was never constructed, public respondents claim that "the clear inference is that former President Marcos and President Corazon Aquino did not intend to adopt said standards for those to be interred at the Libingan ng mga Bayani."70

The position of the Solicitor General is legally untenable and logically unsound. Presidents who do not follow the law do not repeal that law. Laws can only be repealed by a subsequent law. Again, that Republic Act No. 289 was ignored in the past does not give legal justification for the present administration to likewise violate the law.

Republic Act No. 289 does not specify the location of the National Pantheon. It could be anywhere. The defining characteristic of the National Pantheon is that it shall be the burial place of the Presidents of the Philippines, national heroes, and patriots.71

The AFP Regulations, on the other hand, provide that the remains of the following may be buried at the Libingan ng mga Bayani: (1) Medal of Valor Awardees; (2) Presidents or Commanders-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines; (3) Secretaries of National Defense; (4) Chiefs of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines; (5) General flag officers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines; (6) Active and retired military personnel of the Armed Forces of the Philippines; (7) Veterans of the Philippine Revolution of 1896, World War I, World War II, and recognized guerrillas; (8) government dignitaries, statesmen, national artists, and other deceased persons whose interment or re-interment has been approved by the Commander-in-Chief, Congress, or the Secretary of National Defense; and (9) Former Presidents, Secretaries of Defense, CSAFP, generals/flag officers, dignitaries, statesmen, national artists, widows of former Presidents, Secretaries of National Defense, and Chiefs of Staff.72

A plain reading of the AFP Regulations reveals that although it does not refer to Republic Act No. 289, it nonetheless provides for the burial of individuals who would properly be covered by Republic Act No. 289. The AFP Regulations define a burial place, which is the burial place provided for under Republic Act No. 289.

The executive cannot avoid carrying out a valid and subsisting law by passing regulations substantially covering a matter that is already a law and excuse itself from complying with the law on the premise that it-a law that the executive never implemented-is now defunct.

Under Republic Act No. 289, only the Board is authorized to set aside portions of the National Pantheon where the remains of the Presidents of the Philippines, national heroes, and patriots shall be interred,73 to cause to be interred in the National Pantheon the mortal remains of Presidents of the Philippines, national heroes, and patriots,74 and to perform such other functions as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this law.75

Having been issued by Secretary Lorenzana, General Visaya, and Rear Admiral Enriquez without the authority of the Board, the General Lorenzana Memorandum and the Enriquez Orders are void for being ultra vires.

Assuming without accepting that respondents Secretary Lorenzana, General Visaya, and Rear Admiral Emiquez had the authority to determine who may be interred at Libingan ng mga Bayani, the Lorenzana Memorandum and the Enriquez Orders are nonetheless invalid.

Under Section 1 of Republic Act No. 289, those buried at the Libingan ng mga Bayani must have led lives worthy of "inspiration and emulation."

Our jurisprudence clearly shows that Ferdinand E. Marcos does not even come close to being one who will inspire. His example should not be emulated by this generation, or by generations yet to come.

Ferdinand E. Marcos has been characterized as an authoritarian by this Court in nine (9) Decisions76 and 9 Separate Opinions.77 He was called a dictator in 19 Decisions78 and 16 Separate Opinions.79 That he was unceremoniously deposed as President or dictator by a direct act of the People was stressed in 16 Decisions80 and six (6) Separate Opinions.81 This Court has also declared that the amount of US$658,175,373.60, in Swiss deposits under the name of the Marcoses, was ill-gotten wealth that should be forfeited in favor of the State.82

For instance, a powerful portrait of the despotic power exercised by Marcos during Martial Law was presented in Dizon v. Eduardo:83

In Mijares v. Ranada,85 despite the passing of years, this Court acknowledged the continuing difficulties caused by the dark years of the Marcos regime:

Our martial law experience bore strange unwanted fruits, and we have yet to fmish weeding out its bitter crop. While the restoration of freedom and the fundamental structures and processes of democracy have been much lauded, according to a significant number, the changes, however, have not sufficiently healed the colossal damage wrought under the oppressive conditions of the martial law period. The cries of justice for the tortured, the murdered, and the desaparecidos arouse outrage and sympathy in the hearts of the fairminded, yet the dispensation of the appropriate relief due them cannot be extended through the same caprice or whim that characterized the ill-wind of martial rule. The damage done was not merely personal but institutional, and the proper rebuke to the iniquitous past has to involve the award of reparations due within the confmes of the restored rule of law.

The petitioners in this case are prominent victims of human rights violations who, deprived of the opportunity to directly confront the man who once held absolute rule over this country, have chosen to do battle instead with the earthly representative, his estate[.]86

In Presidential Commission on Good Governance v. Peña,87 this Court recognized the gargantuan task of the Philippine Commission on Good Governance in recovering the ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses and the "organized pillage" of his regime:

The many martyrs produced by Martial Law were recognized in Bisig ng Manggagawa sa Concrete Aggregates, Inc v. National Labor Relations Commission:89

Hence, on June 17, 1953, Congress gave statutory recognition to the right to strike when it enacted RA 875, otherwise known as the Industrial Peace Act. For nearly two (2) decades, labor enjoyed the right to strike until it was prohibited on September 12, 1972 upon the declaration of martial law in the country. The 14-year battle to end martial rule produced many martyrs and foremost among them were the radicals of the labor movement. It was not a mere happenstance, therefore, that after the final battle against martial rule was fought at EDSA in 1986, the new government treated labor with a favored eye. Among those chosen by then President Corazon C. Aquino to draft the 1987 Constitution were recognized labor leaders like Eulogio Lerum, Jose D. Calderon, Bias D. Ople and Jaime S. L. Tadeo. These delegates helped craft into the 1987 Constitution its Article XIII entitled Social Justice and Human Rights. For the first time in our constitutional history, the fundamental law of our land mandated the State to "... guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law." This Constitutional imprimatur given to the right to strike constitutes signal victory for labor. Our Constitutions of 1935 and 1973 did not accord constitutional status to the right to strike. Even the liberal US Federal Constitution did not elevate the right to strike to a constitutional level[.]90

Widespread "acts of torture, summary execution, disappearance, arbitrary detention, and numerous other atrocities" were also recognized in other jurisdictions. In a class action suit that served as a serious precedent for other jurisdictions, the United States District Court of Hawaii in In Re Estate of Marcos Human Rights Litigation91 pronounced:

US$1.2 billion in exemplary damages, as well as US$770 million in compensatory damages, was awarded to the victims of the Marcos regime.93 The federal appeals court upheld the Decision of the Honolulu court and held the estate of Marcos liable for the gross and massie human rights abuses committed. In Hilao v. Marcos,94 the United States 9th Circuit Court of Appeals used the principle of "command responsibility" for the violations committed by the agents of a political leader, thus:

"The district court had jurisdiction over Hilao's cause of action. Hilao's claims were neither barred by the statute of limitations nor abated by Marcos' death. The district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the class. The challenged evidentiary rulings of the district court were not in error. The district court properly held Marcos liable for human rights abuses which occurred and which he knew about and failed to use his power to prevent. The jury instructions on the Torture Victim Protection Act and on proximate cause were not erroneous. The award of exemplary damages against the Estate was allowed under Philippine law and the Estate's due process rights were not violated in either the determination of those damages or of compensatory damages."95

The Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland, through the Decision dated December 10, 1997,96 affirmed the ruling of the District Attorney of Zurich granting the Philippine government's request for transfer of funds held in multiple accounts by various foreign foundations in Swiss banks. This was transferred to an escrow account.

Then, in Republic v. Sandiganbayan,97 this Court declared that the funds were proven to belong to the Marcos Family and were consequently ill-gotten wealth:

This cursory review of our jurisprudence relating to the consequences of the Marcos regime establishes a climate of gross human rights violations and unabated pillage of the public coffers. It also reveals his direct participation, leadership, and complicity.

In Republic Act No. 10368, a legislative determination was made regarding the gross human rights violations committed during the Marcos regime:

Section 17 even declares a conclusive presumption as to particular victims and, at the same time, recognizes the complicity of Ferdinand E. Marcos:

Sec. 17. Conclusive Presumption That One is an HRVV Under This Act. - The claimants in the class suit and direct action plaintiffs in the Human Rights Litigation Against the Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos (MDL No. 840, CA No. 88-0390) in the US Federal District Court of Honolulu, Hawaii wherein a favorable judgment has been rendered, shall be extended the conclusive presumption that they are [victims of human rights violations]: Provided, That the [victims of human rights violations] recognized by the Bantayog Ng Mga Bayani Foundation shall also be accorded the same conclusive presumption[.]

Conclusive presumptions are "inferences which the law makes so peremptory that it will not allow them to be overturned by any contrary proof however strong."99 Thus, the existence of human rights violations committed during the Marcos regime and the recognition of victims explicitly stated in the provision cannot be denied.

