SEPARATION OF POWERS over the other departments; it does not in reality nullify or invalidate

an act of the legislature, but only asserts the solemn and sacred
The Philippines is a democratic and republican state. As a republican obligation assigned to it by the Constitution to determine conflicting
state, sovereignty resides in the People and all government authority claims of authority under the Constitution and to establish for the
emanates from them (Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 1). “A Republican parties in an actual controversy the rights which that instrument
form of government rests on the conviction that sovereignty should secures and guarantees to them.” In the words of Chief Justice
reside in the people and that all government authority must emanate Reynato S. Puno: The Judiciary may not have the power of the
from them. It abhors the concentration of power on one or a few, sword, may not have the power of the purse, but it has the power to
cognizant that power, when absolute, can lead to abuse, but it also interpret the Constitution, and the unerring lessons of history tell us
shuns a direct and unbridled rule by the people, a veritable kindling that rightly wielded, that power can make a difference for good.
to the passionate fires of anarchy. Our people have accepted this
notion and decided to delegate the basic state authority to principally While Congress has the power to define, prescribe and apportion the
three branches of government — the Executive, the Legislative, and jurisdiction of the various courts, Congress cannot deprive the
the Judiciary – each branch being supreme in its own sphere but with Supreme Court of its jurisdiction provided in the Constitution. No
constitutional limits and a firm tripod of checks and balances .” law shall also be passed reorganizing the judiciary when it
undermines the security of tenure of its members. The Supreme Court
The Executive Branch also has administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel
thereof, having the power to discipline or dismiss judges of lower
The executive branch is headed by the President, who is elected by a courts.
direct vote of the people. The term of office of the President, as well
as the Vice-President, is six (6) years. As head of the Executive The Supreme Court is composed of a Chief Justice and fourteen
Department, the President is the Chief Executive. He represents the Associate Justices. It may sit en banc or, in its discretion, in divisions
government as a whole and sees to it that all laws are enforced by the of three, five or seven members. A member of the Supreme Court
officials and employees of his department. He has control over the must be a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, at least forty (40)
executive department, bureaus and offices. This means that he has the years of age and must have been for fifteen (15) years or more a
authority to assume directly the functions of the executive judge of a lower court or engaged in the pratice of law in the
department, bureau and office or interfere with the discretion of its Philippines. Justices hold office during good behavior until they
officials. Corollary to the power of control, the President also has the reach the age of seventy (70) years or become incapacitated to
duty of supervising the enforcement of laws for the maintenance of discharge the duties of their office.
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.

The President exercises general supervision over all local government

units and is also the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines.

Under the existing Presidential form of government, the executive

and legislative branches are entirely separate, subject only to the
mechanisms of checks and balances. There were attempts to amend
the Constitution in order to shift to a parliamentary system, but these
moves were struck down by the Supreme Court. The most recent
petition that reached the Supreme Court is Lambino vs. COMELEC.

The Legislative Branch

The legislative branch, which has the authority to make, alter or

repeal laws (see also the definition of “legislative power“), is the
Congress. “Congress is vested with the tremendous power of the
purse, traditionally recognized in the constitutional provision that ‘no
money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an
appropriation made by law.’ It comprehends both the power to
generate money by taxation (the power to tax) and the power to spend
it (the power to appropriate). The power to appropriate carries with it
the power to specify the amount that may be spent and the purpose
for which it may be spent.

Under a bicameral system, the Congress is composed of the Senate

and the House of Representatives.

The Senate is composed of twenty-four (24) Senators, who are

elected at large by the qualified voters of the Philippines. The term of
office of the Senators is six (6) years. THEORY AND JUSTIFICATION OF JUDICIAL
REVIEW
The House of Representatives, on the other hand, is composed of not
more than two hundred and fifty (250) members, unless otherwise Republic of the Philippines
fixed by law, who are elected from legislative districts apportioned SUPREME COURT
among the provinces, cities and the Metropolitan Manila area, and Manila
those who are elected through a party-list system of registered EN BANC
national, regional and sectoral parties or organizations. The term of G.R. No. L-45081 July 15, 1936
office of members of the House of Representatives, also called
“Congressmen,” is three (3) years. JOSE A. ANGARA, petitioner,
vs.
The Judiciary THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION, PEDRO YNSUA,
MIGUEL CASTILLO, and DIONISIO C. MAYOR, respondents.
Judicial power is vested in the Supreme Court and in such lower Godofredo Reyes for petitioner.
courts as may be established by law. The judiciary has the Office of the Solicitor General Hilado for respondent Electoral
moderating power to determine the proper allocation of powers Commission.
between the branches of government. When the “judiciary mediates Pedro Ynsua in his own behalf.
to allocate constitutional boundaries, it does not assert any superiority No appearance for other respondents.

1
 (10) That the case being submitted for decision, the Electoral
LAUREL, J.: Commission promulgated a resolution on January 23, 1936, denying
herein petitioner's "Motion to Dismiss the Protest."
This is an original action instituted in this court by the petitioner, Jose
A. Angara, for the issuance of a writ of prohibition to restrain and The application of the petitioner sets forth the following grounds for
prohibit the Electoral Commission, one of the respondents, from the issuance of the writ prayed for:
taking further cognizance of the protest filed by Pedro Ynsua, another
respondent, against the election of said petitioner as member of the (a) That the Constitution confers exclusive jurisdiction upon the
National Assembly for the first assembly district of the Province of electoral Commission solely as regards the merits of contested
Tayabas. elections to the National Assembly;

The facts of this case as they appear in the petition and as admitted by (b) That the Constitution excludes from said jurisdiction the power to
the respondents are as follows: regulate the proceedings of said election contests, which power has
been reserved to the Legislative Department of the Government or
(1) That in the elections of September 17, 1935, the petitioner, Jose the National Assembly;
A. Angara, and the respondents, Pedro Ynsua, Miguel Castillo and
Dionisio Mayor, were candidates voted for the position of member of (c) That like the Supreme Court and other courts created in pursuance
the National Assembly for the first district of the Province of of the Constitution, whose exclusive jurisdiction relates solely to
Tayabas; deciding the merits of controversies submitted to them for decision
and to matters involving their internal organization, the Electoral
(2) That on October 7, 1935, the provincial board of canvassers, Commission can regulate its proceedings only if the National
proclaimed the petitioner as member-elect of the National Assembly Assembly has not availed of its primary power to so regulate such
for the said district, for having received the most number of votes; proceedings;

(3) That on November 15, 1935, the petitioner took his oath of office; (d) That Resolution No. 8 of the National Assembly is, therefore,
valid and should be respected and obeyed;
(4) That on December 3, 1935, the National Assembly in session
assembled, passed the following resolution: (e) That under paragraph 13 of section 1 of the ordinance appended to
the Constitution and paragraph 6 of article 7 of the Tydings-
[No. 8] McDuffie Law (No. 127 of the 73rd Congress of the United States) as
well as under section 1 and 3 (should be sections 1 and 2) of article
RESOLUCION CONFIRMANDO LAS ACTAS DE AQUELLOS VIII of the Constitution, this Supreme Court has jurisdiction to pass
DIPUTADOS CONTRA QUIENES NO SE HA PRESENTADO upon the fundamental question herein raised because it involves an
PROTESTA. interpretation of the Constitution of the Philippines.

Se resuelve: Que las actas de eleccion de los Diputados contra On February 25, 1936, the Solicitor-General appeared and filed an
quienes no se hubiere presentado debidamente una protesta antes de answer in behalf of the respondent Electoral Commission interposing
la adopcion de la presente resolucion sean, como por la presente, son the following special defenses:
aprobadas y confirmadas.
(a) That the Electoral Commission has been created by the
Adoptada, 3 de diciembre, 1935. Constitution as an instrumentality of the Legislative Department
invested with the jurisdiction to decide "all contests relating to the
(5) That on December 8, 1935, the herein respondent Pedro Ynsua election, returns, and qualifications of the members of the National
filed before the Electoral Commission a "Motion of Protest" against Assembly"; that in adopting its resolution of December 9, 1935,
the election of the herein petitioner, Jose A. Angara, being the only fixing this date as the last day for the presentation of protests against
protest filed after the passage of Resolutions No. 8 aforequoted, and the election of any member of the National Assembly, it acted within
praying, among other-things, that said respondent be declared elected its jurisdiction and in the legitimate exercise of the implied powers
member of the National Assembly for the first district of Tayabas, or granted it by the Constitution to adopt the rules and regulations
that the election of said position be nullified; essential to carry out the power and functions conferred upon the
same by the fundamental law; that in adopting its resolution of
(6) That on December 9, 1935, the Electoral Commission adopted a January 23, 1936, overruling the motion of the petitioner to dismiss
resolution, paragraph 6 of which provides: the election protest in question, and declaring itself with jurisdiction
to take cognizance of said protest, it acted in the legitimate exercise
6. La Comision no considerara ninguna protesta que no se haya of its quasi-judicial functions a an instrumentality of the Legislative
presentado en o antes de este dia. Department of the Commonwealth Government, and hence said act is
beyond the judicial cognizance or control of the Supreme Court;
(7) That on December 20, 1935, the herein petitioner, Jose A.
Angara, one of the respondents in the aforesaid protest, filed before (b) That the resolution of the National Assembly of December 3,
the Electoral Commission a "Motion to Dismiss the Protest", alleging 1935, confirming the election of the members of the National
(a) that Resolution No. 8 of Dismiss the Protest", alleging (a) that Assembly against whom no protest had thus far been filed, could not
Resolution No. 8 of the National Assembly was adopted in the and did not deprive the electoral Commission of its jurisdiction to
legitimate exercise of its constitutional prerogative to prescribe the take cognizance of election protests filed within the time that might
period during which protests against the election of its members be set by its own rules:
should be presented; (b) that the aforesaid resolution has for its
object, and is the accepted formula for, the limitation of said period; (c) That the Electoral Commission is a body invested with quasi-
and (c) that the protest in question was filed out of the prescribed judicial functions, created by the Constitution as an instrumentality of
period; the Legislative Department, and is not an "inferior tribunal, or
corporation, or board, or person" within the purview of section 226
(8) That on December 27, 1935, the herein respondent, Pedro Ynsua, and 516 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against which prohibition
filed an "Answer to the Motion of Dismissal" alleging that there is no would lie.
legal or constitutional provision barring the presentation of a protest
against the election of a member of the National Assembly after The respondent Pedro Ynsua, in his turn, appeared and filed an
confirmation; answer in his own behalf on March 2, 1936, setting forth the
following as his special defense:
(9) That on December 31, 1935, the herein petitioner, Jose A.
Angara, filed a "Reply" to the aforesaid "Answer to the Motion of (a) That at the time of the approval of the rules of the Electoral
Dismissal"; Commission on December 9, 1935, there was no existing law fixing
the period within which protests against the election of members of
the National Assembly should be filed; that in fixing December 9,
1935, as the last day for the filing of protests against the election of

2
members of the National Assembly, the Electoral Commission was laws. This, however, is subject to the further check that a bill may
exercising a power impliedly conferred upon it by the Constitution, become a law notwithstanding the refusal of the President to approve
by reason of its quasi-judicial attributes; it, by a vote of two-thirds or three-fourths, as the case may be, of the
National Assembly. The President has also the right to convene the
(b) That said respondent presented his motion of protest before the Assembly in special session whenever he chooses. On the other hand,
Electoral Commission on December 9, 1935, the last day fixed by the National Assembly operates as a check on the Executive in the
paragraph 6 of the rules of the said Electoral Commission; sense that its consent through its Commission on Appointments is
necessary in the appointments of certain officers; and the concurrence
(c) That therefore the Electoral Commission acquired jurisdiction of a majority of all its members is essential to the conclusion of
over the protest filed by said respondent and over the parties thereto, treaties. Furthermore, in its power to determine what courts other
and the resolution of the Electoral Commission of January 23, 1936, than the Supreme Court shall be established, to define their
denying petitioner's motion to dismiss said protest was an act within jurisdiction and to appropriate funds for their support, the National
the jurisdiction of the said commission, and is not reviewable by Assembly controls the judicial department to a certain extent. The
means of a writ of prohibition; Assembly also exercises the judicial power of trying impeachments.
And the judiciary in turn, with the Supreme Court as the final arbiter,
(d) That neither the law nor the Constitution requires confirmation by effectively checks the other departments in the exercise of its power
the National Assembly of the election of its members, and that such to determine the law, and hence to declare executive and legislative
confirmation does not operate to limit the period within which acts void if violative of the Constitution.
protests should be filed as to deprive the Electoral Commission of
jurisdiction over protest filed subsequent thereto; But in the main, the Constitution has blocked out with deft strokes
and in bold lines, allotment of power to the executive, the legislative
(e) That the Electoral Commission is an independent entity created by and the judicial departments of the government. The overlapping and
the Constitution, endowed with quasi-judicial functions, whose interlacing of functions and duties between the several departments,
decision are final and unappealable; however, sometimes makes it hard to say just where the one leaves
off and the other begins. In times of social disquietude or political
( f ) That the electoral Commission, as a constitutional creation, is not excitement, the great landmarks of the Constitution are apt to be
an inferior tribunal, corporation, board or person, within the terms of forgotten or marred, if not entirely obliterated. In cases of conflict,
sections 226 and 516 of the Code of Civil Procedure; and that neither the judicial department is the only constitutional organ which can be
under the provisions of sections 1 and 2 of article II (should be article called upon to determine the proper allocation of powers between the
VIII) of the Constitution and paragraph 13 of section 1 of the several departments and among the integral or constituent units
Ordinance appended thereto could it be subject in the exercise of its thereof.
quasi-judicial functions to a writ of prohibition from the Supreme
Court; As any human production, our Constitution is of course lacking
perfection and perfectibility, but as much as it was within the power
(g) That paragraph 6 of article 7 of the Tydings-McDuffie Law (No. of our people, acting through their delegates to so provide, that
127 of the 73rd Congress of the united States) has no application to instrument which is the expression of their sovereignty however
the case at bar. limited, has established a republican government intended to operate
and function as a harmonious whole, under a system of checks and
The case was argued before us on March 13, 1936. Before it was balances, and subject to specific limitations and restrictions provided
submitted for decision, the petitioner prayed for the issuance of a in the said instrument. The Constitution sets forth in no uncertain
preliminary writ of injunction against the respondent Electoral language the restrictions and limitations upon governmental powers
Commission which petition was denied "without passing upon the and agencies. If these restrictions and limitations are transcended it
merits of the case" by resolution of this court of March 21, 1936. would be inconceivable if the Constitution had not provided for a
mechanism by which to direct the course of government along
There was no appearance for the other respondents. constitutional channels, for then the distribution of powers would be
mere verbiage, the bill of rights mere expressions of sentiment, and
The issues to be decided in the case at bar may be reduced to the the principles of good government mere political apothegms.
following two principal propositions: Certainly, the limitation and restrictions embodied in our Constitution
are real as they should be in any living constitution. In the United
1. Has the Supreme Court jurisdiction over the Electoral Commission States where no express constitutional grant is found in their
and the subject matter of the controversy upon the foregoing related constitution, the possession of this moderating power of the courts,
facts, and in the affirmative, not to speak of its historical origin and development there, has been
set at rest by popular acquiescence for a period of more than one and
2. Has the said Electoral Commission acted without or in excess of its a half centuries. In our case, this moderating power is granted, if not
jurisdiction in assuming to the cognizance of the protest filed the expressly, by clear implication from section 2 of article VIII of our
election of the herein petitioner notwithstanding the previous constitution.
confirmation of such election by resolution of the National
Assembly? The Constitution is a definition of the powers of government. Who is
to determine the nature, scope and extent of such powers? The
We could perhaps dispose of this case by passing directly upon the Constitution itself has provided for the instrumentality of the
merits of the controversy. However, the question of jurisdiction judiciary as the rational way. And when the judiciary mediates to
having been presented, we do not feel justified in evading the issue. allocate constitutional boundaries, it does not assert any superiority
Being a case primæ impressionis, it would hardly be consistent with over the other departments; it does not in reality nullify or invalidate
our sense of duty to overlook the broader aspect of the question and an act of the legislature, but only asserts the solemn and sacred
leave it undecided. Neither would we be doing justice to the industry obligation assigned to it by the Constitution to determine conflicting
nor vehemence of counsel were we not to pass upon the question of claims of authority under the Constitution and to establish for the
jurisdiction squarely presented to our consideration. parties in an actual controversy the rights which that instrument
secures and guarantees to them. This is in truth all that is involved in
The separation of powers is a fundamental principle in our system of what is termed "judicial supremacy" which properly is the power of
government. It obtains not through express provision but by actual judicial review under the Constitution. Even then, this power of
division in our Constitution. Each department of the government has judicial review is limited to actual cases and controversies to be
exclusive cognizance of matters within its jurisdiction, and is exercised after full opportunity of argument by the parties, and
supreme within its own sphere. But it does not follow from the fact limited further to the constitutional question raised or the very lis
that the three powers are to be kept separate and distinct that the mota presented. Any attempt at abstraction could only lead to
Constitution intended them to be absolutely unrestrained and dialectics and barren legal questions and to sterile conclusions
independent of each other. The Constitution has provided for an unrelated to actualities. Narrowed as its function is in this manner,
elaborate system of checks and balances to secure coordination in the the judiciary does not pass upon questions of wisdom, justice or
workings of the various departments of the government. For example, expediency of legislation. More than that, courts accord the
the Chief Executive under our Constitution is so far made a check on presumption of constitutionality to legislative enactments, not only
the legislative power that this assent is required in the enactment of because the legislature is presumed to abide by the Constitution but