The human rights victims and the violations under the Marcos regime are so numerous that the legislature created a Human Rights Victims' Claims Board, dedicated to effectively attain the objectives of Republic Act No. 10368. The Board is now adjudicating 75,730 claims of human rights victims for reparation and/or recognition under Republic Act No. 10368.100

Petitioner Algamar A. Latiph points out that among the many gross human rights violations perpetrated under the Marcos regime were those inflicted on the Moro civilian population. These atrocities were committed by government forces, as well as by state-affiliated armed groups. The more infamous of these are: (1) the Jabidah Massacre, where government forces allegedly executed at least 23 Muslim recruits;101 (2) the Burning of Jolo, where the massive aerial and naval bombardments and a ground offensive against the MNLF forces resulted in the destruction of two-thirds of Jolo and, thus, thousands of refugees;102 (3) the Malisbong Massacre, where paramilitary forces were responsible for killing about 1,500 Moro men and boys who were held in a local mosque and killed, an unknown number of women and girls were raped offshore on a naval vessel, and around 300 houses were burned.103

Lesser known but equally deplorable atrocities alleged to have been committed by government forces during the Marcos regime included the Tran Incident and the Tong Umapuy Massacre. These were reported by the Transitional Justice and Reconciliation Commission:104

The "Tran Incident" refers to a large-scale military campaign against the MNLF in central Mindanao in June-August 1973. In the Listening Process session, participants spoke of the massacre of Moro civilians from the Barangay Populacion in the town of Kalamansig, Sultan Kudarat province by military forces during that campaign. The soldiers separated the men and women; the men were confined in a military camp, interrogated, and tortured, while the women with their children were taken aboard naval vessels and raped. In the end, the men as well as the women and children were killed. At a Listening Process session in Tawi-Tawi, participants shared their memory of what they called the "Tong Umapuy massacre." In 1983, a Philippine Navy ship allegedly opened fire on a passenger boat and killed 57 persons on board. The passengers were reportedly on their way to an athletic event in Bongao.105

As regards the atrocities committed by groups that maintained ties with the government under Marcos, the Transitional Justice and Reconciliation Commission reports:

Petitioners also gave this Court their first-hand accounts of the human rights violations they suffered under the Marcos regime. Petitioner Loretta Ann P. Rosales recounted that she was raped and tortured with the Russian roulette and a modified water cure, among others:

Her sister, petitioner Ma. Cristina Pargas Bawagan, testified that she was beaten, raped, and sexually abused:

I am Ma. Cristina Pargas Bawagan. I am the sister of Etta. I was arrested May 27, 1981 in Munoz, Nueva Ecija on charges of possession of subversive documents. There was no arrest order; I was simply arrested, handcuffed and blindfolded, my mouth gagged then they brought me to a safe house. And in the safe house they started interrogating and torturing me and they hit on my thighs until my thighs turned black and blue; and they also threatened me with so many things, pinompyang ako, that's what they call sa ears and then they put a sharp object over my breast, etcetera. They tore my dress and then eventually they let me lay down to sleep but then early in the morning the two soldiers who stayed near me started torturing me again and by today's definition, it is rape because they fondled my breast and they inserted a long object into my vagina and although I screamed and screamed with all my might, no one seemed to hear except that I heard the train pass by ...108

I am Hilda Narciso. I was incarcerated in Davao City in 1983. It was a rape, multiple rape that I have undergone through my captures. I was placed in a safe house where the militaries are safe and I was actually being sexually abused for about two days. It's quite difficult to me in the hands of the militaries because I was handcuffed, blindfolded and actually they have mashed all my body. And ... (At this juncture, Ms. Narciso is already in tears) they handcuffed me and then a lot of hands were all over my body and they also put their penises one at a time on my mouth, fmger your vagina and all that for several hours without . . . you have been even taken your food. Actually it was quite a long period of time under the safe house for about two days with all those kinds of process that I have gone through ...109

Petitioner Liwayway Arce testified that during the Marcos regime, her father was killed, and her mother was tortured and sexually abused:

I'm Liwayway Arce, Your Honors. I'm the daughter of Merardo Tuazon-Arce; he was a UP student and he founded Panday Sining, which was a cultural group. Later on he fought for his beliefs and on February 5, 1985, he was gunned down in Mabolo Street in Cebu City. In 2005, he was heralded as one of the martyrs at the Bantayog ng mga Bayani Foundation and his name is inscribed also together with two hundred sixty plus martyrs and heroes in Bantayog ng mga Bayani. I am a claimant-beneficiary under the Republic Act 10368. And my mother is also a claimant; she was incarcerated also in a camp in Fort Bonifacio. I don't really know much details about my parents because I was not raised by them and there are many other beneficiaries like me who were orphaned. My mother is still alive but she was also . . . she also undergone . . . she underwent torture and sexual abuse and I hope my sister is not listening right now because she does not know this. Thank you.110

Petitioner Atty. Neri Colmenares recounted having lost four (4) years of his life as a young student leader to imprisonment, during which various forms of torture were used on him:

Petitioner Trinidad Herrera Repuno testified that she was a member of the informal settlers' sector and was also a victim of torture:

Magandang hapon po sa inyong lahat mga Justices. Ako po si Trinidad Herrera Repuno. Ako ay isang biktima ng kapanahunan ng martial law. Ako po ay isang leader ng organisasyon ng mga mahirap sa Tondo. Ang pinaglalaban po namin ay merong batas para doon sa magkaroon kami ng lupa at yung iba pang mga karapatan namin. Subalit noong nagdeklara si Marcos ng martial law, nawala ho lahat ng saysay iyon. . . . Ako po'y isa sa mga judges na pupunta sana sa international competition para architectural competition sa Vancouver para doon sa pabahayan na gagawin dito sa Pilipinas. Subalit hindi po ako binigyan nang pagkakataon na makaalis. Sa halip na ako'y makaalis, ako po ay hinuli noong April 27, 1977 at ako'y dinala dooon sa ... ang humuli ho sa akin intelligence ng Manila Police. At ako y kinahapunan tinurn-over sa Crame sa pangunguna po ni Eduardo Matillano. Nang ako'y napasok doon sa maliit na kuwarto, ako'y tinanong kung ano ang pangalan ko, sinabi ko ang pangalan ko at ako'y . . . pinaalis ang aking sapatos, pinaalis lahat iyong aking bag at sinabi sa akin na tumayo ako. Merong parang telepono doon sa may lamesa na meroong kuryente. lyon po ang inilagay dito sa aking dalawang daliri at inumpisahan ho nila akong tinatanong kung sinu-sino ang nalalaman ko. Ang alam ko lang ho ang pinaglalaban namin, na karapatan namin para sa aming mga maralita. Subalit hindi naniniwala si Matillano at sinasabi nya na meron akong kinalaman sa mga kumunista na wala naman akong kinalaman. Iyon ang pinipilit po nila hanggang dumudugo na po ang dalawang daliri ko dito sa ... iyong mga malalaking daliri ko, tumutulo na po ang dugo, hindi pa ho nila tinatantanan. Mamaya-maya nang hindi na po nila naanuhan, pinaalis ho ang aking blusa at iyong wire po inilagay po dito sa aking dalawang suso at muli inulit-ulit pagtuturn po nang parang telepono pumapasok po ang kuryente sa katawan ko na hindi ko na ho nakakayanan hanggang sa ako y sumigaw nang sumigaw subalit wala naman hong nakakarinig sapagkat maliit na kwarto, nilagyan pa ho ng tubig iyong sahig para iyong kuryente lalong pumasok sa aking katawan. . . Nairelease po ako subalit naghina po ako hanggang sa ngayon. Nang ako'y medyo may edad na nararamdaman ko na ho iyong mga pampahirap, iyong pukpok dito sa likod ko habang ako'y inaano, lagi po nilang ... pagkatapos nang pagpaikot ng kuryente, pukpukin ho ako dito sa likod. Sabi nya pampalakas daw iyon. Pero masakit na masakit po talaga hanggang sa ngayon nararamdaman po namin ngayon ang ano. Kaya ako, sumama ako sa U.S. para ako'y tumestigo laban kay Marcos[.]112

Petitioner Carmencita Florentino, also from the informal settlers' sector, testified as to her forcible abduction, torture, and detention:

Magandang hapon po sa inyo. Aka po si Cannencita Florentino. Isa po akong leader ng urban poor. Ipinaglalaban naming iyong karapatan namin sa paninirahan doon na expropriation law. April 1977 po dumating po iyong mga Metrocom may mga kasamang pulis ng Quezon City may mga armalite po sila, sapilitan po nila . . . marami po sila, siguro hindi lang isang daan. Pinasok po nang sapilitan iyong bahay naming, kasalukuyan po alas syete ng gabi. . . . Niransack po iyong bahay naming pagkatapos kinaladkad po iyong asawa ko. lyong anak ko po na siyam na taong babae na nag iisa. Aka po, halos nahubaran na aka dahil pinipilit po akong arestuhin, kaming mag-asawa . . . At sinasabing ako'y leader ng komunista na hindi ko naman po naiintindihan iyon. Ang alam ko po pinaglalaban lang namin karapatan namin sa paninirahan sa Barangay Tatalon. Sapilitan po halos napunit na po iyong damit ko. Ibinalibag aka doon sa ... palabas po ng pinto dahil hinahabol ko iyong asawa ko na hinampas po ng armalite nung mga Metrocom na iyon. Tumama po ang likod ko sa pintuan namin, iyong kanto namin na halos mapilay na po ako. Pagkatapos po dinala kami sa Camp Crame, iyong asawa ko hindi ko na po nakita. lyong anak ko nasa custody daw ng mga sundalo. Ako pinaglipat-lipat kung saan saan doon 'di ko na matandaan e, may ESV, JAGO, na iniiterrogate aka, tinatanong sino iyong pinuno, sino iyong pinuno namin. Hindi ko po alam, wala akong maisagot. Kaya po sa pagkakataon na iyon, tumutulo na po iyong, akala ko po sipon lang, dugo na pala ang lumalabas sa bibig ko saka sa ilong ko po dahil, hindi ko alam kung anong nangyari doon sa siyam na taong anak ko na babae, nahiwalay sa akin. Masyado po ang pahirap na ginawa nita doon, na kulang na lang na ma-rape ako. Inaasa ko na lang po ang aking sarili sa Panginoong Diyos kung anuman ang mangyari sa akin, tatanggapin ko na. Pero iyong anak ko, iyong babae, hindi ko siya makita, dahil aka nakabukod, bukod-bukod kami. Natawanan ko iyong aking mga officer, buntis ho, ikinulong din pala. Kaya sobra ho ang hirap na inabot naming noong panahon ng martial law, na masyado na kaming ... hanggang ngayon taglay ko pa rin po ... sa baga ko may pilat, hindi nawawala, sinusumpong po paminsan minsan lalo pa nga pag naalala ko ang ganito na iniinterview kami kung maaari ayaw ko nang magpainterview dahil ano po e mahirap, napakasakit pong tanggapin. Pinalaya po kami pansamantala ng anak ko, nagkita kami ng anak ko. Isang buwan po kami sa Camp Crame, pansamantala pinalaya kaming mag-ina dahil sa humanitarian daw po pero binabantayan pa rin kami sa bahay namin, hindi kami makalayong mag-ina. At tuwing Sabado nagrereport po kami dyan sa Camp Crame. Ang asawa ko po nakakulong sa Bicutan kasama po nila Ka Trining. Hanggang ngayon po trauma na rin po iyong anak ko kahit nga po may pamilya na ayaw nang tumira dito sa Pilipinas dahil baka po makulong uli kami. Iyon lang po.113

Petitioner Felix Dalisay testified as to the lifelong trauma of the Martial Law years:

Magandang hapon po sa ating lahat. Felix Dalisay po, 64 years old. Sapilitan po akong hinuli, kinulong ng mga panahon ng Martial Law sometime '73, '74. Almost, kung tututalin po lahat nang pagkakakulong ko hindi naman tuloy-tuloy, almost three years po. ... Sa Kampo Crame po sa panahon ng interrogation, nakaranas po ako nang ibat-ibang klase nang pagmaltrato. Nandyan po iyong pagka hindi maganda ang sagot mo sa mga tanong nila, nakakatanggap po ako ng karate chop, mga suntok po sa tagiliran na alam nyo naman ang katawan ko maliit lang noong araw, ang pakiramdam ko e bale na ata iyong tadyang ko rito e. Andyan rin po iyong ipitan nang bala ng 45 ang kamay mo, didiinan ng ganyan po. Meron din pong mga suntok sa iba't ibang parte ng katawan. May pagkakataon po na minsan natadyakan po ako, tinadyakan po ako, bumagsak sa isang parting mabato kaya hanggang ngayon po may pilat po ako dito. Ang pinakamabigat po kasi na nangyari sa akin sa panahon nang interrogation, kung minsan kasi kami pag ka iniinterrogate hindi na ho naming matiis ang mga sakit so nakakapagsalita kami nang mga taong nakasama namin. So, noong panahon po na iyon, gabi noon, so may mga nabanggit ako during interrogation ng mga tao na mga nakasama ko so niraid po namin iyon, sinamahan ko sila. E marahil siguro iyong mga dati kong kasama e nabalitaang nahuli na ako, nagtakbuhan na po siguro so wala kaming inabot. Ang mabigat na parte po noon galit nag alit ang mga sundalo ng FIFSEC po iyon. Ang FIFSEC po Fifth Constabulary Security iyon e pinaka notorious na torturer noong panahon ng Martial Law, marami po iyan. So ang pinakamabigat po roon kasi sa totoo po ngayon mabuti pa iyong LALU victim may mga counseling pero kami po ang mga biktima (crying) hanggang ngayon po wala pa ho kaming natatanggap (sniffiing) maski hustisya, mga counseling na yan. At ang masakit sa akin ako po nagiging emotional po ako hindi lang po sa sarili ko. . . . Marami pa pong mga biktima dyan ma'am na talagang maaawa ka. Grabe po. lyong sa akin po ang pinaka matindi po akala ko isasalvage na po ako. Dinala po ako sa isang madilim na lugar dyan sa Libis, Quezon City sa Eastwood, noong panahon pong iyun medyo gubatan po iyun pinaihi kami sabi naiihi ako nakarinig na lang po ako ng putok sa kaliwang bahagi ng tenga ko. Akala ko patay na ako. Tapos mga pompyang, pompyang po na iyan pag sinabi pong pompyang na mga ganyan. Hanggang ngayon po sa totoo po humina po ang aking pandinig. Hindi naman ako tuluyang nabingi, mahina po kaya pagka may tumatawag sa akin sa cellphone sabi ko pakitext mo na lang, naulinigan ko ang hoses nyo pero ahhh hindi ko maintindihan. So pakiusap lang sana sa totoo lang po Ma'am dito maaring nagsasabi ang iba forget about the past ilibing na natin yan dyan. Sa amin pong mga naging biktima. Hindi po ganun kadali iyon. Ang trauma po hanggang ngayon dala-dala namin. Tuwing maaalala naming ang sinapit namin, naiiyak kami, naaawa kami sa sarili namin. Tapos ngayon sasabihin nila forget about the past. Paano kaming mga naging biktima. Hanggang ngayon nga wala pa kaming katarungan e. Andyan nga may Ten Billion, ang human rights ... mga nauna naman yan e. Hindi ba nirecover natin yan. Tapos ngayon ang sasabihin nila Marcos is a hero. No, hindi po. Hindi po matatapos yan. So hanggang doon na lang po, sana. Sana po pagbigyan nyo kami. Dahil kami sa parte ng mga biktima payagan man ng Supreme Court nailibing yan diyan, di po kami titigil sa pakikipaglaban namin sapagkat kami nagkaranas nang lupit ng Martial Law hanggang, habang buhay po naming dala yan. Salamat po.114

All these accounts occurred during the Marcos regime. By no stretch of the imagination, then, can Ferdinand E. Marcos' memory serve as an inspiration, to be emulated by generations of Filipinos.

Contemporarily, even the National Historical Commission took a clear position against the interment of Ferdinand E. Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani.

The National Historical Commission was established by law as "the primary government agency responsible for history"115 given the mandate "to determine all factual matters relating to official Philippine history."116

The National Historical Commission's Board is given the power to "discuss and resolve, with finality, issues or conflicts on Philippine History."118 The Chair of the National Historical Commission is mandated to "advise the President and Congress on matters relating to Philippine history."119

In these statutory capacities, the National Historical Commission published its study entitled "Why Ferdinand Marcos Should not be Buried at the Libingan ng mga Bayani" on July 12, 2016.120

The study was based on the declassified documents in the Philippine Archives Collection of the United States National Archives/National Archives and Records Administration and the websites of pertinent United States government agencies and some officially sanctioned biographies of Ferdinand E. Marcos. It concluded that:

The Court's findings in a catena of cases in its jurisprudence, a legislative determination in Republic Act No. 10368, the findings of the National Historical Commission, and the actual testimony of petitioners during the Oral Arguments clearly show that the life of Ferdinand E. Marcos either as President or as a soldier is bereft of inspiration. Ferdinand E. Marcos should not be the subject of emulation of this generation, or of generations yet to come.

Assuming without accepting that Republic Act No. 289 authorized public respondents to determine who has led a life worthy of "inspiration and emulation," and assuming further that it was under this authority that they directed Ferdinand E. Marcos' interment, the President's verbal orders, the Lorenzana Memorandum, and the Enriquez Orders were still issued with grave abuse of discretion because they were whimsical and capricious.

Considering the state of existing law and jurisprudence as well as the findings of the National Historical Commission, there was no showing that respondents conducted any evaluation process to determine whether Ferdinand E. Marcos deserved to be buried at the Libingan ng mga Bayani.

Respondents' actions were based upon the President's verbal orders, devoid of any assessment of fact that would overcome what had already been established by law and jurisprudence.

President Duterte himself publicly admitted that Ferdinand E. Marcos was no hero.123 This much was also admitted by the Solicitor General:124

Honorable Chief Justice and Associate Justices: At this moment in our history, I recall a scene from Julius Caesar where Marc Anthony spoke to his countrymen: "I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him, The evil that men do lives after them, the good is oft interred in their bones." Inspired by these lines, I now come to your honors to allow the State to bury the remains of former President Ferdinand Marcos at the Libingan ng Mga Bayani, not to honor him as a hero even if by military standards he is. But to accord him the simple mortuary rites befitting a former president, commander-in-chief, war veteran and soldier.125

The capriciousness of the decision to have him buried at the Libingan ng mga Bayani is obvious, considering how abhorrent the atrocities during Martial Law had been. Likewise, the effects of the Marcos regime on modem Philippine history are likewise too pervasive to be overlooked.