3
also because the judiciary in the determination of actual cases and were left undecided and undetermined, would not a void be thus
controversies must reflect the wisdom and justice of the people as created in our constitutional system which may be in the long run
expressed through their representatives in the executive and prove destructive of the entire framework? To ask these questions is
legislative departments of the governments of the government. to answer them. Natura vacuum abhorret, so must we avoid
exhaustion in our constitutional system. Upon principle, reason and
But much as we might postulate on the internal checks of power authority, we are clearly of the opinion that upon the admitted facts
provided in our Constitution, it ought not the less to be remembered of the present case, this court has jurisdiction over the Electoral
that, in the language of James Madison, the system itself is not "the Commission and the subject mater of the present controversy for the
chief palladium of constitutional liberty . . . the people who are purpose of determining the character, scope and extent of the
authors of this blessing must also be its guardians . . . their eyes must constitutional grant to the Electoral Commission as "the sole judge of
be ever ready to mark, their voice to pronounce . . . aggression on the all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of the
authority of their constitution." In the Last and ultimate analysis, members of the National Assembly."
then, must the success of our government in the unfolding years to
come be tested in the crucible of Filipino minds and hearts than in Having disposed of the question of jurisdiction, we shall now proceed
consultation rooms and court chambers. to pass upon the second proposition and determine whether the
Electoral Commission has acted without or in excess of its
In the case at bar, the national Assembly has by resolution (No. 8) of jurisdiction in adopting its resolution of December 9, 1935, and in
December 3, 1935, confirmed the election of the herein petitioner to assuming to take cognizance of the protest filed against the election
the said body. On the other hand, the Electoral Commission has by of the herein petitioner notwithstanding the previous confirmation
resolution adopted on December 9, 1935, fixed said date as the last thereof by the National Assembly on December 3, 1935. As able
day for the filing of protests against the election, returns and counsel for the petitioner has pointed out, the issue hinges on the
qualifications of members of the National Assembly, notwithstanding interpretation of section 4 of Article VI of the Constitution which
the previous confirmation made by the National Assembly as provides:
aforesaid. If, as contended by the petitioner, the resolution of the
National Assembly has the effect of cutting off the power of the "SEC. 4. There shall be an Electoral Commission composed of three
Electoral Commission to entertain protests against the election, Justice of the Supreme Court designated by the Chief Justice, and of
returns and qualifications of members of the National Assembly, six Members chosen by the National Assembly, three of whom shall
submitted after December 3, 1935, then the resolution of the Electoral be nominated by the party having the largest number of votes, and
Commission of December 9, 1935, is mere surplusage and had no three by the party having the second largest number of votes therein.
effect. But, if, as contended by the respondents, the Electoral The senior Justice in the Commission shall be its Chairman. The
Commission has the sole power of regulating its proceedings to the Electoral Commission shall be the sole judge of all contests relating
exclusion of the National Assembly, then the resolution of December to the election, returns and qualifications of the members of the
9, 1935, by which the Electoral Commission fixed said date as the National Assembly." It is imperative, therefore, that we delve into the
last day for filing protests against the election, returns and origin and history of this constitutional provision and inquire into the
qualifications of members of the National Assembly, should be intention of its framers and the people who adopted it so that we may
upheld. properly appreciate its full meaning, import and significance.

Here is then presented an actual controversy involving as it does a The original provision regarding this subject in the Act of Congress
conflict of a grave constitutional nature between the National of July 1, 1902 (sec. 7, par. 5) laying down the rule that "the
Assembly on the one hand, and the Electoral Commission on the assembly shall be the judge of the elections, returns, and
other. From the very nature of the republican government established qualifications of its members", was taken from clause 1 of section 5,
in our country in the light of American experience and of our own, Article I of the Constitution of the United States providing that "Each
upon the judicial department is thrown the solemn and inescapable House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns, and Qualifications
obligation of interpreting the Constitution and defining constitutional of its own Members, . . . ." The Act of Congress of August 29, 1916
boundaries. The Electoral Commission, as we shall have occasion to (sec. 18, par. 1) modified this provision by the insertion of the word
refer hereafter, is a constitutional organ, created for a specific "sole" as follows: "That the Senate and House of Representatives,
purpose, namely to determine all contests relating to the election, respectively, shall be the sole judges of the elections, returns, and
returns and qualifications of the members of the National Assembly. qualifications of their elective members . . ." apparently in order to
Although the Electoral Commission may not be interfered with, when emphasize the exclusive the Legislative over the particular case s
and while acting within the limits of its authority, it does not follow therein specified. This court has had occasion to characterize this
that it is beyond the reach of the constitutional mechanism adopted grant of power to the Philippine Senate and House of
by the people and that it is not subject to constitutional restrictions. Representatives, respectively, as "full, clear and complete" (Veloso
The Electoral Commission is not a separate department of the vs. Boards of Canvassers of Leyte and Samar [1919], 39 Phil., 886,
government, and even if it were, conflicting claims of authority under 888.)
the fundamental law between department powers and agencies of the
government are necessarily determined by the judiciary in justifiable The first step towards the creation of an independent tribunal for the
and appropriate cases. Discarding the English type and other purpose of deciding contested elections to the legislature was taken
European types of constitutional government, the framers of our by the sub-committee of five appointed by the Committee on
constitution adopted the American type where the written constitution Constitutional Guarantees of the Constitutional Convention, which
is interpreted and given effect by the judicial department. In some sub-committee submitted a report on August 30, 1934,
countries which have declined to follow the American example, recommending the creation of a Tribunal of Constitutional Security
provisions have been inserted in their constitutions prohibiting the empowered to hear legislature but also against the election of
courts from exercising the power to interpret the fundamental law. executive officers for whose election the vote of the whole nation is
This is taken as a recognition of what otherwise would be the rule required, as well as to initiate impeachment proceedings against
that in the absence of direct prohibition courts are bound to assume specified executive and judicial officer. For the purpose of hearing
what is logically their function. For instance, the Constitution of legislative protests, the tribunal was to be composed of three justices
Poland of 1921, expressly provides that courts shall have no power to designated by the Supreme Court and six members of the house of
examine the validity of statutes (art. 81, chap. IV). The former the legislature to which the contest corresponds, three members to be
Austrian Constitution contained a similar declaration. In countries designed by the majority party and three by the minority, to be
whose constitutions are silent in this respect, courts have assumed presided over by the Senior Justice unless the Chief Justice is also a
this power. This is true in Norway, Greece, Australia and South member in which case the latter shall preside. The foregoing proposal
Africa. Whereas, in Czechoslovakia (arts. 2 and 3, Preliminary Law was submitted by the Committee on Constitutional Guarantees to the
to constitutional Charter of the Czechoslovak Republic, February 29, Convention on September 15, 1934, with slight modifications
1920) and Spain (arts. 121-123, Title IX, Constitutional of the consisting in the reduction of the legislative representation to four
Republic of 1931) especial constitutional courts are established to members, that is, two senators to be designated one each from the
pass upon the validity of ordinary laws. In our case, the nature of the two major parties in the Senate and two representatives to be
present controversy shows the necessity of a final constitutional designated one each from the two major parties in the House of
arbiter to determine the conflict of authority between two agencies Representatives, and in awarding representation to the executive
created by the Constitution. Were we to decline to take cognizance of department in the persons of two representatives to be designated by
the controversy, who will determine the conflict? And if the conflict the President.

4
 Mr. ROXAS. Well, what is the case with regards to the municipal
Meanwhile, the Committee on Legislative Power was also preparing president who is elected? What happens with regards to the
its report. As submitted to the Convention on September 24, 1934 councilors of a municipality? Does anybody confirm their election?
subsection 5, section 5, of the proposed Article on the Legislative The municipal council does this: it makes a canvass and proclaims —
Department, reads as follows: in this case the municipal council proclaims who has been elected,
and it ends there, unless there is a contest. It is the same case; there is
The elections, returns and qualifications of the members of either no need on the part of the Electoral Commission unless there is a
house and all cases contesting the election of any of their members contest. The first clause refers to the case referred to by the
shall be judged by an Electoral Commission, constituted, as to each gentleman from Cavite where one person tries to be elected in place
House, by three members elected by the members of the party having of another who was declared elected. From example, in a case when
the largest number of votes therein, three elected by the members of the residence of the man who has been elected is in question, or in
the party having the second largest number of votes, and as to its case the citizenship of the man who has been elected is in question.
Chairman, one Justice of the Supreme Court designated by the Chief
Justice. However, if the assembly desires to annul the power of the
commission, it may do so by certain maneuvers upon its first meeting
The idea of creating a Tribunal of Constitutional Security with when the returns are submitted to the assembly. The purpose is to
comprehensive jurisdiction as proposed by the Committee on give to the Electoral Commission all the powers exercised by the
Constitutional Guarantees which was probably inspired by the assembly referring to the elections, returns and qualifications of the
Spanish plan (art. 121, Constitution of the Spanish Republic of 1931), members. When there is no contest, there is nothing to be judged.
was soon abandoned in favor of the proposition of the Committee on
Legislative Power to create a similar body with reduced powers and Mr. VENTURA. Then it should be eliminated.
with specific and limited jurisdiction, to be designated as a Electoral
Commission. The Sponsorship Committee modified the proposal of Mr. ROXAS. But that is a different matter, I think Mr. Delegate.
the Committee on Legislative Power with respect to the composition
of the Electoral Commission and made further changes in Mr. CINCO. Mr. President, I have a similar question as that
phraseology to suit the project of adopting a unicameral instead of a propounded by the gentleman from Ilocos Norte when I arose a while
bicameral legislature. The draft as finally submitted to the ago. However I want to ask more questions from the delegate from
Convention on October 26, 1934, reads as follows: Capiz. This paragraph 6 on page 11 of the draft cites cases contesting
the election as separate from the first part of the sections which refers
(6) The elections, returns and qualifications of the Members of the to elections, returns and qualifications.
National Assembly and all cases contesting the election of any of its
Members shall be judged by an Electoral Commission, composed of Mr. ROXAS. That is merely for the sake of clarity. In fact the cases
three members elected by the party having the largest number of of contested elections are already included in the phrase "the
votes in the National Assembly, three elected by the members of the elections, returns and qualifications." This phrase "and contested
party having the second largest number of votes, and three justices of elections" was inserted merely for the sake of clarity.
the Supreme Court designated by the Chief Justice, the Commission
to be presided over by one of said justices. Mr. CINCO. Under this paragraph, may not the Electoral
Commission, at its own instance, refuse to confirm the elections of
During the discussion of the amendment introduced by Delegates the members."
Labrador, Abordo, and others, proposing to strike out the whole
subsection of the foregoing draft and inserting in lieu thereof the Mr. ROXAS. I do not think so, unless there is a protest.
following: "The National Assembly shall be the soled and exclusive
judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of the Members", Mr. LABRADOR. Mr. President, will the gentleman yield?
the following illuminating remarks were made on the floor of the
Convention in its session of December 4, 1934, as to the scope of the THE PRESIDENT. The gentleman may yield, if he so desires.
said draft:
Mr. ROXAS. Willingly.
xxx xxx xxx
Mr. LABRADOR. Does not the gentleman from Capiz believe that
Mr. VENTURA. Mr. President, we have a doubt here as to the scope unless this power is granted to the assembly, the assembly on its own
of the meaning of the first four lines, paragraph 6, page 11 of the motion does not have the right to contest the election and
draft, reading: "The elections, returns and qualifications of the qualification of its members?
Members of the National Assembly and all cases contesting the
election of any of its Members shall be judged by an Electoral Mr. ROXAS. I have no doubt but that the gentleman is right. If this
Commission, . . ." I should like to ask from the gentleman from Capiz draft is retained as it is, even if two-thirds of the assembly believe
whether the election and qualification of the member whose elections that a member has not the qualifications provided by law, they cannot
is not contested shall also be judged by the Electoral Commission. remove him for that reason.

Mr. ROXAS. If there is no question about the election of the Mr. LABRADOR. So that the right to remove shall only be retained
members, there is nothing to be judged; that is why the word "judge" by the Electoral Commission.
is used to indicate a controversy. If there is no question about the
election of a member, there is nothing to be submitted to the Electoral Mr. ROXAS. By the assembly for misconduct.
Commission and there is nothing to be determined.
Mr. LABRADOR. I mean with respect to the qualifications of the
Mr. VENTURA. But does that carry the idea also that the Electoral members.
Commission shall confirm also the election of those whose election is
not contested? Mr. ROXAS. Yes, by the Electoral Commission.

Mr. ROXAS. There is no need of confirmation. As the gentleman Mr. LABRADOR. So that under this draft, no member of the
knows, the action of the House of Representatives confirming the assembly has the right to question the eligibility of its members?
election of its members is just a matter of the rules of the assembly. It
is not constitutional. It is not necessary. After a man files his Mr. ROXAS. Before a member can question the eligibility, he must
credentials that he has been elected, that is sufficient, unless his go to the Electoral Commission and make the question before the
election is contested. Electoral Commission.

Mr. VENTURA. But I do not believe that that is sufficient, as we Mr. LABRADOR. So that the Electoral Commission shall decide
have observed that for purposes of the auditor, in the matter of whether the election is contested or not contested.
election of a member to a legislative body, because he will not
authorize his pay. Mr. ROXAS. Yes, sir: that is the purpose.

5
Mr. PELAYO. Mr. President, I would like to be informed if the votes, and three justices of the Supreme Court designated by the
Electoral Commission has power and authority to pass upon the Chief Justice, the Commission to be presided over by one of said
qualifications of the members of the National Assembly even though justices.
that question has not been raised.
The Style Committee to which the draft was submitted revised it as
Mr. ROXAS. I have just said that they have no power, because they follows:
can only judge.
SEC. 4. There shall be an Electoral Commission composed of three
In the same session, the first clause of the aforesaid draft reading Justices of the Supreme Court designated by the Chief Justice, and of
"The election, returns and qualifications of the members of the six Members chosen by the National Assembly, three of whom shall
National Assembly and" was eliminated by the Sponsorship be nominated by the party having the largest number of votes, and
Committee in response to an amendment introduced by Delegates three by the party having the second largest number of votes therein.
Francisco, Ventura, Vinzons, Rafols, Lim, Mumar and others. In The senior Justice in the Commission shall be its chairman. The
explaining the difference between the original draft and the draft as Electoral Commission shall be the sole judge of the election, returns,
amended, Delegate Roxas speaking for the Sponsorship Committee and qualifications of the Members of the National Assembly.
said:
When the foregoing draft was submitted for approval on February 8,
xxx xxx xxx 1935, the Style Committee, through President Recto, to effectuate the
original intention of the Convention, agreed to insert the phrase "All
Sr. ROXAS. La diferencia, señor Presidente, consiste solamente en contests relating to" between the phrase "judge of" and the words "the
obviar la objecion apuntada por varios Delegados al efecto de que la elections", which was accordingly accepted by the Convention.
primera clausula del draft que dice: "The elections, returns and
qualifications of the members of the National Assembly" parece que The transfer of the power of determining the election, returns and
da a la Comision Electoral la facultad de determinar tambien la qualifications of the members of the legislature long lodged in the
eleccion de los miembros que no ha sido protestados y para obviar legislative body, to an independent, impartial and non-partisan
esa dificultad, creemos que la enmienda tien razon en ese sentido, si tribunal, is by no means a mere experiment in the science of
enmendamos el draft, de tal modo que se lea como sigue: "All cases government.
contesting the election", de modo que los jueces de la Comision
Electoral se limitaran solamente a los casos en que haya habido Cushing, in his Law and Practice of Legislative Assemblies (ninth
protesta contra las actas." Before the amendment of Delegate edition, chapter VI, pages 57, 58), gives a vivid account of the
Labrador was voted upon the following interpellation also took place: "scandalously notorious" canvassing of votes by political parties in
the disposition of contests by the House of Commons in the
El Sr. CONEJERO. Antes de votarse la enmienda, quisiera following passages which are partly quoted by the petitioner in his
printed memorandum of March 14, 1936:
El Sr. PRESIDENTE. ¿Que dice el Comite?
153. From the time when the commons established their right to be
El Sr. ROXAS. Con mucho gusto. the exclusive judges of the elections, returns, and qualifications of
their members, until the year 1770, two modes of proceeding
El Sr. CONEJERO. Tal como esta el draft, dando tres miembros a la prevailed, in the determination of controverted elections, and rights
mayoria, y otros tres a la minoria y tres a la Corte Suprema, ¿no cree of membership. One of the standing committees appointed at the
Su Señoria que esto equivale practicamente a dejar el asunto a los commencement of each session, was denominated the committee of
miembros del Tribunal Supremo? privileges and elections, whose functions was to hear and investigate
all questions of this description which might be referred to them, and
El Sr. ROXAS. Si y no. Creemos que si el tribunal o la Commission to report their proceedings, with their opinion thereupon, to the
esta constituido en esa forma, tanto los miembros de la mayoria como house, from time to time. When an election petition was referred to
los de la minoria asi como los miembros de la Corte Suprema this committee they heard the parties and their witnesses and other
consideraran la cuestion sobre la base de sus meritos, sabiendo que el evidence, and made a report of all the evidence, together with their
partidismo no es suficiente para dar el triunfo. opinion thereupon, in the form of resolutions, which were considered
and agreed or disagreed to by the house. The other mode of
El Sr. CONEJERO. ¿Cree Su Señoria que en un caso como ese, proceeding was by a hearing at the bar of the house itself. When this
podriamos hacer que tanto los de la mayoria como los de la minoria court was adopted, the case was heard and decided by the house, in
prescindieran del partidismo? substantially the same manner as by a committee. The committee of
privileges and elections although a select committee. The committee
El Sr. ROXAS. Creo que si, porque el partidismo no les daria el of privileges and elections although a select committee was usually
triunfo. what is called an open one; that is to say, in order to constitute the
committee, a quorum of the members named was required to be
xxx xxx xxx present, but all the members of the house were at liberty to attend the
committee and vote if they pleased.
The amendment introduced by Delegates Labrador, Abordo and
others seeking to restore the power to decide contests relating to the 154. With the growth of political parties in parliament questions
election, returns and qualifications of members of the National relating to the right of membership gradually assumed a political
Assembly to the National Assembly itself, was defeated by a vote of character; so that for many years previous to the year 1770,
ninety-eight (98) against fifty-six (56). controverted elections had been tried and determined by the house of
commons, as mere party questions, upon which the strength of
In the same session of December 4, 1934, Delegate Cruz (C.) sought contending factions might be tested. Thus, for Example, in 1741, Sir
to amend the draft by reducing the representation of the minority Robert Walpole, after repeated attacks upon his government, resigned
party and the Supreme Court in the Electoral Commission to two his office in consequence of an adverse vote upon the Chippenham
members each, so as to accord more representation to the majority election. Mr. Hatsell remarks, of the trial of election cases, as
party. The Convention rejected this amendment by a vote of seventy- conducted under this system, that "Every principle of decency and
six (76) against forty-six (46), thus maintaining the non-partisan justice were notoriously and openly prostituted, from whence the
character of the commission. younger part of the house were insensibly, but too successfully,
induced to adopt the same licentious conduct in more serious matters,
As approved on January 31, 1935, the draft was made to read as and in questions of higher importance to the public welfare." Mr.
follows: George Grenville, a distinguished member of the house of commons,
undertook to propose a remedy for the evil, and, on the 7th of March,
(6) All cases contesting the elections, returns and qualifications of the 1770, obtained the unanimous leave of the house to bring in a bill, "to
Members of the National Assembly shall be judged by an Electoral regulate the trial of controverted elections, or returns of members to
Commission, composed of three members elected by the party having serve in parliament." In his speech to explain his plan, on the motion
the largest number of votes in the National Assembly, three elected for leave, Mr. Grenville alluded to the existing practice in the
by the members of the party having the second largest number of following terms: "Instead of trusting to the merits of their respective

6
causes, the principal dependence of both parties is their private
interest among us; and it is scandalously notorious that we are as The members of the Constitutional Convention who framed our
earnestly canvassed to attend in favor of the opposite sides, as if we fundamental law were in their majority men mature in years and
were wholly self-elective, and not bound to act by the principles of experience. To be sure, many of them were familiar with the history
justice, but by the discretionary impulse of our own inclinations; nay, and political development of other countries of the world. When ,
it is well known, that in every contested election, many members of therefore, they deemed it wise to create an Electoral Commission as a
this house, who are ultimately to judge in a kind of judicial capacity constitutional organ and invested it with the exclusive function of
between the competitors, enlist themselves as parties in the passing upon and determining the election, returns and qualifications
contention, and take upon themselves the partial management of the of the members of the National Assembly, they must have done so
very business, upon which they should determine with the strictest not only in the light of their own experience but also having in view
impartiality." the experience of other enlightened peoples of the world. The
creation of the Electoral Commission was designed to remedy certain
155. It was to put an end to the practices thus described, that Mr. evils of which the framers of our Constitution were cognizant.
Grenville brought in a bill which met with the approbation of both Notwithstanding the vigorous opposition of some members of the
houses, and received the royal assent on the 12th of April, 1770. This Convention to its creation, the plan, as hereinabove stated, was
was the celebrated law since known by the name of the Grenville approved by that body by a vote of 98 against 58. All that can be said
Act; of which Mr. Hatsell declares, that it "was one of the nobles now is that, upon the approval of the constitutional the creation of the
works, for the honor of the house of commons, and the security of the Electoral Commission is the expression of the wisdom and "ultimate
constitution, that was ever devised by any minister or statesman." It is justice of the people". (Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address,
probable, that the magnitude of the evil, or the apparent success of March 4, 1861.)
the remedy, may have led many of the contemporaries of the measure
to the information of a judgement, which was not acquiesced in by From the deliberations of our Constitutional Convention it is evident
some of the leading statesmen of the day, and has not been entirely that the purpose was to transfer in its totality all the powers
confirmed by subsequent experience. The bill was objected to by previously exercised by the legislature in matters pertaining to
Lord North, Mr. De Grey, afterwards chief justice of the common contested elections of its members, to an independent and impartial
pleas, Mr. Ellis, Mr. Dyson, who had been clerk of the house, and tribunal. It was not so much the knowledge and appreciation of
Mr. Charles James Fox, chiefly on the ground, that the introduction contemporary constitutional precedents, however, as the long-felt
of the new system was an essential alteration of the constitution of need of determining legislative contests devoid of partisan
parliament, and a total abrogation of one of the most important rights considerations which prompted the people, acting through their
and jurisdictions of the house of commons. delegates to the Convention, to provide for this body known as the
Electoral Commission. With this end in view, a composite body in
As early as 1868, the House of Commons in England solved the which both the majority and minority parties are equally represented
problem of insuring the non-partisan settlement of the controverted to off-set partisan influence in its deliberations was created, and
elections of its members by abdicating its prerogative to two judges further endowed with judicial temper by including in its membership
of the King's Bench of the High Court of Justice selected from a rota three justices of the Supreme Court.
in accordance with rules of court made for the purpose. Having
proved successful, the practice has become imbedded in English The Electoral Commission is a constitutional creation, invested with
jurisprudence (Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868 [31 & 32 Vict. c. the necessary authority in the performance and execution of the
125] as amended by Parliamentary Elections and Corrupt Practices limited and specific function assigned to it by the Constitution.
Act. 1879 [42 & 43 Vict. c. 75], s. 2; Corrupt and Illegal Practices Although it is not a power in our tripartite scheme of government, it
Preventions Act, 1883 [46 & 47 Vict. c. 51;, s. 70; Expiring Laws is, to all intents and purposes, when acting within the limits of its
Continuance Act, 1911 [1 & 2 Geo. 5, c. 22]; Laws of England, vol. authority, an independent organ. It is, to be sure, closer to the
XII, p. 408, vol. XXI, p. 787). In the Dominion of Canada, election legislative department than to any other. The location of the provision
contests which were originally heard by the Committee of the House (section 4) creating the Electoral Commission under Article VI
of Commons, are since 1922 tried in the courts. Likewise, in the entitled "Legislative Department" of our Constitution is very
Commonwealth of Australia, election contests which were originally indicative. Its compositions is also significant in that it is constituted
determined by each house, are since 1922 tried in the High Court. In by a majority of members of the legislature. But it is a body separate
Hungary, the organic law provides that all protests against the from and independent of the legislature.
election of members of the Upper House of the Diet are to be
resolved by the Supreme Administrative Court (Law 22 of 1916, The grant of power to the Electoral Commission to judge all contests
chap. 2, art. 37, par. 6). The Constitution of Poland of March 17, relating to the election, returns and qualifications of members of the
1921 (art. 19) and the Constitution of the Free City of Danzig of May National Assembly, is intended to be as complete and unimpaired as
13, 1922 (art. 10) vest the authority to decide contested elections to if it had remained originally in the legislature. The express lodging of
the Diet or National Assembly in the Supreme Court. For the purpose that power in the Electoral Commission is an implied denial of the
of deciding legislative contests, the Constitution of the German Reich exercise of that power by the National Assembly. And this is as
of July 1, 1919 (art. 31), the Constitution of the Czechoslovak effective a restriction upon the legislative power as an express
Republic of February 29, 1920 (art. 19) and the Constitution of the prohibition in the Constitution (Ex parte Lewis, 45 Tex. Crim. Rep.,
Grecian Republic of June 2, 1927 (art. 43), all provide for an 1; State vs. Whisman, 36 S.D., 260; L.R.A., 1917B, 1). If we concede
Electoral Commission. the power claimed in behalf of the National Assembly that said body
may regulate the proceedings of the Electoral Commission and cut
The creation of an Electoral Commission whose membership is off the power of the commission to lay down the period within which
recruited both from the legislature and the judiciary is by no means protests should be filed, the grant of power to the commission would
unknown in the United States. In the presidential elections of 1876 be ineffective. The Electoral Commission in such case would be
there was a dispute as to the number of electoral votes received by invested with the power to determine contested cases involving the
each of the two opposing candidates. As the Constitution made no election, returns and qualifications of the members of the National
adequate provision for such a contingency, Congress passed a law on Assembly but subject at all times to the regulative power of the
January 29, 1877 (United States Statutes at Large, vol. 19, chap. 37, National Assembly. Not only would the purpose of the framers of our
pp. 227-229), creating a special Electoral Commission composed of Constitution of totally transferring this authority from the legislative
five members elected by the Senate, five members elected by the body be frustrated, but a dual authority would be created with the
House of Representatives, and five justices of the Supreme Court, the resultant inevitable clash of powers from time to time. A sad
fifth justice to be selected by the four designated in the Act. The spectacle would then be presented of the Electoral Commission
decision of the commission was to be binding unless rejected by the retaining the bare authority of taking cognizance of cases referred to,
two houses voting separately. Although there is not much of a moral but in reality without the necessary means to render that authority
lesson to be derived from the experience of America in this regard, effective whenever and whenever the National Assembly has chosen
judging from the observations of Justice Field, who was a member of to act, a situation worse than that intended to be remedied by the
that body on the part of the Supreme Court (Countryman, the framers of our Constitution. The power to regulate on the part of the
Supreme Court of the United States and its Appellate Power under National Assembly in procedural matters will inevitably lead to the
the Constitution [Albany, 1913] — Relentless Partisanship of ultimate control by the Assembly of the entire proceedings of the
Electoral Commission, p. 25 et seq.), the experiment has at least Electoral Commission, and, by indirection, to the entire abrogation of
abiding historical interest.