The Filipino People themselves deemed Marcos an unfit President and discharged him from office through a direct exercise of their sovereign power. This has been repeatedly recognized by this Court.

The three petitions obviously are not impressed with merit. Petitioners have no personality to sue and their petitions state no cause of action. For the legitimacy of the Aquino government is not a justiciable matter. It belongs to the realm of politics where only the people of the Philippines are the judge. And the people have made the judgment; they have accepted the government of President Corazon C. Aquino which is in effective control of the entire country so that it is not merely a de facto government but is in fact and law a de jure government. Moreover, the community of nations has recognized the legitimacy of the present government. All the eleven members of this Court, as reorganized, have sworn to uphold the fundamental law of the Republic under her government.

Moreover, the sentiment of the sovereign People, reacting to the blight that was the Marcos dictatorship, was enunciated in Proclamation No. 3:

Further, in articulating the mandate of the People, Article 2, Section I of Proclamation No. 3 enumerated the many evils perpetuated during the Marcos regime, which the new government would be charged to dismantle:

Public respondents neglect to examine the entirety of Ferdinand E. Marcos' life, despite the notoriety of his latter years. The willful ignorance of the pronouncements from all three branches of government and of the judgment of the People themselves can only be characterized as so arbitrary and whimsical as to constitute grave abuse of discretion.

Republic Act No. 10368, otherwise known as the Human Rights Victims Reparation and Recognition Act of 2013, contains a legislative finding that gross human rights violations were committed during the Marcos regime. It provides for both the recognition of the sufferings of human rights victims as well as the provision for effective remedies.

Recognition of human rights and of the goal of achieving social justice is a primordial shift in our constitutional order. This shift was occasioned by the experiences of our society during Martial Law. This is evident in some discussions in the Constitutional Convention.

Commissioner Edmundo Garcia, speaking on the necessity of a Commission on Human Rights, emphasized:

Precisely, one of the reasons why it is important for this body to be constitutionalized is the fact that regardless of who is the President or who holds the executive power, the human rights issue is of such importance that it should be safeguarded and it should be independent of political parties or power that are actually holding the reins of government. Our experience during the martial law period made us realize how precious those rights are and, therefore, these must be safeguarded at all times.

Hence, Section 11, Article II of the 1987 Constitution thus reads, "(t)he State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights." To breathe life into this State policy, the Commission on Human Rights was created and was envisioned as an independent office, free from political interference.127

Commissioner Jose Nolledo, sponsoring the provision that declares an independent foreign policy for the Philippines, also stated:

The Marcos regime has wrought great havoc to our country. It has intensified insurgency and is guilty of rampant violations of human rights and and injustices it has committed. It has brought about economic turmoil. It has institutionalized widespread graft and corruption in all levels of government and it has bled the National treasury, resulting in great financial hemorrhage of our country.128

Former Associate Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma, the 1986 Constitutional Commission President, in her closing speech, alluded to the experience during Martial Law as a motivating force operating in the background of the crafting of the new Constitution:

In part, to implement these safeguards for human rights, Republic Act No. 10368 was passed. Its statement of policy is found in Section 2:

Thus, Section 2 of Republic Act No. 10368 states (2) two state policies: (i) "to acknowledge 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 from September 21, 1972 to February 25, 1986 during the Marcos regime; and (ii) to restore their honor and dignity.130

Section 2 of Republic Act No. 10368 likewise acknowledges the State's moral and legal obligation to recognize and provide reparation to the victims and/or their families for the deaths, injuries, sufferings, deprivations, and damages they suffered under the Marcos regime. The State also expressly acknowledged the sufferings and damages inflicted upon: (i) persons whose properties or businesses were forcibly taken over, sequestered or used; (ii) those whose professions were damaged and/or impaired; (iii) those whose freedom of movement was restricted; and/or (iv) such other victims of the violations of the Bill ofRights.131

The bases of these policies132 are found in the Constitution. Section 11 of Article II of the 1987 Constitution provides:

SECTION 9. The State shall promote a just and dynamic social order that will ensure the prosperity and independence of the nation and free the people from poverty through policies that provide adequate social services, promote full employment, a rising standard of living, and an improved quality of life for all.

SECTION 10. The State shall promote social justice in all phases of national development.

Under the Bill of Rights, Article III, Section 12 (2) and (4) of the Constitution provides:134

Republic Act No. 10368 provides for both government policy in relation to the treatment of Martial Law victims as well as these victims' reparation and recognition. It creates a Human Rights Victims' Claims Board135 and provides for its powers.136 Among the powers of the Board is to "approve with finality all eligible claims"137 under the law.

This law provides for the process of recognition of Martial Law victims.138 There are victims who are allowed to initiate their petitions,139 those who are conclusively presumed,140 and those who may be motu proprio be recognized by the Board141 even without an initiatory petition.

Republic Act No. 10368 codifies four (4) obligations of the State in relation to the Martial Law regime of Ferdinand E. Marcos:

First, to recognize the heroism and sacrifices of victims of summary execution, torture, enforced or involuntary disappearance, and other gross violations of human rights;

Fourth, to ensure that there are effective remedies to these human rights violations.

Based on the text of this law, human rights violations during the "regime of former President Ferdinand E. Marcos covering the period from September 21, 1072 to February 25, 1986" are recognized. Despite his claim of having won the snap elections for President in 1985, Ferdinand E. Marcos was unceremoniously spirited away from Malacanang to Hawaii as a result of the People's uprising now known as "People Power." The legitimacy of his ouster from power was subsequently acknowledged by this Court in Lawyers' League for a Better Philippines and in In re Saturnino Bernardez, which were both decided in 1986.

This recognition of human rights violations is even clearer m the law's definition of terms in Republic Act No. 10368, Section 3(b):

Human rights violations during Martial Law were state-sponsored. Thus, Republic Act No. 10368, Section 3(c) defines Human Rights Victims as:

Section 3(d) of this law defines the violators to include persons acting in an official capacity and/or agents of the State:

In clear and unmistakable terms, the law recognizes the culpability of Ferdinand E. Marcos for acts of summary execution, torture, enforced or involuntary disappearances, and other gross violations of human rights. The law likewise implies that not only was he the President that presided over those violations, but that he and his spouse, relatives, associates, cronies, and subordinates were active participants.

Burying the remains of Ferdinand E. Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani violates Republic Act No. 10368 as the act may be considered as an effort "to conceal abuses during the Marcos regime" or to "conceal ... the effects of Martial Law."145 Its symbolism is unmistakable. It undermines the recognition of his complicity. Clearly, it is illegal.

"Libingan ng mga Bayani" is a label created by a presidential proclamation. The Libingan ng mga Bayani was formerly known as the Republic Memorial Cemetery. In 1954, under Proclamation No. 86, the Republic Memorial Cemetery was renamed to Libingan ng mga Bayani for symbolic purposes, to express esteem and reverence for those buried there:

WHEREAS, the name "Republic Memorial Cemetery" at Fort Wm McKinley, Rizal province, is not symbolic of the cause for which our soldiers have died, and does not truly express the nation's esteem and reverence for her war dead;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, Ramon Magsaysay, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by law, do hereby declare that the "Republic Memorial Cemetery" shall henceforth be called "LIBINGAN NG MGA BAYANI".

Thus, Proclamation No. 86 is a recognition of the nation's intent to honor, esteem, and revere its war dead. To further this intention, it changed the name of the cemetery to the Libingan ng mga Bayani. From this act alone, it is clear that the name of the cemetery conveys meaning. The Libingan ng mga Bayani was named as such to honor and esteem those who are and will be buried there.

If there was no intention to bestow any recognition upon Ferdinand E. Marcos as a hero, then he should not be buried at the Libingan ng mga Bayani. If the President wanted to allot a portion of public property to bury Ferdinand E. Marcos without according him the title of a hero, the President had other options. The President had the power to select a different cemetery where Marcos was to be buried.

Likewise, before ordering the interment, the President did not amend the name through his own presidential proclamation. Therefore, the intent to bury him with honors is clearly legible, totally unequivocal, and dangerously palpable.

Having the remains of Ferdinand E. Marcos in a national shrine called the Libingan ng mga Bayani undeniably elevates his status. It produces an indelible remark on our history. It commingles his name and his notorious legacy with the distinctively heroic and exemplary actions of all those privileged to be buried there.

The transfer of Ferdinand E. Marcos' remains violates the policy of full and public disclosure of the truth. It produces an inaccurate account of the violations committed. It will fail to educate all sectors of society and all generations of the human rights violations committed under his watch. It is a violation of the fundamental statutory policy of recognition of the human rights violations committed during the Marcos regime.

The interment of the remains of Ferdinand E. Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani necessarily implies two (2) things: the honoring of Ferdinand E. Marcos; and the allotting of a portion of public property for this act.

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. Implicit in these ceremonies is the preservation of the memory of the person for his good or valiant deeds.

This cultural practice is not limited to private persons. The same practice applies when it is the State burying the deceased person. The act of burying a body under the sanction of the State means that it is the State itself paying its respects to the dead person and memorializing him or her for his or her good and valiant deeds. It is never done to remember past transgressions. Thus, burials are acts of honoring. And when the burial is state-sanctioned, it is the State that honors the deceased person.