7
the constitutional grant. It is obvious that this result should not be the National Assembly confirming non-protested elections of
permitted. members of the National Assembly had the effect of limiting or
tolling the time for the presentation of protests, the result would be
We are not insensible to the impassioned argument or the learned that the National Assembly — on the hypothesis that it still retained
counsel for the petitioner regarding the importance and necessity of the incidental power of regulation in such cases — had already barred
respecting the dignity and independence of the national Assembly as the presentation of protests before the Electoral Commission had had
a coordinate department of the government and of according validity time to organize itself and deliberate on the mode and method to be
to its acts, to avoid what he characterized would be practically an followed in a matter entrusted to its exclusive jurisdiction by the
unlimited power of the commission in the admission of protests Constitution. This result was not and could not have been
against members of the National Assembly. But as we have pointed contemplated, and should be avoided.
out hereinabove, the creation of the Electoral Commission carried
with it ex necesitate rei the power regulative in character to limit the From another angle, Resolution No. 8 of the National Assembly
time with which protests intrusted to its cognizance should be filed. It confirming the election of members against whom no protests had
is a settled rule of construction that where a general power is been filed at the time of its passage on December 3, 1935, can not be
conferred or duty enjoined, every particular power necessary for the construed as a limitation upon the time for the initiation of election
exercise of the one or the performance of the other is also conferred contests. While there might have been good reason for the legislative
(Cooley, Constitutional Limitations, eight ed., vol. I, pp. 138, 139). In practice of confirmation of the election of members of the legislature
the absence of any further constitutional provision relating to the at the time when the power to decide election contests was still
procedure to be followed in filing protests before the Electoral lodged in the legislature, confirmation alone by the legislature cannot
Commission, therefore, the incidental power to promulgate such rules be construed as depriving the Electoral Commission of the authority
necessary for the proper exercise of its exclusive power to judge all incidental to its constitutional power to be "the sole judge of all
contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of contest relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the
members of the National Assembly, must be deemed by necessary members of the National Assembly", to fix the time for the filing of
implication to have been lodged also in the Electoral Commission. said election protests. Confirmation by the National Assembly of the
returns of its members against whose election no protests have been
It is, indeed, possible that, as suggested by counsel for the petitioner, filed is, to all legal purposes, unnecessary. As contended by the
the Electoral Commission may abuse its regulative authority by Electoral Commission in its resolution of January 23, 1936,
admitting protests beyond any reasonable time, to the disturbance of overruling the motion of the herein petitioner to dismiss the protest
the tranquillity and peace of mind of the members of the National filed by the respondent Pedro Ynsua, confirmation of the election of
Assembly. But the possibility of abuse is not argument against the any member is not required by the Constitution before he can
concession of the power as there is no power that is not susceptible of discharge his duties as such member. As a matter of fact, certification
abuse. In the second place, if any mistake has been committed in the by the proper provincial board of canvassers is sufficient to entitle a
creation of an Electoral Commission and in investing it with member-elect to a seat in the national Assembly and to render him
exclusive jurisdiction in all cases relating to the election, returns, and eligible to any office in said body (No. 1, par. 1, Rules of the
qualifications of members of the National Assembly, the remedy is National Assembly, adopted December 6, 1935).
political, not judicial, and must be sought through the ordinary
processes of democracy. All the possible abuses of the government Under the practice prevailing both in the English House of Commons
are not intended to be corrected by the judiciary. We believe, and in the Congress of the United States, confirmation is neither
however, that the people in creating the Electoral Commission necessary in order to entitle a member-elect to take his seat. The
reposed as much confidence in this body in the exclusive return of the proper election officers is sufficient, and the member-
determination of the specified cases assigned to it, as they have given elect presenting such return begins to enjoy the privileges of a
to the Supreme Court in the proper cases entrusted to it for decision. member from the time that he takes his oath of office (Laws of
All the agencies of the government were designed by the Constitution England, vol. 12, pp. 331. 332; vol. 21, pp. 694, 695; U. S. C. A.,
to achieve specific purposes, and each constitutional organ working Title 2, secs. 21, 25, 26). Confirmation is in order only in cases of
within its own particular sphere of discretionary action must be contested elections where the decision is adverse to the claims of the
deemed to be animated with the same zeal and honesty in protestant. In England, the judges' decision or report in controverted
accomplishing the great ends for which they were created by the elections is certified to the Speaker of the House of Commons, and
sovereign will. That the actuations of these constitutional agencies the House, upon being informed of such certificate or report by the
might leave much to be desired in given instances, is inherent in the Speaker, is required to enter the same upon the Journals, and to give
perfection of human institutions. In the third place, from the fact that such directions for confirming or altering the return, or for the issue
the Electoral Commission may not be interfered with in the exercise of a writ for a new election, or for carrying into execution the
of its legitimate power, it does not follow that its acts, however illegal determination as circumstances may require (31 & 32 Vict., c. 125,
or unconstitutional, may not be challenge in appropriate cases over sec. 13). In the United States, it is believed, the order or decision of
which the courts may exercise jurisdiction. the particular house itself is generally regarded as sufficient, without
any actual alternation or amendment of the return (Cushing, Law and
But independently of the legal and constitutional aspects of the Practice of Legislative Assemblies, 9th ed., sec. 166).
present case, there are considerations of equitable character that
should not be overlooked in the appreciation of the intrinsic merits of Under the practice prevailing when the Jones Law was still in force,
the controversy. The Commonwealth Government was inaugurated each house of the Philippine Legislature fixed the time when protests
on November 15, 1935, on which date the Constitution, except as to against the election of any of its members should be filed. This was
the provisions mentioned in section 6 of Article XV thereof, went expressly authorized by section 18 of the Jones Law making each
into effect. The new National Assembly convened on November 25th house the sole judge of the election, return and qualifications of its
of that year, and the resolution confirming the election of the members, as well as by a law (sec. 478, Act No. 3387) empowering
petitioner, Jose A. Angara was approved by that body on December each house to respectively prescribe by resolution the time and
3, 1935. The protest by the herein respondent Pedro Ynsua against manner of filing contest in the election of member of said bodies. As
the election of the petitioner was filed on December 9 of the same a matter of formality, after the time fixed by its rules for the filing of
year. The pleadings do not show when the Electoral Commission was protests had already expired, each house passed a resolution
formally organized but it does appear that on December 9, 1935, the confirming or approving the returns of such members against whose
Electoral Commission met for the first time and approved a election no protests had been filed within the prescribed time. This
resolution fixing said date as the last day for the filing of election was interpreted as cutting off the filing of further protests against the
protest. When, therefore, the National Assembly passed its resolution election of those members not theretofore contested (Amistad vs.
of December 3, 1935, confirming the election of the petitioner to the Claravall [Isabela], Second Philippine Legislature, Record — First
National Assembly, the Electoral Commission had not yet met; Period, p. 89; Urguello vs. Rama [Third District, Cebu], Sixth
neither does it appear that said body had actually been organized. As Philippine Legislature; Fetalvero vs. Festin [Romblon], Sixth
a mater of fact, according to certified copies of official records on file Philippine Legislature, Record — First Period, pp. 637-640; Kintanar
in the archives division of the National Assembly attached to the vs. Aldanese [Fourth District, Cebu], Sixth Philippine Legislature,
record of this case upon the petition of the petitioner, the three Record — First Period, pp. 1121, 1122; Aguilar vs. Corpus
justices of the Supreme Court the six members of the National [Masbate], Eighth Philippine Legislature, Record — First Period, vol.
Assembly constituting the Electoral Commission were respectively III, No. 56, pp. 892, 893). The Constitution has repealed section 18 of
designated only on December 4 and 6, 1935. If Resolution No. 8 of the Jones Law. Act No. 3387, section 478, must be deemed to have

8
been impliedly abrogated also, for the reason that with the power to of its incidental power to prescribe the time within which protests
determine all contest relating to the election, returns and against the election of any member of the National Assembly should
qualifications of members of the National Assembly, is inseparably be filed.
linked the authority to prescribe regulations for the exercise of that
power. There was thus no law nor constitutional provisions which We hold, therefore, that the Electoral Commission was acting within
authorized the National Assembly to fix, as it is alleged to have fixed the legitimate exercise of its constitutional prerogative in assuming to
on December 3, 1935, the time for the filing of contests against the take cognizance of the protest filed by the respondent Pedro Ynsua
election of its members. And what the National Assembly could not against the election of the herein petitioner Jose A. Angara, and that
do directly, it could not do by indirection through the medium of the resolution of the National Assembly of December 3, 1935 can not
confirmation. in any manner toll the time for filing protests against the elections,
returns and qualifications of members of the National Assembly, nor
Summarizing, we conclude: prevent the filing of a protest within such time as the rules of the
Electoral Commission might prescribe.
(a) That the government established by the Constitution follows
fundamentally the theory of separation of power into the legislative, In view of the conclusion reached by us relative to the character of
the executive and the judicial. the Electoral Commission as a constitutional creation and as to the
scope and extent of its authority under the facts of the present
(b) That the system of checks and balances and the overlapping of controversy, we deem it unnecessary to determine whether the
functions and duties often makes difficult the delimitation of the Electoral Commission is an inferior tribunal, corporation, board or
powers granted. person within the purview of sections 226 and 516 of the Code of
Civil Procedure.
(c) That in cases of conflict between the several departments and
among the agencies thereof, the judiciary, with the Supreme Court as The petition for a writ of prohibition against the Electoral
the final arbiter, is the only constitutional mechanism devised finally Commission is hereby denied, with costs against the petitioner. So
to resolve the conflict and allocate constitutional boundaries. ordered.

(d) That judicial supremacy is but the power of judicial review in Avanceña, C. J., Diaz, Concepcion, and Horrilleno, JJ., concur.
actual and appropriate cases and controversies, and is the power and
duty to see that no one branch or agency of the government
transcends the Constitution, which is the source of all authority. Separate Opinions

(e) That the Electoral Commission is an independent constitutional ABAD SANTOS, J., concurring:
creation with specific powers and functions to execute and perform,
closer for purposes of classification to the legislative than to any of I concur in the result and in most of the views so ably expressed in
the other two departments of the governments. the preceding opinion. I am, however, constrained to withhold my
assent to certain conclusions therein advanced.
(f ) That the Electoral Commission is the sole judge of all contests
relating to the election, returns and qualifications of members of the The power vested in the Electoral Commission by the Constitution of
National Assembly. judging of all contests relating to the election, returns, and
qualifications of the members of the National Assembly, is judicial in
(g) That under the organic law prevailing before the present nature. (Thomas vs. Loney, 134 U.S., 372; 33 Law. ed., 949, 951.)
Constitution went into effect, each house of the legislature was On the other hand, the power to regulate the time in which notice of a
respectively the sole judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications contested election may be given, is legislative in character.
of their elective members. (M'Elmoyle vs. Cohen, 13 Pet., 312; 10 Law. ed., 177; Missouri vs.
Illinois, 200 U. S. 496; 50 Law. ed., 572.)
(h) That the present Constitution has transferred all the powers
previously exercised by the legislature with respect to contests It has been correctly stated that the government established by the
relating to the elections, returns and qualifications of its members, to Constitution follows fundamentally the theory of the separation of
the Electoral Commission. powers into legislative, executive, and judicial. Legislative power is
vested in the National Assembly. (Article VI, sec. 1.) In the absence
(i) That such transfer of power from the legislature to the Electoral of any clear constitutional provision to the contrary, the power to
Commission was full, clear and complete, and carried with it ex regulate the time in which notice of a contested election may be
necesitate rei the implied power inter alia to prescribe the rules and given, must be deemed to be included in the grant of legislative
regulations as to the time and manner of filing protests. power to the National Assembly.

( j) That the avowed purpose in creating the Electoral Commission The Constitution of the United States contains a provision similar to
was to have an independent constitutional organ pass upon all the that found in Article VI, section 4, of the Constitution of the
contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of Philippines. Article I, section 5, of the Constitution of the United
members of the National Assembly, devoid of partisan influence or States provides that each house of the Congress shall be the judge of
consideration, which object would be frustrated if the National the elections, returns, and qualifications of its own members.
Assembly were to retain the power to prescribe rules and regulations Notwithstanding this provision, the Congress has assumed the power
regarding the manner of conducting said contests. to regulate the time in which notice of a contested election may be
given. Thus section 201, Title 2, of the United States Code Annotated
(k) That section 4 of article VI of the Constitution repealed not only prescribes:
section 18 of the Jones Law making each house of the Philippine
Legislature respectively the sole judge of the elections, returns and Whenever any person intends to contest an election of any Member
qualifications of its elective members, but also section 478 of Act No. of the House of Representatives of the United States, he shall, within
3387 empowering each house to prescribe by resolution the time and thirty days after the result of such election shall have been
manner of filing contests against the election of its members, the time determined by the officer or board of canvassers authorized by law to
and manner of notifying the adverse party, and bond or bonds, to be determine the same, give notice, in writing, to the Member whose
required, if any, and to fix the costs and expenses of contest. seat he designs to contest, of his intention to contest the same, and, in
such notice, shall specify particularly the grounds upon which he
(l) That confirmation by the National Assembly of the election is relies in the contest. (R. S., par. 105.)
contested or not, is not essential before such member-elect may
discharge the duties and enjoy the privileges of a member of the The Philippine Autonomy Act, otherwise known as the Jones Law,
National Assembly. also contained a provision to the effect that the Senate and House of
Representatives, respectively, shall be the sole judges of the
(m) That confirmation by the National Assembly of the election of elections, returns, and qualifications of their elective members.
any member against whom no protest had been filed prior to said Notwithstanding this provision, the Philippine Legislature passed the
confirmation, does not and cannot deprive the Electoral Commission Election Law, section 478 of which reads as follows:

9
The Senate and the House of Representatives shall by resolution
respectively prescribe the time and manner of filing contest in the
election of members of said bodies, the time and manner of notifying
the adverse party, and bond or bonds, to be required, if any, and shall
fix the costs and expenses of contest which may be paid from their
respective funds.

The purpose sought to be attained by the creation of the Electoral

Commission was not to erect a body that would be above the law, but
to raise legislative elections contests from the category of political to
that of justiciable questions. The purpose was not to place the
commission beyond the reach of the law, but to insure the
determination of such contests with the due process of law.