This is more emphasized when the place of interment is the Libingan ng mga Bayani. Again, whether or not one subscribes to the idea that the Libingan nga mga Bayani is a cemetery for the country's heroes, from the public's perspective, those buried at the Libingan ng mga Bayani are respected, revered, admired, and seen with high regard. To say otherwise is ridiculous. Although not all who are buried at the Libingan ng mga Bayani are recognized by the public, the public recognizes the distinction of being buried there. Those who are and will be buried there are accorded honors not only by their own families, but by the State itself.

It is impossible for the State to bury Ferdinand E. Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani without according him, or his memory, any honor.

Given these considerations, the transfer of the remains of Ferdinand E. Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani violates Republic Act No. 10368. It is inconsistent with the State's public policies as stated in Republic Act No. 10368.

In Avon Cosmetics, Inc. v. Luna,147 this Court discussed the meaning and relevance of public policy:

The State's fundamental policies are laid out in the Constitution. The rest are embodied in statutes enacted by the legislature. The determination of policies is a legislative function, consistent with the Congress' power to make, alter, and repeallaws.149

It is not the President alone who determines the State's policies. The President is always bound by the Constitution and the State's statutes and is constitutionally mandated to "ensure that the laws be faithfully executed."150 To execute laws, the President must faithfully comply with all of them. He cannot ignore the laws for a particular group of people or for private interests. The President cannot ignore the laws to execute a policy that he determined on his own. He cannot ignore the laws to fulfill a campaign promise that may or may not have been the reason why he won the People's votes. Thus, the President is bound to comply with and execute Republic Act No. 10368.

First, to recognize the heroism and sacrifices of all Filipinos who had been victims of summary execution, torture, enforced or involuntary disappearance, and other gross human rights violations committed during the regime of Ferdinand E. Marcos covering the period from September 21, 1972 to February 25, 1986; and

The nature of Ferdinand E. Marcos' burial at the Libingan ng mga Bayani contravenes these public policies. The State's act of according any honor to Ferdinand E. Marcos grossly contradicts, and is highly irreconcilable with, its own public policies to recognize the heroism and sacrifices of the Martial Law victims and restore these victims' honor and dignity.

To allow Ferdinand E. Marcos' burial is inconsistent with honoring the memory of the Martial Law victims. It conflicts with their recognized heroism and sacrifice, and as most of them testified, it opens an avenue for their re-traumatization. These victims' honor, which the State avowed to restore, is suddenly questionable because the State is also according honor and allotting public property to the person responsible for their victimization. The victims' state recognition is put into doubt when the President decided to act favorably towards the person who victimized them.

Public respondents' contention that Ferdinand E. Marcos will not be buried as a hero, but only as a President, soldier, and Medal of Valor Awardee, fails to convince:

The claim that he is being buried only as a President, soldier, and Medal of Valor awardee is a fallacy. When a person is buried, the whole person is buried, not just parts of him or her. Thus, if government buries and honors Ferdinand E. Marcos' body as the body of a former soldier, it will, at the same time, be burying and honoring the body of a human rights violator, dictator, and plunderer. It is impossible to isolate the President, soldier, and Medal of Valor awardee from the human rights violator, dictator, and plunderer.

Apart from recogmzmg the normative framework and the acknowledgment of human rights violations during the Marcos regime, the law likewise acknowledges the State's obligation that "any person whose rights or freedoms have been violated shall have an effective remedy."152

This right to an "effective remedy" is available even if "the violation is committed by persons acting in an official capacity."153

With the recognition of human rights victims of Martial Law, the Board created by Republic Act No. 10368 may provide "awards."154 Although this award has a monetary value,155 other duties for government are likewise provided by law. There can be nonmonetary reparation:

Section 5. Nonmonetary Reparation. - The Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), the Department of Education (DepED), the Commission on Higher Education (CHED), the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA), and such other government agencies shall render the necessary services as nonmonetary reparation for HRVVs and/or their families, as may be determined by the Board pursuant to the provisions of this Act[.]156

The phrase "other government agencies" includes public respondents in these consolidated cases.

The law also requires the documentation of the human rights violations committed during the Marcos regime:

Section 21. Documentation of Human Rights Violations Committed by the Marcos Regime. - In the implementation of this Act and without prejudice to any other documentary or other evidence that may be required for the award of any reparation, any HRVV seeking reparation shall execute a detailed sworn statement narrating the circumstances of the pertinent human rights violation/s committed.157

The Human Rights Violations Victims' Memorial Commission is given the task of making such memory permanent. It is tasked to ensure that the atrocities that happened during the Marcos regime are included in the educational curricula of schools:

The requirements of effective remedies beyond monetary compensation are also supported by jurisprudence. In Department of Environment and Natural Resources v. United Planners Consultants, Inc.:158

Persuasive, as it dovetails with the requirements of our Constitution and our statutes, are international laws and treaties providing for the right to a remedy for victims of international human rights law. This has been recognized in Article 8160 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; Article 2161 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; Article 6162 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; Article 14163 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; and Article 39164 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The right to a remedy is also an obligation in Article 3165 of the Hague Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land of 18 October 1907 (Convention IV); Article 91166 of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I) of 8 June 1977; and Article 68167 and Article 75168 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Additionally, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court requires that the "principles relating to reparations to, or in respect of, victims, including restitution, compensation and rehabilitation"169 be established by state parties.

Except for the Hague Convention of 1907, the Philippines has ratified all of these international conventions.170 The contents of the Hague Convention of 1907 already form part of customary international law embodying much of the foundation of international humanitarian law. All the obligations in these treaties are already part of our laws.

The United Nations General Assembly later adopted Resolution No. 60/147, which embodied 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 (Basic Principles).171 The Basic Principles was adopted to affirm and expound on the right of victims to a remedy as provided for in the ICCPR and other international laws and treaties. It is persuasive in the ICCPR's interpretation and contributes to achieving the full guarantee for respect of human rights required by the Constitution.

The Basic Principles does not entail new international obligations. The document only identifies "mechanisms, modalities, procedures and methods for the implementation of existing legal obligations under international human rights law and international humanitarian law which are complementary through different as to their norms."172

Under the Basic Principles, the dignity of victims must be respected, and their well-being ensured. The State must take measures to safeguard that its laws protect the victims from re-traumatization:

The victims' right to a remedy under the Basic Principles includes adequate, effective, and prompt reparation for harm suffered:

The Basic Principles further elucidates the reparation to which the victims are entitled. It provides that the reparation must be proportional to the harm suffered. The general concept of reparation and effective remedies is found in Principles 15 and 18 of the Basic Principles:

Full and effective reparation includes Restitution, Compensation, Rehabilitation, Satisfaction, and Guarantees of Non-repetition. These are provided for under Principles 19 to 23:

The Basic Principles requires separate obligations that are complete in themselves, and all these components are necessary for achieving an "effective remedy"173 against human rights violations.

Thus, Compensation for violations committed is not enough without the victim's satisfaction. Satisfying and compensating the victim is not enough unless there is a guarantee against non-repetition. This requires a legal order that can address these violations, as well as a cultural and educational system that allows remembrance of its occurrences.174 It also requires a state that does what it can to guarantee non-repetition of these offenses.

These are essential to "guarantee full respect for human rights."175 Article 2, Section 11 of the Constitution provides that "[t]he State values the dignity of every human person. It guarantees full respect of human rights."176

This provision is not a mere guide or suggestion. It requires the positive act of the State to guarantee full respect of human rights. Moreover, the State, with all its branches and instrumentalities including this Court, must provide this guarantee. When this state policy is invoked, the State cannot shy away from recognizing it as a source of right that may be affected by government actions.

The reparation due to the victims should not be solely monetary. In addition to the compensation provided under Republic Act No. 10368, the State must restitute, rehabilitate, satisfy, and guarantee non-repetition to victims.

Pertinent to issues raised by the victims of the Marcos regime is the reparation in the form of Satisfaction and Guarantee of Non-Repetition. The Basic Principles is clear that Satisfaction must include a "public apology, including acknowledgement of the facts and acceptance of responsibility," "judicial and administrative sanctions against persons liable for the violations," and an "inclusion of an accurate account of the violations that occurred ... in educational material at all levels."

The Guarantee of Non-Repetition requires the State to "provide, on a priority and continued basis, human rights and international humanitarian law education to all sectors of society," and "review and reform laws contributing to or allowing gross violations of international human rights law and serious violations of international humanitarian law."

The transfer of the remains of Ferdinand E. Marcos negates all these aspects of Satisfaction and Guarantee of Non-Repetition. There has been no sufficient public apology, full acknowledgement of facts, or any clear acceptance of responsibility on the part of Ferdinand E. Marcos or his Heirs. Neither was Ferdinand E. Marcos sanctioned specifically for human rights violations. Now that he is dead, the victims can no longer avail themselves of this recourse. To add insult to this injury, the President decided to acknowledge the heroic acts and other favorable aspects of Ferdinand E. Marcos, the person primarily responsible for these human rights violations. This affects the accuracy of the accounts of the violations committed on the victims. It reneges on the State's obligation to provide human rights education and humanitarian law education to the Filipino People. It contributes to allowing violations of international human rights law and encourages impunity. If the State chooses to revere the person responsible for human rights violations, the perception of its People and the rest of the world on the gravity and weight of the violations is necessarily compromised.