Section 478 of the Election Law was in force at the time of the
adoption of the Constitution, Article XV, section 2, of which
provides that —

All laws of the Philippine Islands shall continue in force until the
inauguration of the Commonwealth of the Philippines; thereafter,
such laws shall remain operative, unless inconsistent with this JUSTICIABLE AND POLITICAL QUESTIONS
Constitution, until amended, altered, modified, or repealed by the
National Assembly, and all references in such laws to the
SATURNINO C. OCAMPO, TRINIDAD H. REPUNO,
Government or officials of the Philippine Islands shall be construed,
BIENVENIDO LUMBERA, BONIFACIO P. ILAGAN, NERI
in so far as applicable, to refer to the Government and corresponding
JAVIER COLMENARES, MARIA CAROLINA P. ARAULLO,
officials under this Constitution.
M.D., SAMAHAN NG EXDETAINEES LABAN SA DETENSYON
AT ARESTO (SELDA), REPRESENTED BY DIONITO
The manifest purpose of this constitutional provision was to insure
CABILLAS, CARMENCITA M. FLORENTINO, RODOLFO DEL
the orderly processes of government, and to prevent any hiatus in its
ROSARIO, FELIX C. DALISAY, AND DANILO M.
operations after the inauguration of the Commonwealth of the
DELAFUENTE,* Petitioners, 
Philippines. It was thus provided that all laws of the Philippine
Islands shall remain operative even after the inauguration of the
v. 
Commonwealth of the Philippines, unless inconsistent with the
Constitution, and that all references in such laws to the government
REAR ADMIRAL ERNESTO C. ENRIQUEZ (IN HIS
or officials of the Philippine Islands shall be construed, in so far as
CAPACITY AS THE DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR
applicable, to refer to the government and corresponding officials
RESERVIST AND RETIREE AFFAIRS, ARMED FORCES OF
under the Constitution. It would seem to be consistent not only with
THE PHILIPPINES), THE GRAVE SERVICES UNIT
the spirit but the letter of the Constitution to hold that section 478 of
(PHILIPPINE ARMY), AND GENERAL RICARDO R. VISAYA
the Election Law remains operative and should now be construed to
(IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED
refer to the Electoral Commission, which, in so far as the power to
FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES), DEFENSE SECRETARY
judge election contests is concerned, corresponds to either the Senate
DELFIN LORENZANA, AND HEIRS OF FERDINAND E.
or the House of Representative under the former regime. It is
MARCOS, REPRESENTED BY HIS SURVIVING SPOUSE
important to observe in this connection that said section 478 of the
IMELDA ROMUALDEZ MARCOS, Respondents.
Election Law vested the power to regulate the time and manner in
which notice of a contested election may be given, not in the
RENE A.V. SAGUISAG, SR., RENE A.Q. SAGUISAG, JR., RENE
Philippine Legislature but in the Senate and House of Representatives
A.C. SAGUISAG III, Intervenors.
singly. In other words, the authority to prescribe the time and manner
of filing contests in the elections of members of the Philippine
G.R. No. 225984
Legislature was by statute lodged separately in the bodies clothed
with power to decide such contests. Construing section 478 of the
REP. EDCEL C. LAGMAN, IN HIS PERSONAL AND OFFICIAL
Election Law to refer to the National Assembly, as required by
CAPACITIES AND AS A MEMBER OF CONGRESS AND AS
Article XV, section 2, of the Constitution, it seems reasonable to
THE HONORARY CHAIRPERSON OF THE FAMILIES OF
conclude that the authority to prescribe the time and manner of filing
VICTIMS OF INVOLUNTARY DISAPPEARANCE (FIND);
contests in the election of members of the National Assembly is
FAMILIES OF VICTIMS OF INVOLUNTARY DISAPPEARANCE
vested in the Electoral Commission, which is now the body clothed
(FIND), REPRESENTED BY ITS COCHAIRPERSON, NILDA L.
with power to decide such contests.
SEVILLA; REP. TEDDY BRAWNER BAGUILAT, JR.; REP.
TOMASITO S. VILLARIN; REP. EDGAR R. ERICE; AND REP.
In the light of what has been said, the resolution of the National
EMMANUEL A. BILLONES, Petitioners, v. EXECUTIVE
Assembly of December 3, 1935, could not have the effect of barring
SECRETARY SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA; DEFENSE
the right of the respondent Pedro Ynsua to contest the election of the
SECRETARY DELFIN N. LORENZANA; AFP CHIEF OF STAFF
petitioner. By the same token, the Electoral Commission was
LT. GEN. RICARDO R. VISAYA; AFP DEPUTY CHIEF OF
authorized by law to adopt its resolution of December 9, 1935, which
STAFF REAR ADMIRAL ERNESTO C. ENRIQUEZ; AND HEIRS
fixed the time with in which written contests must be filed with the
OF FERDINAND E. MARCOS, REPRESENTED BY HIS
commission.
SURVIVING SPOUSE IMELDA ROMUALDEZ
MARCOS, Respondents.
Having been filed within the time fixed by its resolutions, the
Electoral Commission has jurisdiction to hear and determine the
G.R. No. 226097
contest filed by the respondent Pedro Ynsua against the petitioner
Jose A. Angara.EN BANC
LORETTA ANN PARGAS-ROSALES, HILDA B. NARCISO,
G.R. No. 225973, November 08, 2016
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, v. 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
10
VETERANS AFFAIRS OFFICE (PVAO) ADMINISTRATOR LT. Ricardo R. Visaya, regarding the interment of Marcos at the LNMB,
GEN. ERNESTO G. CAROLINA (RET.), Respondents. to wit:

G.R. No. 226116

HEHERSON T. ALVAREZ, JOEL C. LAMANGAN, FRANCIS X. Subject: Interment of the late Former President Ferdinand
MANGLAPUS, EDILBERTO C. DE JESUS, BELINDA O. Marcos at LNMB
CUNANAN, CECILIA GUIDOTE ALVAREZ, REX DEGRACIA
LORES, SR., ARNOLD MARIE NOEL, CARLOS MANUEL, Reference: Verbal Order of President Rodrigo Duterte on July 11,
EDMUND S. TAYAO, DANILO P. OLIVARES, NOEL F. 2016.
TRINIDAD, JESUS DELA FUENTE, REBECCA M. QUIJANO,
FR. BENIGNO BELTRAN, SVD, ROBERTO S. VERZOLA, In compliance to (sic) the verbal order of the President to implement
AUGUSTO A. LEGASTO, JR., AND JULIA KRISTINA P. his election campaign promise to have the remains of the late former
LEGASTO, Petitioners, v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY President Ferdinand E. Marcos be interred at the Libingan ng mga
SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA, DEFENSE SECRETARY DELFIN Bayani, kindly undertake all the necessary planning and preparations
LORENZANA, AFP CHIEF OF STAFF LT. GEN. RICARDO R. to facilitate the coordination of all agencies concerned specially the
VISAYA, AFP DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF REAR ADMIRAL provisions for ceremonial and security requirements. Coordinate
ERNESTO C. ENRIQUEZ, AND PHILIPPINE VETERANS closely with the Marcos family regarding the date of interment and
AFFAIRS OFFICE (PVAO) OF THE DND, Respondents. the transport of the late former President's remains from Ilocos Norte
to the LNMB.
G.R. No. 226117
The overall OPR for this activity will [be] the PVAO since the
ZAIRA PATRICIA B. BANIAGA, JOHN ARVIN BUENAAGUA, LNMB is under its supervision and administration. PVAO shall
JOANNE ROSE SACE LIM, JUAN ANTONIO RAROGAL designate the focal person for this activity who shall be the overall
MAGALANG, Petitioners, v. SECRETARY OF NATIONAL overseer of the event.
DEFENSE DELFIN N. LORENZANA, AFP CHIEF OF STAFF
RICARDO R. VISAYA, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE PHILIPPINE Submit your Implementing Plan to my office as soon as possible. 1
VETERANS AFFAIRS OFFICE ERNESTO G. On August 9, 2016, respondent AFP Rear Admiral Ernesto C.
CAROLINA, Respondents. Enriquez issued the following directives to the Philippine Army (PA)
Commanding General:
G.R. No. 226120 SUBJECT:     Funeral Honors and Service

ALGAMAR A. LATIPH, Petitioner, v. SECRETARY DELFIN N. TO:              Commanding General, Philippine Army 

LORENZANA, SUED IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF                    Headquarters, Philippine Army 
NATIONAL DEFENSE, LT. GEN. RICARDO R. VISAYA, IN HIS                    Fort Bonifacio, Taguig City 
CAPACITY AS CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE ARMED FORCES OF                    Attn: Assistant Chief of Staff for RRA, G9
THE PHILIPPINES AND LT. GEN. ERNESTO G. CAROLINA 1. Pursuant to paragraph 2b, SOP Number 8, GHQ,
(RET.), IN HIS CAPACITY AS ADMINISTRATOR, PHILIPPINE AFP dated 14 July 1992, provide services, honors
VETERANS AFFAIRS OFFICE (PVAO), Respondents. and other courtesies for the late Former
President Ferdinand E. Marcos as indicated:
G.R. No. 226294
    [x] Vigil - Provide vigil 
LEILA M. DE LIMA, IN HER CAPACITY AS SENATOR OF THE     [x] Bugler/Drummer 
REPUBLIC AND AS TAXPAYER, Petitioner, v. HON.     [x] Firing Party 
SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA, DEFENSE SECRETARY DELFIN     [x] Military Host/Pallbearers 
LORENZANA, AFP CHIEF OF STAFF LT. GEN. RICARDO R.     [x] Escort and Transportation 
VISAYA, UNDERSECRETARY ERNESTO G. CAROLINA, IN     [x] Arrival/Departure Honors
HIS CAPACITY AS PHILIPPINE VETERANS AFFAIRS OFFICE 2. His remains lie in state at Ilocos Norte 
(PVAO) ADMINISTRATOR AND B/GEN. RESTITUTO L. 3. Interment will take place at the Libingan ng
AGUILAR, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SHRINE CURATOR AND mga Bayani, Ft. Bonifacio, Taguig City. Date:
CHIEF VETERANS MEMORIAL AND HISTORICAL DIVISION TBAL. 
AND HEIRS OF FERDINAND EDRALIN MARCOS, Respondent. 4. Provide all necessary military honors
accorded for a President 
DECISION 5. POC: Administrator, PVAO BY COMMAND
PERALTA, J.: OF GENERAL VISAYA2
6.
In law, as much as in life, there is need to find closure. Issues that Dissatisfied with the foregoing issuance, the following were filed by
have lingered and festered for so long and which unnecessarily divide petitioners:
the people and slow the path to the future have to be interred. To
move on is not to forget the past. It is to focus on the present and the 1. Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition3 filed by Saturnino Ocampo
future, leaving behind what is better left for history to ultimately and several others,4 in their capacities as human rights advocates or
decide. The Court finds guidance from the Constitution and the human rights violations victims as defined under Section 3 (c) of
applicable laws, and in the absence of clear prohibition against the Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10368 (Human Rights Victims Reparation
exercise of discretion entrusted to the political branches of the and Recognition Act of 2013).
Government, the Court must not overextend its readings of what may
only be seen as providing tenuous connection to the issue before it. 2. Petition for Certiorari-in-Intervention5 filed by Rene A.V.
Saguisag, Sr. and his son, 6 as members of the Bar and human rights
Facts lawyers, and his grandchild.7

During the campaign period for the 2016 Presidential Election, then 3. Petition for Prohibition8 filed by Representative Edcel C. Lagman,
candidate Rodrigo R. Duterte (Duterte) publicly announced that he in his personal capacity, as member of the House of Representatives
would allow the burial of former President Ferdinand E. Marcos and as Honorary Chairperson of Families of Victims of Involuntary
(Marcos) at the Libingan Ng Mga Bayani (LNMB). He won the May Disappearance (FIND), a duly-registered corporation and
9, 2016 election, garnering 16,601,997 votes. At noon of June 30, organization of victims and families of enforced disappearance,
2016, he formally assumed his office at the Rizal Hall in the mostly during the martial law regime of the former President Marcos,
Malacañan Palace. and several others,9 in their official capacities as duly-elected
Congressmen of the House of Representatives of the Philippines.
On August 7, 2016, public respondent Secretary of National Defense
Delfin N. Lorenzana issued a Memorandum to the public respondent 4. Petition for Prohibition10 filed by Loretta Ann Pargas-Rosales,
Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), General former Chairperson of the Commission on Human Rights, and

11
several others,11 suing as victims of State-sanctioned human rights
violations during the martial law regime of Marcos. The petitions must be dismissed.
Procedural Grounds
5. Petition for Mandamus and Prohibition 12 filed by Heherson T.
Alvarez, former Senator of the Republic of the Philippines, who Justiciable controversy
fought to oust the dictatorship of Marcos, and several others, 13as
concerned Filipino citizens and taxpayers. It is well settled that no question involving the constitutionality or
validity of a law or governmental act may be heard and decided by
6. Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition14 filed by Zaira Patricia B. the Court unless the following requisites for judicial inquiry are
Baniaga and several others,15 as concerned Filipino citizens and present: (a) there must be an actual case or controversy calling for the
taxpayers.  exercise of judicial power; (b) the person challenging the act must
have the standing to question the validity of the subject act or
7. Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition16 filed by Algamar A. issuance; (c) the question of constitutionality must be raised at the
Latiph, former Chairperson of the Regional Human Rights earliest opportunity; and (d) the issue of constitutionality must be the
Commission, Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao, by himself very lis mota of the case.19 In this case, the absence of the first two
and on behalf of the Moro17 who are victims of human rights during requisites, which are the most essential, renders the discussion of the
the martial law regime of Marcos. last two superfluous.20

8. Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition18 filed by Leila M. De Lima An "actual case or controversy" is one which involves a conflict of
as member of the Senate of the Republic of the Philippines, public legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims, susceptible of
official and concerned citizen. judicial resolution as distinguished from a hypothetical or abstract
difference or dispute.21 There must be a contrariety of legal rights that
Issues can be interpreted and enforced on the basis of existing law and
jurisprudence.22 Related to the requisite of an actual case or
Procedural controversy is the requisite of "ripeness," which means that
something had then been accomplished or performed by either branch
1. Whether President Duterte's determination to have the remains of before a court may come into the picture, and the petitioner must
Marcos interred at the LNMB poses a justiciable controversy. allege the existence of an immediate or threatened injury to itself as a
result of the challenged action.23 Moreover, the limitation on the
2. Whether petitioners have locus standi to file the instant petitions. power of judicial review to actual cases and controversies carries the
assurance that the courts will not intrude into areas committed to the
3. Whether petitioners violated the doctrines of exhaustion of other branches of government. 24 Those areas pertain to questions
administrative remedies and hierarchy of courts. which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their
Substantive sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority
has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the
1. Whether the respondents Secretary of National Defense and AFP government.25cralawred As they are concerned with questions of
Rear Admiral committed grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack policy and issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality of a
or excess of jurisdiction, when they issued the assailed memorandum particular measure,26 political questions used to be beyond the ambit
and directive in compliance with the verbal order of President Duterte of judicial review. However, the scope of the political question
to implement his election campaign promise to have the remains of doctrine has been limited by Section 1 of Article VIII of the 1987
Marcos interred at the LNMB. Constitution when it vested in the judiciary the power to determine
whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to
2. Whether the Issuance and implementation of the assailed lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
memorandum and directive violate the Constitution, domestic and instrumentality of the Government.
international laws, particularly:
The Court agrees with the OSG that President Duterte's decision to
(a) Sections 2, 11, 13, 23, 26, 27 and 28 of Article II, Section 1 of have the remains of Marcos interred at the LNMB involves a political
Article III, Section 17 of Article VII, Section 1 of Article XI, Section question that is not a justiciable controversy. In the exercise of his
3(2) of Article XIV, and Section 26 of Article XVIII of the 1987 powers under the Constitution and the Executive Order (E.O.) No.
Constitution; 292 (otherwise known as the Administrative Code of 1987) to allow
the interment of Marcos at the LNMB, which is a land of the public
(b) R.A. No. 289; domain devoted for national military cemetery and military shrine
purposes, President Duterte decided a question of policy based on his
(c) R.A. No. 10368; wisdom that it shall promote national healing and forgiveness. There
being no taint of grave abuse in the exercise of such discretion, as
(d) AFP Regulation G 161-375 dated September 11, 2000; discussed below, President Duterte's decision on that political
question is outside the ambit of judicial review.
(e) The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;
Locus standi
(f) The "Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy
and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Defined as a right of appearance in a court of justice on a given
Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International question,27locus standi requires that a party alleges such personal
Humanitarian Law" of the United Nations (U.N.) General Assembly; stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete
and cralawlawlibrary adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the
court depends for illumination of difficult constitutional
(g) The "Updated Set of Principles for Protection and Promotion of questions.28 Unless a person has sustained or is in imminent danger of
Human Rights through Action to Combat Impunity" of the U.N. sustaining an injury as a result of an act complained of, such proper
Economic and Social Council; party has no standing.29 Petitioners, who filed their respective
petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, in their capacities
3. Whether historical facts, laws enacted to recover ill-gotten wealth as citizens, human rights violations victims, legislators, members of
from the Marcoses and their cronies, and the pronouncements of the the Bar and taxpayers, have no legal standing to file such petitions
Court on the Marcos regime have nullified his entitlement as a soldier because they failed to show that they have suffered or will suffer
and former President to interment at the LNMB. direct and personal injury as a result of the interment of Marcos at the
LNMB.
4. Whether the Marcos family is deemed to have waived the burial of
the remains of former President Marcos at the LNMB after they Taxpayers have been allowed to sue where there is a claim that public
entered into an agreement with the Government of the Republic of funds are illegally disbursed or that public money is being deflected
the Philippines as to the conditions and procedures by which his to any improper purpose, or that public funds are wasted through the
remains shall be brought back to and interred in the Philippines. enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law. 30 In this case, what
Opinion is essentially being assailed is the wisdom behind the decision of the

12
President to proceed with the interment of Marcos at the LNMB. As Contrary to their claim of lack of plain, speedy, adequate remedy in
taxpayers, petitioners merely claim illegal disbursement of public the ordinary course of law, petitioners should be faulted for failing to
funds, without showing that Marcos is disqualified to be interred at seek reconsideration of the assailed memorandum and directive
the LNMB by either express or implied provision of the Constitution, before the Secretary of National Defense. The Secretary of National
the laws or jurisprudence. Defense should be given opportunity to correct himself, if warranted,
considering that AFP Regulations G 161-375 was issued upon his
Petitioners Saguisag, et al.,31 as members of the Bar, are required to order. Questions on the implementation and interpretation thereof
allege any direct or potential injury which the Integrated Bar of the demand the exercise of sound administrative discretion, requiring the
Philippines, as an institution, or its members may suffer as a special knowledge, experience and services of his office to determine
consequence of the act complained of. 32 Suffice it to state that the technical and intricate matters of fact. If petitioners would still be
averments in their petition-in-intervention failed to disclose such dissatisfied with the decision of the Secretary, they could elevate the
injury, and that their interest in this case is too general and shared by matter before the Office of the President which has control and
other groups, such that their duty to uphold the rule of law, without supervision over the Department of National Defense (DND).44
more, is inadequate to clothe them with requisite legal standing. 33
Hierarchy of Courts
As concerned citizens, petitioners are also required to substantiate
that the issues raised are of transcendental importance, of In the same vein, while direct resort to the Court through petitions for
overreaching significance to society, or of paramount public the extraordinary writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus are
interest.34 In cases involving such issues, the imminence and clarity allowed under exceptional cases, 45 which are lacking in this case,
of the threat to fundamental constitutional rights outweigh the petitioners cannot simply brush aside the doctrine of hierarchy of
necessity for prudence. 35 In Marcos v. Manglapus,36 the majority courts that requires such petitions to be filed first with the proper
opinion observed that the subject controversy was of grave national Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC is not just a trier of facts, but
importance, and that the Court's decision would have a profound can also resolve questions of law in the exercise of its original and
effect on the political, economic, and other aspects of national life. concurrent jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari, prohibition and
The ponencia explained that the case was in a class by itself, unique mandamus, and has the power to issue restraining order and
and could not create precedent because it involved a dictator forced injunction when proven necessary.
out of office and into exile after causing twenty years of political,
economic and social havoc in the country and who, within the short In fine, the petitions at bar should be dismissed on procedural
space of three years (from 1986), sought to return to the Philippines grounds alone. Even if We decide the case based on the merits, the
to die. petitions should still be denied.
Substantive Grounds
At this point in time, the interment of Marcos at a cemetery originally
established as a national military cemetery and declared a national There is grave abuse of discretion when an act is (1) done contrary to
shrine would have no profound effect on the political, economic, and the Constitution, the law or jurisprudence or (2) executed
other aspects of our national life considering that more than twenty- whimsically, capriciously or arbitrarily, out of malice, ill will or
seven (27) years since his death and thirty (30) years after his ouster personal bias.46 None is present in this case.
have already passed. Significantly, petitioners failed to demonstrate a I 
clear and imminent threat to their fundamental constitutional rights. The President's decision to bury Marcos at the LNMB is in
accordance with the Constitution, the law or jurisprudence
As human rights violations victims during the Martial Law regime,
some of petitioners decry re-traumatization, historical revisionism, Petitioners argue that the burial of Marcos at the LNMB should not
and disregard of their state recognition as heroes. Petitioners' be allowed because it has the effect of not just rewriting history as to
argument is founded on the wrong premise that the LNMB is the the Filipino people's act of revolting against an authoritarian ruler but
National Pantheon intended by law to perpetuate the memory of all also condoning the abuses committed during the Martial Law,
Presidents, national heroes and patriots. The history of the LNMB, as thereby violating the letter and spirit of the 1987 Constitution, which
will be discussed further, reveals its nature and purpose as a national is a "post-dictatorship charter" and a "human rights constitution." For
military cemetery and national shrine, under the administration of the them, the ratification of the Constitution serves as a clear
AFP. condemnation of Marcos' alleged "heroism." To support their case,
petitioners invoke Sections 2, 4711,48 13,49 23,50 26,51 2752 and 2853 of
Apart from being concerned citizens and taxpayers, petitioners Article II, Sec. 17 of Art. VII, 54 Sec. 3(2) of Art. XIV,55 Sec. 1 of Art.
Senator De Lima, and Congressman Lagman, et al.37 come before the XI,56 and Sec. 26 of Art. XVIII57 of the Constitution.
Court as legislators suing to defend the Constitution and to protect
appropriated public funds from being used unlawfully. In the absence There is no merit to the contention.
of a clear showing of any direct injury to their person or the
institution to which they belong, their standing as members of the As the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) logically reasoned out,
Congress cannot be upheld. 38 They do not specifically claim that the while the Constitution is a product of our collective history as a
official actions complained of, i.e., the memorandum of the Secretary people, its entirety should not be interpreted as providing guiding
of National Defense and the directive of the AFP Chief of Staff principles to just about anything remotely related to the Martial Law
regarding the interment of Marcos at the LNMB, encroach on their period such as the proposed Marcos burial at the LNMB.
prerogatives as legislators. 39
Tañada v. Angara58 already ruled that the provisions in Article II of
Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies the Constitution are not self-executing. Thus:
By its very title, Article II of the Constitution is a "declaration of
Petitioners violated the doctrines of exhaustion of administrative principles and state policies." The counterpart of this article in
remedies and hierarchy of courts. Under the doctrine of exhaustion of the 1935 Constitution is called the "basic political creed of the
administrative remedies, before a party is allowed to seek the nation" by Dean Vicente Sinco. These principles in Article II are not
intervention of the court, one should have availed first of all the intended to be self executing principles ready for enforcement
means of administrative processes available. 40 If resort to a remedy through the courts. They are used by the judiciary as aids or as guides
within the administrative machinery can still be made by giving the in the exercise of its power of judicial review, and by the legislature
administrative officer concerned every opportunity to decide on a in its enactment of laws. As held in the leading case of  Kilosbayan,
matter that comes within his jurisdiction, then such remedy should be Incorporated vs. Morato, the principles and state policies enumerated
exhausted first before the court's judicial power can be sought. 41 For in Article II x x x are not "self-executing provisions, the disregard of
reasons of comity and convenience, courts of justice shy away from a which can give rise to a cause of action in the courts. They do not
dispute until the system of administrative redress has been completed embody judicially enforceable constitutional rights but guidelines for
and complied with, so as to give the administrative agency concerned legislation."
every opportunity to correct its error and dispose of the case. 42 While
there are exceptions43 to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative In the same light, we held in Basco vs. Pagcor that broad
remedies, petitioners failed to prove the presence of any of those constitutional principles need legislative enactments to implement
exceptions. them x x x.

13
x x x emulation of the present and future generations. They maintain that
public respondents are not members of the Board on National
The reasons for denying a cause of action to an alleged infringement Pantheon, which is authorized by the law to cause the burial at the
of broad constitutional principles are sourced from basic LNMB of the deceased Presidents of the Philippines, national heroes,
considerations of due process and the lack of judicial authority to and patriots.
wade "into the uncharted ocean of social and economic policy
making."59 Petitioners are mistaken. Both in their pleadings and during the oral
In the same vein, Sec. 1 of Art. XI of the Constitution is not a self- arguments, they miserably failed to provide legal and historical bases
executing provision considering that a law should be passed by the as to their supposition that the LNMB and the National Pantheon are
Congress to clearly define and effectuate the principle embodied one and the same. This is not at all unexpected because the LNMB is
therein. As a matter of fact, pursuant thereto, Congress enacted R.A. distinct and separate from the burial place envisioned in R.A. No 289.
No. 6713 ("Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public The parcel of land subject matter of President Quirino's Proclamation
Officials and Employees"), R.A. No. 6770 ("The Ombudsman Act of No. 431, which was later on revoked by President Magsaysay's
1989"), R.A. No. 7080 (An Act Defining and Penalizing the Crime of Proclamation No. 42, is different from that covered by Marcos'
Plunder), and Republic Act No. 9485 ("Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007"). Proclamation No. 208. The National Pantheon does not exist at
To complement these statutes, the Executive Branch has issued present. To date, the Congress has deemed it wise not to appropriate
various orders, memoranda, and instructions relative to the norms of any funds for its construction or the creation of the Board on National
behavior/code of conduct/ethical standards of officials and Pantheon. This is indicative of the legislative will not to pursue, at the
employees; workflow charts/public transactions; rules and policies on moment, the establishment of a singular interment place for the
gifts and benefits; whistle blowing and reporting; and client feedback mortal remains of all Presidents of the Philippines, national heroes,
program. and patriots. Perhaps, the Manila North Cemetery, the Manila South
Cemetery, and other equally distinguished private cemeteries already
Petitioners' reliance on Sec. 3(2) of Art. XIV and Sec. 26 of Art. serve the noble purpose but without cost to the limited funds of the
XVIII of the Constitution is also misplaced. Sec. 3(2) of Art. XIV government.
refers to the constitutional duty of educational institutions in teaching
the values of patriotism and nationalism and respect for human rights, Even if the Court treats R.A. No. 289 as relevant to the issue, still,
while Sec. 26 of Art. XVIII is a transitory provision on sequestration petitioners' allegations must fail. To apply the standard that the
or freeze orders in relation to the recovery of Marcos' ill-gotten LNMB is reserved only for the "decent and the brave" or "hero"
wealth. Clearly, with respect to these provisions, there is no direct or would be violative of public policy as it will put into question the
indirect prohibition to Marcos' interment at the LNMB. validity of the burial of each and every mortal remains resting
therein, and infringe upon the principle of separation of powers since
The second sentence of Sec. 17 of Art. VII pertaining to the duty of the allocation of plots at the LNMB is based on the grant of authority
the President to "ensure that the laws be faithfully executed," which is to the President under existing laws and regulations. Also, the Court
identical to Sec. 1, Title I, Book III of the Administrative Code of shares the view of the OSG that the proposed interment is not
1987,60 is likewise not violated by public respondents. Being the equivalent to the consecration of Marcos' mortal remains. The act in
Chief Executive, the President represents the government as a whole itself does not confer upon him the status of a "hero." Despite its
and sees to it that all laws are enforced by the officials and employees name, which is actually a misnomer, the purpose of the LNMB, both
of his or her department. 61 Under the Faithful Execution Clause, the from legal and historical perspectives, has neither been to confer to
President has the power to take "necessary and proper steps" to carry the people buried there the title of "hero" nor to require that only
into execution the law. 62 The mandate is self-executory by virtue of those interred therein should be treated as a "hero." Lastly,
its being inherently executive in nature and is intimately related to the petitioners' repeated reference to a "hero's burial" and "state honors,"
other executive functions.63 It is best construed as an imposed without showing proof as to what kind of burial or honors that will be
obligation, not a separate grant of power.64 The provision simply accorded to the remains of Marcos, is speculative until the specifics
underscores the rule of law and, corollarily, the cardinal principle that of the interment have been finalized by public respondents.
the President is not above the laws but is obliged to obey and execute
them.65 B. On R.A. No. 1036870

Consistent with President Duterte's mandate under Sec. 17, Art. VII For petitioners, R.A. No. 10368 modified AFP Regulations G 161-
of the Constitution, the burial of Marcos at the LNMB does not 375 by implicitly disqualifying Marcos' burial at the LNMB because
contravene R.A. No. 289, R.A. No. 10368, and the international the legislature, which is a co-equal branch of the government, has
human rights laws cited by petitioners. statutorily declared his tyranny as a deposed dictator and has
recognized the heroism and sacrifices of the Human Rights
A. On R.A. No. 28966 Violations Victims (HRVVs)71 under his regime. They insist that the
intended act of public respondents damages and makes mockery of
For the perpetuation of their memory and for the inspiration and the mandatory teaching of Martial Law atrocities and of the lives and
emulation of this generation and of generations still unborn, R.A. No. sacrifices of its victims. They contend that "reparation" under R.A.
289 authorized the construction of a National Pantheon as the burial No. 10368 is non-judicial in nature but a political action of the State
place of the mortal remains of all the Presidents of the Philippines, through the Legislative and Executive branches by providing
national heroes and patriots. 67 It also provided for the creation of a administrative relief for the compensation, recognition, and
Board on National Pantheon to implement the law. 68 memorialization of human rights victims.