Allowing Ferdinand E. Marcos' burial under the pretense of the President's policy of promotion of national healing and forgiveness lowers the victims' dignity and takes away from them their right to heal in their own time. Allowing the Marcos burial on the premise of national healing and forgiveness is a compulsion from the State for the victims and the Filipino People to forgive their transgressor without requiring anything to be done by the transgressor or his successors, and without even allowing the victims to be provided first the reparations granted to them by law.

Despite the conclusive presumption accorded to some of these human rights victims, they have still been unable to claim the reparations explicitly granted to them by Republic Act No. 10368. Meanwhile, Ferdinand E. Marcos is awarded forgiveness and accorded state funds and public property to honor him as a Former President and a military man. This is not the effective remedy contemplated by law.

To allow the Marcos burial is diametrically opposed to Republic Act No. 10368. The stated policies are clear. These must be applied, and applied in its entirety-in accordance with its spirit and intent:

Thus, the literal interpretation of a statute may render it meaningless; and lead to absurdity, injustice, or contradiction. When this happens, and following the rule that the intent or the spirit of the law is the law itself, resort should be had to the principle that the spirit of the law controls its letter. Not to the letter that killeth, but to the spirit that vivifieth. Hindi ang letra na pumapatay, kung hindi ang diwa na nagbibigay buhay.177 (Emphasis supplied)

Likewise, a law is always superior to an administrative regulation, including those issued by the Armed Forces of the Philippines.178 The latter cannot frevail over the former. In Vide Conte et al. v. Commission on Audit:179

It is doctrinal that in case of conflict between a statute and an administrative order, the former must prevail. A rule or regulation must conform to and be consistent with the provisions of the enabling statute in order for such rule or regulation to be valid. The rule-making power of a public administrative body is a delegated legislative power, which it may not use either to abridge the authority given it by the Congress or the Constitution or to enlarge its power beyond the scope intended. Constitutional and statutory provisions control with respect to what rules and regulations may be promulgated by such a body, as well as with respect to what fields are subject to regulation by it. It may not make rules and regulations which are inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution or a statute, particularly the statute it is administering or which created it, or which are in derogation of, or defeat, the purpose of a statute.180 (Emphasis supplied)

This is especially true when the regulation does not stem from any enabling statute. Administrative regulations stem from the President's administrative power. In Ople v. Tocrres:181

Corollary to the power of control, the President also has the duty of supervising the enforcement of laws for the maintenance of general peace and public order. Thus, he is granted administrative power over bureaus and offices under his control to enable him to discharge his duties effectively.182

Administrative power is concerned with the work of applying policies and enforcing orders as determined by proper governmental organs. It enables the President to fix a uniform standard of administrative efficiency and check the official conduct of his agents. To this end, he can issue administrative orders, rules and regulations. (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)

Because regulations are issued under the administrative powers of the President, its function is mostly to properly apply policies and enforce orders. Thus, regulations must be in harmony with the law. The AFP Regulations cannot be given priority by the President over Republic Act No. 10368.

Nonetheless, assuming the AFP Regulations are valid, Republic Act No. 10368 has amended them such that they disallow any governmental act that conflicts with the victims' right to recognition and reparation. Section 31 of Republic Act No. 10368 provides:

Section 31. Repealing Clause. - All laws, decrees, executive orders, rules and regulations or parts thereof inconsistent with any of the provisions of this Act, including Section 63(b) of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 and Section 40(a) of Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991, are hereby repealed, amended or modified accordingly.

Since Republic Act No. 10368 should be read into or deemed to have amended the AFP Regulations, the transfer of the remains of Ferdinand E. Marcos is illegal.

Assuming the AFP Regulations remain the governing regulation over the Libingan ng mga Bayani, Ferdinand E. Marcos is still disqualified from being interred there. It can be inferred from the list of disqualifications that those who have committed serious crimes, something inherently immoral, despite having served the country in some way, are not "bayani" deserving to be interred at the Libingan ng mga Bayani.

Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta contends that Ferdinand E. Marcos is not disqualified from being interred at the Libingan ng mga Bayani under the AFP Regulations as he was neither convicted of an offense involving moral turpitude nor dishonorably discharged from active military service. This argument is hinged on the constitutional provision that a person shall not be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law and the presumption of innocence in all criminal prosecutions.183

It is true that the presumption of innocence applies in criminal prosecutions. Nonetheless, relying on the presumption of innocence to allow Ferdinand E. Marcos to escape the consequence of his crimes is flimsy.

First, this is not a criminal prosecution, and the rights of the accused do not apply. Second, Ferdinand E. Marcos' innocence is not in issue here. Even public respondents do not insult petitioners by arguing that Ferdinand E. Marcos is not complicit and responsible for the atrocities committed during his dictatorship. Third, an invocation of the presumption of Ferdinand E. Marcos' innocence is a rejection of the legislative findings of Republic Act No. 10368 and of this Court's own pronouncements in numerous cases.

The issue at hand is whether Ferdinand E. Marcos is someone who should be honored and emulated.

There is no presumption of innocence when it comes to determining one's fitness to be buried at the Libingan ng mga Bayani. Moreover, as Ferdinand E. Marcos is a public officer, the standards are high. Article XI of the Constitution provides the basic rules that must be followed by all public officers:

SECTION 1. Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must, at all times, be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency; act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.

Not only is Ferdinand E. Marcos responsible for gross human rights violations and, thus, crimes of moral turpitude; he also failed to meet any of the standards imposed on a public officer under the Constitution. On this alone, he is not worthy of being emulated and does not belong at the Libingan ng mga Bayani.

The Solicitor General claims that the provision in the Administrative Code of 1987 is the government's legal basis for the instructions to bury the remains of Ferdinand E. Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani:

Section 14. Power to Reserve Lands of the Public and Private Domain of the Government. - (1) The President shall have the power to reserve for settlement or public use, and for specific public purposes, any of the lands of the public domain, the use of which is not otherwise directed by law. The reserved land shall thereafter remain subject to the specific public purpose indicated until otherwise provided by law or proclamation. (Emphasis supplied)

This provision requires two (2) substantive requirements. First, the segregation of land is "for public use and a specific public purpose." Second, the use of public land "is not otherwise directed by law."

The Solicitor General cites Manosca v. Court of Appeals184 and City of Manila v. Chinese Community of Manila.185 These cases provide little assistance to their case.

The Solicitor General claims that "recognizing a person's contribution to Philippine history and culture is consistent with the requirement of public use."186 Yet, he acknowledges on behalf of government that Martial Law was part of the "dark pages" of our history. Thus, in his Consolidated Comment:

No amount of heartfelt eulogy, gun salutes, holy anointment, and elaborate procession and rituals can transmogrify the dark pages of history during Martial Law. As it is written now, Philippine history is on the side of Petitioners and everybody who fought and died for democracy.187

Ferdinand E. Marcos was ousted from the highest office by the direct sovereign act of the People. His regime was marked by brutality and by the "organized pillaging" that came to pass.

In Marcos v. Manglapus,188 which was decided in 1989, this Court acknowledged that Ferdinand E. Marcos was "a dictator"189 who was "forced out of office and into exile after causing twenty years of political, economic and social havoc in the country."190 This Court recognized the immediate effects of the Marcos regime:

We cannot also lose sight of the fact that the country is only now beginning to recover from the hardships brought about by the plunder of the economy attributed to the Marcoses and their close associates and relatives, many of whom are still here in the Philippines in a position to destabilize the country, while the Government has barely scratched the surface, so to speak, in its efforts to recover the enormous wealth stashed away by the Marcoses in foreign jurisdictions. Then, we cannot ignore the continually increasing burden imposed on the economy by the excessive foreign borrowing during the Marcos regime, which stifles and stagnates development and is one of the root causes of widespread poverty and all its attendant ills. The resulting precarious state of our economy is of common knowledge and is easily within the ambit of judicial notice.191

In PCGG v. Peña, this Court, describing the rule of Marcos as a "well-entrenched plundering regime of twenty years" noted the "magnitude of the past regime's 'organized pillage' and the ingenuity of the plunderers and pillagers with the assistance of the experts and best legal minds available in the market." The evidence presented in this case reveals one more instance of this grand scheme. This Court-guardian of the high standards and noble traditions of the legal profession-has thus before it an opportunity to undo, even if only to a certain extent, the damage that has been done.193 (Citations omitted)

In the 2001 case of Estrada v. Desierto,194 this Court characterized once again the 1986 EDSA Revolution and, in so doing, described the rejection of the Marcos regime:

[T]he government of former President Aquino was the result of a successful revolution by the sovereign people, albeit a peaceful one. No less than the Freedom Constitution declared that the Aquino government was installed through a direct exercise of the power of the Filipino Reople in defiance of the provisions of the 1973 Constitution, as amended.195

The other possible purpose stated by the Solicitor General is to achieve the ambiguous goal of "national healing."196 During the Oral Arguments, the Solicitor General argues that the aim of the burial is to achieve "changing the national psyche and beginning the painful healing of this country." In doing so, however, respondents rewrite our history to erase the remembrance of Ferdinand E. Marcos as a symbol of the atrocities committed to many of our People. It is an attempt to forget that he was a human rights violator, a dictator, and a plunderer, in the name of "national healing" and at the cost of repetition of the same acts in this or future generations.