On May 12, 1953, President Elpidio R. Quirino approved the site of We beg to disagree.
the National Pantheon at East Avenue, Quezon City. 69 On December
23, 1953, he issued Proclamation No. 431 to formally "withdraw Certainly, R.A. No. 10368 recognizes the heroism and sacrifices of
from sale or settlement and reserve as a site for the construction of all Filipinos who were victims of summary execution, torture,
the National Pantheon a certain parcel of land located in Quezon enforced or involuntary disappearance, and other gross human rights
City." However, on July 5, 1954, President Magsaysay issued violations committed from September 21, 1972 to February 25, 1986.
Proclamation No. 42 revoking Proclamation Nos. 422 and 431, both To restore their honor and dignity, the State acknowledges its moral
series of 1953, and reserving the parcels of land embraced therein for and legal obligation72 to provide reparation to said victims and/or
national park purposes to be known as Quezon Memorial Park. their families for the deaths, injuries, sufferings, deprivations and
damages they experienced.
It is asserted that Sec. 1 of R.A. No 289 provides for the legal
standard by which a person's mortal remains may be interred at the In restoring the rights and upholding the dignity of HRVVs, which is
LNMB, and that AFP Regulations G 161-375 merely implements the part of the right to an effective remedy, R.A. No. 10368 entitles them
law and should not violate its spirit and intent. Petitioners claim that to monetary and non-monetary reparation. Any HRVV qualified
it is known, both here and abroad, that Marcos' acts and deed - the under the law73 shall receive a monetary reparation, which is tax-free
gross human rights violations, the massive corruption and plunder of and without prejudice to the receipt of any other sum from any other
government coffers, and his military record that is fraught with person or entity in any case involving human rights
myths, factual inconsistencies, and lies - are neither worthy of violations.74 Anent the non-monetary reparation, the Department of
perpetuation in our memory nor serve as a source of inspiration and Health (DOH), the Department of Social Welfare and Development

14
(DSWD), the Department of Education (DepEd), the Commission on for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights Through Action
Higher Education (CHED), the Technical Education and Skills to Combat Impunity87 dated February 8, 2005 by the U.N. Economic
Development Authority (TESDA), and such other government and Social Council.
agencies are required to render the necessary services for the HRVVs
and/or their families, as may be determined by the Human Rights We do not think so. The ICCPR, 88 as well as the U.N. principles on
Victims' Claims Board (Board) pursuant to the provisions of the reparation and to combat impunity, call for the enactment of
law.75 legislative measures, establishment of national programmes, and
provision for administrative and judicial recourse, in accordance with
Additionally, R.A. No. 10368 requires the recognition of the the country's constitutional processes, that are necessary to give effect
violations committed against the HRVVs, regardless of whether they to human rights embodied in treaties, covenants and other
opt to seek reparation or not. This is manifested by enshrining their international laws. The U.N. principles on reparation expressly states:
names in the Roll of Human Rights Violations Victims (Roll)
prepared by the Board. 76 The Roll may be displayed in government Emphasizing that the Basic Principles and Guidelines contained
agencies designated by the HRVV Memorial Commission herein do not entail new international or domestic legal obligations
(Commission).77 Also, a Memorial/Museum/Library shall be but identify mechanisms, modalities, procedures and methods for the
established and a compendium of their sacrifices shall be prepared implementation of existing legal obligations under international
and may be readily viewed and accessed in the internet. 78 The human rights law and international humanitarian law which are
Commission is created primarily for the establishment, restoration, complementary though different as to their norms[.][Emphasis
preservation and conservation of the Memorial/Museum/ supplied]
Library/Compendium.79 The Philippines is more than compliant with its international
obligations. When the Filipinos regained their democratic institutions
To memorialize80 the HRVVs, the Implementing Rules and after the successful People Power Revolution that culminated on
Regulations of R.A. No. 10368 further mandates that: (1) the February 25, 1986, the three branches of the government have done
database prepared by the Board derived from the processing of claims their fair share to respect, protect and fulfill the country's human
shall be turned over to the Commission for archival purposes, and rights obligations, to wit:
made accessible for the promotion of human rights to all government
agencies and instrumentalities in order to prevent recurrence of The 1987 Constitution contains provisions that promote and protect
similar abuses, encourage continuing reforms and contribute to human rights and social justice.
ending impunity;81 (2) the lessons learned from Martial Law atrocities
and the lives and sacrifices of HRVVs shall be included in the basic As to judicial remedies, aside from the writs of habeas corpus,
and higher education curricula, as well as in continuing adult amparo,89 and habeas data,90 the Supreme Court promulgated on
learning, prioritizing those most prone to commit human rights March 1, 2007 Administrative Order No. 25-2007, 91 which provides
violations;82 and (3) the Commission shall publish only those stories rules on cases involving extra-judicial killings of political ideologists
of HRVVs who have given prior informed consent. 83 and members of the media. The provision of the Basic Principles and
Guidelines on the prevention of the victim's re-traumatization applies
This Court cannot subscribe to petitioners' logic that the beneficial in the course of legal and administrative procedures designed to
provisions of R.A. No. 10368 are not exclusive as it includes the provide justice and reparation.92
prohibition on Marcos' burial at the LNMB. It would be undue to
extend the law beyond what it actually contemplates. With its victim- On the part of the Executive Branch, it issued a number of
oriented perspective, our legislators could have easily inserted a administrative and executive orders. Notable of which are the
provision specifically proscribing Marcos' interment at the LNMB as following:
a "reparation" for the HRVVs, but they did not. As it is, the law is 1. A.O. No. 370 dated December 10, 1997 (Creating the
silent and should remain to be so. This Court cannot read into the law Inter-Agency Coordinating Committee on Human Rights)
what is simply not there. It is irregular, if not unconstitutional, for Us 2. E.O. No. 118 dated July 5, 1999 (Providing for the
to presume the legislative will by supplying material details into the Creation of a National Committee on the Culture of Peace) 
law. That would be tantamount to judicial legislation. 3. E.O. No. 134 dated July 31, 1999 (Declaring August 12,
1999 and Every 12th Day of August Thereafter as
Considering the foregoing, the enforcement of the HRVVs' rights International Humanitarian Law Day) 
under R.A. No 10368 will surely not be impaired by the interment of 4. E.O. No. 404 dated January 24, 2005 (Creating the
Marcos at the LNMB. As opined by the OSG, the assailed act has no Government of the Republic of the Philippines Monitoring
causal connection and legal relation to the law. The subject Committee [GRPMC] on Human Rights and International
memorandum and directive of public respondents do not and cannot Humanitarian Law) 
interfere with the statutory powers and functions of the Board and the 5. A.O. No. 157 dated August 21, 2006 (Creating an
Commission. More importantly, the HRVVs' entitlements to the Independent Commission to Address Media and Activist
benefits provided for by R.A. No 10368 and other domestic laws are Killings)
not curtailed. It must be emphasized that R.A. No. 10368 does not 6. A.O. No. 163 dated December 8, 2006 (Strengthening and
amend or repeal, whether express or implied, the provisions of the Increasing the Membership of the Presidential Human
Administrative Code or AFP Regulations G 161-375: Rights Committee, and Expanding Further the Functions of
It is a well-settled rule of statutory construction that repeals by Said Committee)93
implication are not favored. In order to effect a repeal by implication, 7. A.O. No. 181 dated July 3, 2007 (Directing the
the later statute must be so irreconcilably inconsistent and repugnant Cooperation and Coordination Between the National
with the existing law that they cannot be made to reconcile and stand Prosecution Service and Other Concerned Agencies of
together. The clearest case possible must be made before the Government for the Successful Investigation and
inference of implied repeal may be drawn, for inconsistency is never Prosecution of Political and Media Killings)
presumed. There must be a showing of repugnance clear and 8. A.O. No. 197 dated September 25, 2007 (DND and AFP
convincing in character. The language used in the later statute must Coordination with PHRC Sub-committee on Killings and
be such as to render it irreconcilable with what had been formerly Disappearances) 
enacted. An inconsistency that falls short of that standard does not 9. A.O. No. 211 dated November 26, 2007 (Creating a Task
suffice. x x x84 Force Against Political Violence) 
10. A.O. No. 249 dated December 10, 2008 (Further
C. On International Human Rights Laws Strengthening Government Policies, Plans, and Programs
for the Effective Promotion and Protection of Human
Petitioners argue that the burial of Marcos at the LNMB will violate Rights on the Occasion of the 60th Anniversary of the
the rights of the HRVVs to "full" and "effective" reparation, which is Universal Declaration of Human Rights)
provided under the International Covenant on Civil and Political 11. E.O. No. 847 dated November 23, 2009 (Creating the
Rights (ICCPR),85 the Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right Church-Police-Military-Liaison Committee to Formulate
to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of and Implement a Comprehensive Program to Establish
International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of Strong Partnership Between the State and the Church on
International Humanitarian Law86 adopted by the U.N. General Matters Concerning Peace and Order and Human Rights) 
Assembly on December 16, 2005, and the Updated Set of Principles

15
 12. A.O. No. 35 dated November 22, 2012 (Creating the II. 
Inter-Agency Committee on Extra-Legal Killings, Enforced The President's decision to bury Marcos at the LNMB is not done
Disappearances, Torture and Other Grave Violations of whimsically, capriciously or arbitrarily, out of malice, ill will or
the Right to Life, Liberty and Security of Persons)  personal bias
13. A.O. No. 1 dated October 11, 2016 (Creating the
Presidential Task Force on Violations of the Right to Life, Petitioners contend that the interment of Marcos at the LNMB will
Liberty and Security of the Members of the Media) desecrate it as a sacred and hallowed place and a revered national
Finally, the Congress passed the following laws affecting human shrine where the mortal remains of our country's great men and
rights: women are interred for the inspiration and emulation of the present
1. Republic Act No. 7438 (An Act Defining Certain Rights of generation and generations to come. They erred.
Person Arrested, Detained or Under
Custodia/Investigation as well as the Duties of the A. National Shrines
Arresting, Detaining and Investigating Officers and
Providing Penalties for Violations Thereof) As one of the cultural properties of the Philippines, national historical
2. Republic Act No. 8371 (The Indigenous Peoples' Rights shrines (or historical shrines) refer to sites or structures hallowed and
Act of 1997) revered for their history or association as declared by the
3. Republic Act No. 9201 (National Human Rights NHCP.102 The national shrines created by law and presidential
Consciousness Week Act of 2002)  issuance include, among others: Fort Santiago (Dambana ng
4. Republic Act No. 9208 (Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of Kalayaan) in Manila;103 all battlefield areas in Corregidor and
2003)  Bataan;104 the site of First Mass in the Philippines in Magallanes,
5. Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Limasawa, Leyte;105 Aguinaldo Shrine or Freedom Shrine in Kawit,
Their Children Act of 2004)  Cavite;106 Fort San Antonio Abad National Shrine in Malate,
6. Republic Act No. 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act Manila;107 Tirad Pass National Shrine in Ilocos Sur; 108 Ricarte
of 2006)  Shrine109 and Aglipay Shrine110 in Batac, Ilocos Norte; Liberty Shrine
7. Republic Act No. 9372 (Human Security Act of 2007)  in Lapu-Lapu, Cebu;111 "Red Beach" or the landing point of General
8. Republic Act No. 9710 (The Magna Carta of Women)  Douglas MacArthur and the liberating forces in Baras, Palo,
9. Republic Act No. 9745 (Anti-Torture Act of 2009)  Leyte;112 Dapitan City as a National Shrine City in Zamboanga Del
10. Republic Act No. 9851 (Philippine Act on Crimes Against Norte;113 General Leandro Locsin Fullon National Shrine in Hamtic,
International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Antique;114 and Mabini Shrine in Polytechnic University of the
Crimes Against Humanity)  Philippines - Mabini Campus, Sta. Mesa, Manila. 115 As sites of the
11. Republic Act No. 10121 (Philippine Disaster Risk birth, exile, imprisonment, detention or death of great and eminent
Reduction and Management Act of 2010)  leaders of the nation, it is the policy of the Government to hold and
12. Republic Act No. 10168 (The Terrorism Financing keep the national shrines as sacred and hallowed place. 116 P.O. No.
Prevention and Suppression Act of 2012)  105117 strictly prohibits and punishes by imprisonment and/or fine the
13. Republic Act No. 10353 (Anti-Enforced or Involuntary desecration of national shrines by disturbing their peace and serenity
Disappearance Act of 2012)  through digging, excavating, defacing, causing unnecessary noise,
14. Republic Act No. 10364 (Expanded Anti-Trafficking In and committing unbecoming acts within their premises. R.A. No.
Persons Act of 2012)  10066 also makes it punishable to intentionally modify, alter, or
15. Republic Act No. 10368 (Human Rights Victims destroy the original features of, or undertake construction or real
Reparation And Recognition Act of 2013)  estate development in any national shrine, monument, landmark and
16. Republic Act No. 10530 (The Red Cross and Other other historic edifices and structures, declared, classified, and marked
Emblems Act of 2013) by the NHCP as such, without the prior written permission from the
17. National Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCAA). 118
Contrary to petitioners' postulation, our nation's history will not be
instantly revised by a single resolve of President Duterte, acting As one of the cultural agencies attached to the NCAA, 119 the NHCP
through the public respondents, to bury Marcos at the LNMB. manages, maintains and administers national shrines, monuments,
Whether petitioners admit it or not, the lessons of Martial Law are historical sites, edifices and landmarks of significant historico-
already engraved, albeit in varying degrees, in the hearts and minds cultural value.120 In particular, the NHCP Board has the power to
of the present generation of Filipinos. As to the unborn, it must be approve the declaration of historic structures and sites, such as
said that the preservation and popularization of our history is not the national shrines, monuments, landmarks and heritage houses and to
sole responsibility of the Chief Executive; it is a joint and collective determine the manner of their identification, maintenance,
endeavor of every freedom-loving citizen of this country. restoration, conservation, preservation and protection. 121

Notably, complementing the statutory powers and functions of the Excluded, however, from the jurisdiction of the NHCP are the
Human Rights Victims' Claims Board and the HRVV Memorial military memorials and battle monuments declared as national
Commission in the memorialization of HRVVs, the National shrines, which have been under the administration, maintenance and
Historical Commission of the Philippines (NHCP), formerly known development of the Philippine Veterans Affairs Office (PVAO) of the
as the National Historical Institute (NHI),94 is mandated to act as the DND. Among the military shrines are: Mt. Samat National Shrine in
primary government agency responsible for history and is authorized Pilar, Bataan;122 Kiangan War Memorial Shrine in Linda, Kiangan,
to determine all factual matters relating to official Philippine Ifugao;123 Capas National Shrine in Capas, Tarlac; 124 Ricarte National
history.95 Among others, it is tasked to: (a) conduct and support all Shrine in Malasin, Batac, Ilocos Norte; 125 Balantang Memorial
kinds of research relating to Philippine national and local history; (b) Cemetery National Shrine in Jaro, Iloilo; 126 Balete Pass National
develop educational materials in various media, implement historical Shrine in Sta. Fe, Nueva Vizcaya;127 USAFIP, NL Military Shrine
educational activities for the popularization of Philippine history, and and Park in Bessang Pass, Cervantes, Ilocos Sur;128 and the LNMB in
disseminate, information regarding Philippine historical events, dates, Taguig City, Metro Manila.129
places and personages; and (c) actively engage in the settlement or
resolution of controversies or issues relative to historical personages, B. The Libingan Ng Mga Bayani
places, dates and events.96 Under R.A. Nos. 10066 (National Cultural
Heritage Act of 2009)97 and 10086 (Strengthening Peoples' At the end of World War II, the entire nation was left mourning for
Nationalism Through Philippine History Act),98 the declared State the death of thousands of Filipinos. Several places served as grounds
policy is to conserve, develop, promote, and popularize the nation's for the war dead, such as the Republic Memorial Cemetery, the
historical and cultural heritage and resources. 99 Towards this end, Bataan Memorial Cemetery, and other places throughout the country.
means shall be provided to strengthen people's nationalism, love of The Republic Memorial Cemetery, in particular, was established in
country, respect for its heroes and pride for the people's May 1947 as a fitting tribute and final resting place of Filipino
accomplishments by reinforcing the importance of Philippine military personnel who died in World War II.
national and local history in daily life with the end in view of raising
social consciousness.100 Utmost priority shall be given not only with On October 23, 1954, President Ramon D. Magsaysay, Sr. issued
the research on history but also its popularization. 101 E.O. No. 77, which ordered "the remains of the war dead interred at
the Bataan Memorial Cemetery, Bataan Province, and at other
places in the Philippines, be transferred to, and reinterred at, the