Considering Ferdinand E. Marcos' disreputable role in Philippine history, there can be no recognition that serves the public interest for him. There is no legitimate public purpose for setting aside public land at the Libingan ng mga Bayani-definitely a national shrine-for him.

Manosca states the standard that governmental action to favor an individual or his or her memory will only be allowed if it is to recognize the person's laudable and distinctive contribution to Philippine history or culture. Ferdinand E. Marcos' leadership has been discredited both by statutory provisions and jurisprudence. He has contribution that stands out and that should be validly recognized.

It is disturbing that what appears to be the underlying cause for the interment of the remains of Ferdinand E. Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani is the fulfillment of a campaign promise by President Duterte to the Heirs of Marcos. This dovetails with petitioners' manifestation that campaign contributions were made by the Heirs of Marcos. Promised acts of a political candidate to a family to further personal political ambition at the cost of the public's welfare cannot be considered as the public purpose required by the Administrative Code of 1987.

The exercise of the President's powers may not be justified by invoking the executive's residual powers.

An exercise of the President's residual powers is appropriate only if there is no law delegating the power to another body, and if there is an exigency that should be addressed immediately or that threatens the existence of government. These involve contingencies that cannot await consideration by the appropriate branches of government.

In Gonzales v. Marcos,197 this Court recognized the residual power of the President to administer donations specifically in the absence of legislative guidelines. This Court stressed that it was necessary that the executive act promptly, as time was of the essence:

There is impressive juridical support for the stand taken by the lower court. Justice Malcolm in Government of the Philippine Islands v. Springer took pains to emphasize: "Just as surely as the duty of caring for governmental property is neither judicial nor legislative in character is it as surely executive." It would be an unduly narrow or restrictive view of such a principle if the public funds that accrued by way of donation from the United States and financial contributions for the Cultural Center project could not be legally considered as "governmental property." They may be acquired under the concept of dominium, the state as a persona in law not being deprived of such an attribute, thereafter to be administered by virtue of its prerogative of imperium. What is a more appropriate agency for assuring that they be not wasted or frittered away than the Executive, the department precisely entrusted with management functions? It would thus appear that for the President to refrain from taking positive steps and await the action of the then Congress could be tantamount to dereliction of duty. He had to act; time was of the essence. Delay was far from conducive to public interest. It was as simple as that. Certainly then, it could be only under the most strained construction of executive power to conclude that in taking the step he took, he transgressed on terrain constitutionally reserved for Congress.198 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)

In Marcos v. Manglapus,199 the government was unstable and was threatened by various forces, such as elements within the military, who were among the rabid followers of Ferdinand E. Marcos. Thus, the residual power of the President to bar the return of Ferdinand E. Marcos' body was recognized by this Court as borne by the duty to preserve and defend the Constitution and ensure the faithful execution of laws:

The power involved is the President's residual power to protect the general welfare of the people. It is founded on the duty of the President, as steward of the people. To paraphrase Theodore Roosevelt, it is not only the power of the President but also his duty to do anything not forbidden by the Constitution or the laws that the needs of the nation demand. It is a power borne by the President's duty to preserve and defend the Constitution. It also may be viewed as a power implicit in the President's duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed.200

Further, this Court recognized the President's residual powers for the purpose of, and necessary for, maintaining peace:

More particularly, this case calls for the exercise of the President's powers as protector of the peace. The power of the President to keep the peace is not limited merely to exercising the commander-in-chief powers in times of emergency or to leading the State against external and internal threats to its existence. The President is not only clothed with extraordinary powers in times of emergency, but is also tasked with attending to the day-to-day problems of maintaining peace and order and ensuring domestic tranquillity in times when no foreign foe appears on the horizon. Wide discretion, within the bounds of law, in fulfilling presidential duties in times of peace is not in any way diminished by the relative want of an emergency specified in the commander-in-chief provision. For in making the President commander-in-chief the enumeration of powers that follow cannot be said to exclude the President's exercising as Commander-in-Chief powers short of the calling of the armed forces, or suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or declaring martial law, in order to keep the peace, and maintain public order and security.201

In Sanlakas v. Reyes,202 where several hundred members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines stormed the Oakwood Premiere apartments in Makati City and demanded Former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's resignation, the use of the President's residual power to declare a state of rebellion was allowed. This Court held that although the declaration is a superfluity, her power to declare a state of rebellion arises from her powers as Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief.203 This Court examined the history of such powers:

The lesson to be learned from the U.S. constitutional history is that the Commander-in-Chief powers are broad enough as it is and become more so when taken together with the provision on executive power and the presidential oath of office. Thus, the plenitude of the powers of the presidency equips the occupant with the means to address exigencies or threats which undermine the very existence of government or the integrity of the State.204

In these cases, the residual powers recognized by this Court were directly related to the President's duty to attend to a present contingency or an urgent need to act in order to preserve domestic tranquility. In all cases of the exercise of residual power, there must be a clear lack of legislative policy to guide executive power.

This is not the situation in these consolidated cases. As discussed, there are laws violated. At the very least, there was no urgency. There was no disturbance to the public peace.

I disagree with Associate Justice Jose P. Perez's view that the issue relating to the transfer of the remains of Ferdinand E. Marcos was already resolved through the political process of the election of the President of the Philippines.205 In his view, the issue had already been presented to the public during the campaign season, and President Duterte was elected despite petitioners' opposition. Thus, he concludes that the sovereign has subscribed to the policy promised by President Duterte.206 In other words, he is of the opinion that the People decided that Ferdinand E. Marcos should be buried at the Libingan ng mga Bayani because President Duterte did not lose.207

Associate Justice Perez suggests that the President-elect's acts to effectuate his campaign promises may no longer be questioned by any party, regardless of whether it is contrary to the Constitution, laws, and public policy, regardless of whether he obtained the votes of the majority, and regardless of whether he acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.208 He takes the position that any act of the President to fulfill his electoral promise will be deemed legitimate because the People have supposedly chosen him as their President.209

I cannot agree to this dangerous proposition. We are a constitutional democracy: a State under the rule of law.

The number of votes obtained by the President does not determine whether the Constitution or the laws will or will not apply. The Constitution is not suspended on account of the election of a President who promised a particular policy. We elect a President whom we expect to implement political platforms given the existing state of the law. The process of election is not a means to create new law. The process of creating law is provided in Article VIII of the Constitution. Neither should the elections for President be the process for amending the Constitution. The process for amending the Constitution is provided in Article XVII of the same Constitution.

Furthermore, the President is tasked to execute the law-not create it. It is the legislative branch that determines state policies through its power to enact, amend, and repeal laws. Thus, it is dangerous to assume that the sovereign voted for the President to "ratify" policies he promised during his campaign.

In other words, under our constitutional order, we elect a President subject to the Constitution and the current state of the law. We do not, through the process of elections, anoint a king.

Moreover, the theory that a campaign promise becomes policy is an abdication of the judiciary's duty to uphold the Constitution and its laws.

This provision defines this Court's duty to ensure that all branches or instrumentalities of Government act only within the scope of their powers as defined by the Constitution and by law. Nothing in the provision allows campaign promises to trump the rule of law.

Associate Justice Perez's Concurring Opinion is founded upon the premise that the transfer of the remains of Ferdinand E. Marcos is a question of policy to be determined by the People, outside the scope of this Court's power of judicial review. He claims that the matter is a political question. Unfortunately, the allegations of an infringement upon a fundamental individual or collective right and grave abuse of discretion on the part of another branch of government, which were properly pleaded by petitioners, were not addressed.

Similarly, I cannot agree with the conclusions of Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion with respect to the interpretation of Article VIII, Section 1 of the Constitution.

Associate Justice Brion opines that this Court's expanded jurisdiction under the Constitution does not empower this Court to review allegations involving violations and misapplication of statutes.212 He claims that the remedies available to petitioners are those found in the Rules of Court, which address errors of law.213 He claims that this Court can only check whether there is grave abuse of discretion on the part of another branch or instrumentality of government when there is a violatioh of the Constitution.214 Necessarily, petitioners must have shown that there is prima facie evidence that the President violated the Constitution in allowing the Marcos burial.215 He insists that the Court's authority, under its expanded jurisdiction, is limited to determining the constitutionality of a governmental act. Grave abuse of discretion from violations of statutes cannot be made a matter of judicial review under this Court's expanded jurisdiction.

Associate Justice Brion's interpretation proceeds from the theory that there is a hierarchy of breach of the normative legal order and that only a breach of the Constitution will be considered grave abuse of discretion.

In my view, this reading is not supported by the text of tht provision or by its history.

Article VIII, Section 1 of the Constitution is clear. This Court is possessed of the duty to exercise its judicial power to determine whether there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or expess of jurisdiction by any branch or instrumentality of government. This provision does not state that this Court may exercise its power of judicial review exclusively in cases of violations of the Constitution.

An illegal act is an illegal act, no matter whether it is illegal as a result of the violation of a constitutional provision or a violation of valid and existing law. It is the exercise of discretion that must be subjected to review, and it is the discretion of any branch or instrumentality of government. Nothing in the Constitution can lead to the conclusion that a violation of a statute by the President is not a grave abuse of discretion.

This jurisdiction to determine whether there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess jurisdiction of any t branch of government is a new provision under the 1987 Constitution. It was added as a safeguard from abuses of other branches of government, which were justified under the doctrine of political question. In Francisco, Jr. v. House of Representatives:216

It is not about violations that may or may not be constitutional or statutory in character. It is about discretion gravely abused.

Regretfully, Associate Justice Brion's position ignores the legal issues presented by petitioners, which involve a question of the.proper exercise of constitutional powers: whether the President may use his executive power to order the transfer of the remains of Ferdinand E. Marcos' to the Libingan ng mga Bayani burial despite the rights invoked by petitioners and other particular provisions in the Constitution, statutes, and public policy.

Definitely, there is an actual case or controversy ripe for judicial review. Recalling a position in Spouses Imbong v. Ochoa, Jr.:218

There is an actual case or controversy in this case as it involves a conflict of legal rights arising from actual facts, which have been properly established through evidence or judicial notice, and which provide the natural limitations upon judicial interpretation of the statute.

Petitioners invoke a violation of their existing legal rights, among which is their right as victims of human rights violations committed during the Marcos regime. They invoke an act from the executive branch, which allegedly violates their rights and was allegedly committed with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. On the other hand, respondents insist on the President's right to exercise his executive discretion on who may or may not be buried at the Libingan ng mga Bayani. Thus, a conflict of rights must be determined by this Court in accordance with the Constitution and statutes. This Court's ruling on the matter will not be merely advisory; on the contrary, it shall be binding among the parties and shall be implemented with force and effect. Thus, there is an actual case or controversy.

Associate Justice Peralta contends that petitioners have no locus standi because they failed to show any direct suffering or personal injury that they have incurred or will incur as a result of Ferdinand E. Marcos' burial.220

The requirement of locus standi requires that the party raising the issue must have "a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain direct injury as a result."221

Several petitioners allege that they are human rights victims during the Marcos regime who had filed claims under Republic Act No. 10368. In their Petitions, they claim that respondents' questioned acts affect their right to reparation and recognition under Republic Act No. 10368 and international laws. As petitioners have an interest against Ferdinand E. Marcos and have claims against the State in connection with the violation of their human rights, petitioners are vested with material interest in the President's act in allowing the Marcos burial at the Libingan ng mga Bayani.

In any case, the rule on standing has been relaxed "when the matter is of transcendental importance, of overreaching significance to society, or of paramount public interest."224 In In Re Supreme Court Judicial Independence v. Judiciary Development Fund:225

Given that public property and funds are involved and there are allegations of disregard of constitutional and statutory limitations by the executive department, this Court may properly act on the Petitions.

The ponencia states that petitioners violated the doctrines of exhaustion of administrative remedies and hierarchy of courts,227 which essentially espouse the principle that no direct resort to this Court is allowed when there are other plain, speedy, and adequate remedies.

However, there are exceptions to this rule, as restated in Diocese of Bacolod:

These exceptions are present in these consolidated cases. First, these cases involve reviewing the act of another constitutional organ, that is, the President's exercise of discretion in allowing Ferdinand E. Marcos' burial at the Libingan ng mga Bayani. Second, these Petitions raise constitutional questions that would be better decided by this Court, as well as issues relating to public policy that may be beyond the competence of the lower courts. These cases are likewise of first impression, and no jurisprudence yet exists on this matter. Thus, the Petitions cannot be dismissed by invoking the doctrine of hierarchy of courts and exhaustion of administrative remedies.

Grave abuse of discretion is committed when the President violates his or her own oath of office. Thus, in Article VII, Section 5 of the 1987 Constitution:

The President's duty to faithfully execute the laws of the land Is enshrined in the Constitution. Thus, in Article VII, Section 17:

SECTION 17. The President shall have control of all executive departments, bureaus and offices. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed.

In Almario v. Executive Secretary,229 we have clarified that the faithful execution clause is not a separate grant of power but an obligation imposed on the President. The President is, therefore, not above the law or above judicial interpretation. He is duty-bound to obey and execute them. Thus, administrative or executive acts, orders and regulations shall be valid ony when they are not contrary to the laws or the Constitution.230

In Almario, the President's proclamation of several national artists was nullified because several rules, guidelines, and processes of the National Commission on Culture and the Arts and the Cultural Center of the Philippines were disregarded. This Court declared that the actions of the President, contrary to the spirit of these rules, constituted grave abuse of discretion:

The ponencia's characterization of Ferdinand E. Marcos as "just a human who erred like us"232 trivializes the magnitude of the suffering that he inflicted on scores of Filipinos.

Ferdinand E. Marcos' "errors" were not errors that a President is entitled to commit. They were exceptional in both severity and scale. They were inhuman acts.

Ferdinand E. Marcos provided the atmosphere of impunity that allowed the molestations, rape, torture, death, and disappearance of thousands of Filipinos. Ferdinand E. Marcos was the President who, rather than preserve and protect the public trust, caused untold anguish upon thousands of Filipino families. Their trauma, after all these years, still exists.

Ferdinand E. Marcos plundered the nation's coffers. The systematic plunder was so exceptional and outrageous that even after being ousted, he and his family brought more than ₱27,000,000.00 in freshly printed notes, 23 wooden crates, 12 suitcases and bags, and various boxes of jewelry, gold bricks, and enough clothes to fill 57 racks233 with them to their exile in Hawaii.

These were not accidents that humans, like us, commit. These were deliberate and conscious acts by one who abused his power. To suggest that Ferdinand E. Marcos was "just a human who erred like us" is an affront to those who suffered under the Marcos regime.

To suggest that these were mere errors is an attempt to erase Ferdinand E. Marcos' accountability for the atrocities during Martial Law. It is an attempt to usher in and guarantee impunity for them as well as for those who will commit the same in the future.

It is within the power of this Court to prevent impunity for gross violations of human rights, systematic plunder by those whom we elect to public office, and abuse of power at the expense of our toiling masses. We should do justice rather than characterize these acts as the "mere human error" of one whom We have characterized as a dictator and an authoritarian.

Interpreting the law is not mere power. It is not simply our personal privilege.

Judicial review is an awesome social responsibility that should always be discharged with the desire to to learn from history and to do justice. Social justice will not come as a gift. It is a product of the constant, conscious, and determined effort to understand our society and do what is right. Justice will not come when we insist that we should decide behind a veil of ignorance. Precisely, our expanded jurisdiction in the present Constitution contains our People's command for this Court not to forget that never again should this Court be blind to reality.

The reality is that the retelling of the story of Martial Law is agonizing to many who went through the ordeal. Reliving it for eternity, with the transfer of the remains of he who is responsible for the ordeal to the sacred grounds of the Libingan ng mga Bayani, will permanently cause untold anguish to the victims.

The mother who stood by her principles but was tortured, molested, or raped during Martial Law will now have to explain to her daughter why he who allowed that indignity to happen is now at the Libingan ng mga Bayani.

The family of the father or the mother or the son or the daughter or the nephew or niece or cousin who disappeared will have extreme difficulty accepting that the remains of Ferdinand E. Marcos-the President who was Commander-in-Chief and who had control over all those who wielded state coercion during Martial Law-is buried in a place that implies that he is a hero. They will have to explain to themselves, with the pain and anguish that they still suffer, why the most powerful man who was unable to help them find their kin is granted honors by this State.

Those who will celebrate this country's pride every year with the commemoration of People Power or the EDSA Revolution will also live with the contradiction that the remains of the President they ousted for his abuses is now interred at the Libingan ng mga Bayani.

The decision of the majority to deny the Petitions robs this generation and future generations of the ability to learn from our past mistakes. It will tell them that there are rewards for the abuse of power and that there is impunity for human rights violations. The decision of the majority implies that, learning from the past, our People should be silent and cower in fear of an oppressor. After all, as time passes, the authoritarian and the dictator will be rewarded.

Sooner rather than later, we will experience the same fear of a strongman who will dictate his view on the solutions of his favored social ills. Women will again be disrespected, molested, and then raped. People will die needlessly-perhaps summarily killed by the same law enforcers who are supposed to protect them and guarantee the rule of law. Perhaps, there will be people who will be tortured after they are shamed and stereotyped.

We forget the lessons of the past when we allow abuse to hold sway over the lives of those who seem to be unrelated to us. Silence, in the face of abuse, is complicity.

The burial of Ferdinand E. Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani is not an act of national healing. It cannot be an act of healing when petitioners, and all others who suffered, are not consulted and do not participate. Rather, it is an effort to forget our collective shame of having failed to act as a People as many suffered. It is to contribute to the impunity for human rights abuses and the plunder of our public trust.

The full guarantee of human rights is a fundamental primordial principle enshrined in the Constitution. It is not the antithesis of government.

To deny these Petitions is to participate in the effort to create myth at the expense of history.

Ferdinand E. Marcos' remains, by law, cannot be transferred to the Libingan ng mga Bayani. Ferdinand E. Marcos is not a "bayani."