16
Republic Memorial Cemetery at Fort Wm Mckinley, Rizal Province" Concentration Camp and Fort Santiago, Intramuros,
so as to minimize the expenses for the maintenance and upkeep, and Manila.
to make the remains accessible to the widows, parents, children, 2. Heroes Memorial Gate - A structure shaped in the form of
relatives, and friends. a large concrete tripod with a stairway leading to an upper
view deck and a metal sculpture at the center. This is the
On October 27, 1954, President Magsaysay issued Proclamation No. first imposing structure one sees upon entering the grounds
86, which changed the name of Republic Memorial Cemetery of the cemetery complex.
to Libingan Ng Mga Bayani to symbolize "the cause for which our 3. Black Stone Walls - Erected on opposite sides of the main
soldiers have died" and to "truly express the nations esteem and entrance road leading to the Tomb of the Unknown
reverence for her war dead."130 Soldiers and just near the Heroes Memorial are two 12-foot
high black stone walls which bear the words, "I do not
On July 12, 1957, President Carlos P. Garcia issued Proclamation No. know the dignity of his birth, but I do know the glory of his
423, which reserved for military purposes, under the administration death." that General Douglas MacArthur made during his
of the AFP Chief of Staff, the land where LNMB is located. The sentimental journey to the Philippines in 1961.
LNMB was part of a military reservation site then known as Fort Wm 4. Defenders of Bataan and Corregidor Memorial Pylon -
McKinley (now known as Fort Andres Bonifacio). Inaugurated on April 5, 1977 by Secretary Renato S. De
Villa in memory of the defenders of Bataan and Corregidor
On May 28, 1967, Marcos issued Proclamation No. 208, which during World War II. This monument is dedicated as an
excluded the LNMB from the Fort Bonifacio military reservation and eternal acknowledgment of their valor and sacrifice in
reserved the LNMB for national shrine purposes under the defense of the Philippines.
administration of the National Shrines Commission (NSC) under the 5. Korean Memorial Pylon - A towering monument
DND. honoring the 112 Filipino officers and men who, as
members of the Philippine Expeditionary Forces to Korea
On September 24, 1972, Marcos, in the exercise of his powers as the (PEFTOK), perished during the Korean War.
AFP Commander-in-Chief, and pursuant to Proclamation No. 1081 6. Vietnam Veterans Memorial Pylon - Dedicated to the
dated September 21, 1972, and General Order No. 1 dated September members of the Philippine contingents and Philippine civic
22, 1972, as amended, issued Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1 which action groups to Vietnam (PHILCON-V and PHILCAG-V)
reorganized the Executive Branch of the National Government who served as medical, dental, engineering construction,
through the adoption of the Integrated Reorganization Plan (IRP). community and psychological workers, and security
Section 7, Article XV, Chapter I, Part XII thereof abolished the NSC complement. They offered tremendous sacrifices as they
and its functions together with applicable appropriations, records, alleviated human suffering in war-ravaged Vietnam from
equipment, property and such personnel as may be necessary were 1964-1971. Inscribed on the memorial pylon are the words:
transferred to the NHI under the Department of Education (DEC). "To build and not to destroy, to bring the Vietnamese
The NHI was responsible for promoting and preserving the people happiness and not sorrow, to develop goodwill and
Philippine cultural heritage by undertaking, inter alia, studies on not hatred."
Philippine history and national heroes and maintaining national 7. Philippine World War II Guerillas Pylon - Erected by
shrines and monuments.131 the Veterans Federation of the Philippines as a testimony to
the indomitable spirit and bravery of the Filipino guerillas
Pending the organization of the DEC, the functions relative to the of World War II who refused to be cowed into submission
administration, maintenance and development of national shrines and carried on the fight for freedom against an enemy with
tentatively integrated into the PVAO in July 1973. vastly superior arms and under almost insurmountable
odds. Their hardship and sufferings, as well as their defeats
On January 26, 1977, President Marcos issued P.D. No. 1076. and victories, are enshrined in this memorial. 134
Section 7, Article XV, Chapter I, Part XII of the IRP was repealed on Contrary to the dissent, P.D. No. 105135 does not apply to the LNMB.
the grounds that "the administration, maintenance and development Despite the fact that P.D. No. 208 predated P.D. No. 105, 136 the
of national shrines consisting of military memorials or battle LNMB was not expressly included in the national shrines enumerated
monuments can be more effectively accomplished if they are removed in the latter.137 The proposition that the LNMB is implicitly covered
from the [DEC] and transferred to the [DND] by reason of the latter in the catchall phrase "and others which may be proclaimed in the
s greater capabilities and resources" and that "the functions of the future as National Shrines" is erroneous because:
[DND] are more closely related and relevant to the charter or
significance of said national shrines." Henceforth, the PVAO through (1) As stated, Marcos issued P.D. No. 208 prior to P.D. No. 105.
the Military Shrines Service (MSS), which was created to perform
the functions of the abolished NSC - would administer, maintain and (2) Following the canon of statutory construction known as ejusdem
develop military memorials and battle monuments proclaimed as generis,138 the LNMB is not a site "of the birth, exile, imprisonment,
national shrines. detention or death of great and eminent leaders of the nation." What
P.D. No. 105 contemplates are the following national shrines: Fort
On July 25, 1987, President Corazon C. Aquino issued the Santiago ("Dambana ng Kalayaan"), all battlefield areas in
Administrative Code. The Code retains PVAO under the supervision Corregidor and Bataan, the site of First Mass in the Philippines,
and control of the Secretary of National Defense. 132 Among others, Aguinaldo Shrine or Freedom Shrine, Fort San Antonio Abad
PVAO shall administer, develop and maintain military National Shrine, Tirad Pass National Shrine, Ricarte Shrine, Aglipay
shrines.133 With the approval of PVAO Rationalization Plan on June Shrine, Liberty Shrine, "Red Beach" or the landing point of General
29, 2010, pursuant to E.O. No. 366 dated October 4, 2004, MSS was Douglas MacArthur and the liberating forces, Dapitan City, General
renamed to Veterans Memorial and Historical Division, under the Leandro Locsin Fullon National Shrine, and Mabini Shrine. Excluded
supervision and control of PVAO, which is presently tasked with the are the military memorials and battle monuments declared as national
management and development of military shrines and the shrines under the PVAO, such as: Mt. Samat National Shrine,
perpetuation of the heroic deeds of our nation's veterans. Kiangan War Memorial Shrine, Capas National Shrine, Ricarte
National Shrine, Balantang Memorial Cemetery National Shrine,
As a national military shrine, the main features, structures, and Balete Pass National Shrine; USAFIP, NL Military Shrine and Park,
facilities of the LNMB are as follows: and the LNMB.

1. Tomb of the Unknown Soldiers - The main structure (3) Since its establishment, the LNMB has been a military shrine
constructed at the center of the cemetery where wreath under the jurisdiction of the PVAO. While P.D. No. 1 dated
laying ceremonies are held when Philippine government September 24, 1972 transferred the administration, maintenance and
officials and foreign dignitaries visit the LNMB. The development of national shrines to the NHI under the DEC, it never
following inscription is found on the tomb: "Here lies a actually materialized. Pending the organization of the DEC, its
Filipino soldier whose name is known only to God." Behind functions relative to national shrines were tentatively integrated into
the tomb are three marble pillars representing the three the PVAO in July 1973. Eventually, on January 26, 1977, Marcos
main island groups of the Philippines - Luzon, Visayas and issued P.D. No. 1076. The PVAO, through the MSS, was tasked to
Mindanao. Buried here were the remains of 39,000 Filipino administer, maintain, and develop military memorials and battle
soldiers who were originally buried in Camp O'Donnell monuments proclaimed as national shrines. The reasons being that

17
"the administration, maintenance and development of national LNMB is located from the use it was originally intended by the past
shrines consisting of military memorials or battle monuments can be Presidents. The allotment of a cemetery plot at the LNMB for Marcos
more effectively accomplished if they are removed from the [DEC] as a former President and Commander-in-Chief, 150 a legislator,151 a
and transferred to the [DND] by reason of the latter's greater Secretary of National Defense,152 a military personnel,153 a
capabilities and resources" and that "the functions of the [DND] are veteran,154 and a Medal of Valor awardee,155 whether recognizing his
more closely related and relevant to the charter or significance of contributions or simply his status as such, satisfies the public use
said national shrines." requirement. The disbursement of public funds to cover the expenses
incidental to the burial is granted to compensate him for valuable
The foregoing interpretation is neither narrow and myopic nor public services rendered. 156 Likewise, President Duterte's
downright error. Instead, it is consistent with the letter and intent of determination to have Marcos' remains interred at the LNMB was
P.D. No. 105. inspired by his desire for national healing and reconciliation.
Presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty prevails
Assuming that P.D. No. 105 is applicable, the descriptive words over petitioners' highly disputed factual allegation that, in the guise of
"sacred and hallowed" refer to the LNMB as a place and not to each exercising a presidential prerogative, the Chief Executive is actually
and every mortal remains interred therein. Hence, the burial of motivated by utang na loob (debt of gratitude) and bayad
Marcos at the LNMB does not diminish said cemetery as a revered utang (payback) to the Marcoses. As the purpose is not self-evident,
and respected ground. Neither does it negate the presumed individual petitioners have the burden of proof to establish the factual basis of
or collective "heroism" of the men and women buried or will be their claim. They failed. Even so, this Court cannot take cognizance
buried therein. The "nations esteem and reverence for her war dead," of factual issues since We are not a trier of facts.
as originally contemplated by President Magsaysay in issuing
Proclamation No. 86, still stands unaffected. That being said, the C. AFP Regulations on the LNMB
interment of Marcos, therefore, does not constitute a violation of the
physical, historical, and cultural integrity of the LNMB as a national A review of the regulations issued by the AFP Chief of Staff as to
military shrine. who may and may not be interred at the LNMB underscores the
nature and purpose of the LNMB as an active military
At this juncture, reference should be made to Arlington National cemetery/grave site.
Cemetery (Arlington), which is identical to the LNMB in terms of its
prominence in the U.S. It is not amiss to point that our armed forces On May 13, 1947, the Chief of Staff of the Philippine Army, by the
have been patterned after the U.S. and that its military code produced direction of the President and by order of the Secretary of National
a salutary effect in the Philippines' military justice system. 139 Hence, Defense, issued General Orders No. 111, which constituted and
relevant military rules, regulations, and practices of the U.S. have activated, as of said date, the Graves Registration Platoon as a unit of
persuasive, if not the same, effect in this jurisdiction. the Philippine Army.

As one of the U.S. Army national military cemeteries, 140 the On February 2, 1960, the AFP Chief of Staff, by order of the
Arlington is under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Secretary of National Defense, issued AFP Regulations G 161-371
Army.141 The Secretary of the U.S. Army has the responsibility to (Administrative and Special Staff Services, Grave Registration
develop, operate, manage, administer, oversee, and fund the Army Service), which provided that the following may be interred in the
national military cemeteries in a manner and to standards that fully LNMB: (a) World War II dead of the AFP and recognized guerillas;
honor the service and sacrifices of the deceased members of the (b) Current dead of the AFP; (c) Retired military personnel of the
armed forces buried or inurned therein, and shall prescribe such AFP; (d) Remains of former members of the AFP who died while in
regulations and policies as may be necessary to administer the the active service and in the Retired List of the AFP now interred at
cemeteries.142 In addition, the Secretary of the U.S. Army is different cemeteries and other places throughout the Philippines or
empowered to appoint an advisory committee, which shall make the Secretary of National Defense; and (e) Others upon approval of
periodic reports and recommendations as well as advise the Secretary the Congress of the Philippines, the President of the Philippines or
with respect to the administration of the cemetery, the erection of the Secretary of National Defense. The regulation also stated that the
memorials at the cemetery, and master planning for the cemetery. 143 AFP Quartermaster General will be responsible for, among other
matters, the efficient operation of the Graves Registration Service;
Similar to the Philippines, the U.S. national cemeteries are the interment, disinterment and reinterment of the dead mentioned
established as national shrines in tribute to the gallant dead who have above; and preservation of military cemeteries, national cemeteries,
served in the U.S. Armed Forces.144 The areas are protected, managed and memorials.
and administered as suitable and dignified burial grounds and as
significant cultural resources.145 As such, the authorization of On July 31, 1973, the AFP Chief of Staff, by order of the Secretary of
activities that take place therein is limited to those that are consistent National Defense, issued AFP Regulations G 161-372
with applicable legislation and that are compatible with maintaining (Administration and Operation of AFP Graves Registration
their solemn commemorative and historic character. 146 Installations), which superseded AFP Regulations G 161-371. It
provided that the following may be interred in the LNMB: (a)
The LNMB is considered as a national shrine for military memorials. Deceased Veterans of the Philippine Revolution of 1896/World War
The PVAO, which is empowered to administer, develop, and I; (b) Deceased World War II members of the AFP and recognized
maintain military shrines, is under the supervision and control of the guerillas; (c) Deceased military personnel of the AFP who died while
DND. The DND, in turn, is under the Office of the President. in the active duty; (d) Deceased retired military personnel of the
AFP; (e) Deceased military personnel of the AFP interred at different
The presidential power of control over the Executive Branch of cemeteries and other places outside the LNMB; and (f) Such remains
Government is a self-executing provision of the Constitution and of persons as the Commander-in-Chief of the AFP may direct. The
does not require statutory implementation, nor may its exercise be remains of the following were not allowed to be interred in the
limited, much less withdrawn, by the legislature. 147 This is why LNMB: (a) The spouse of an active, or retired, deceased military
President Duterte is not bound by the alleged 1992 personnel, recognized guerillas who himself/herself is not a military
Agreement148 between former President Ramos and the Marcos personnel; and (b) AFP personnel who were retireable but
family to have the remains of Marcos interred in Batac, Ilocos Norte. separated/reverted/discharged for cause, or joined and aided the
As the incumbent President, he is free to amend, revoke or rescind enemy of the Republic of the Philippines, or were convicted of
political agreements entered into by his predecessors, and to capital or other criminal offenses, involving moral turpitude. The
determine policies which he considers, based on informed judgment regulation also stated that the Quartermaster General shall be
and presumed wisdom, will be most effective in carrying out his responsible for, among other matters, the efficient operation of the
mandate. AFP graves registration installations; the interment, disinterment and
reinterment of deceased military personnel mentioned above; and the
Moreover, under the Administrative Code, the President has the preservation of military cemeteries, proper marking and official
power to reserve for public use and for specific public purposes any recording of graves therein.
of the lands of the public domain and that the reserved land shall
remain subject to the specific public purpose indicated until On April 9, 1986, AFP Chief of Staff Fidel V. Ramos, by order of
otherwise provided by law or proclamation. 149 At present, there is no National Defense Minister, issued AFP Regulations G 161-373
law or executive issuance specifically excluding the land in which the (Allocation of Cemetery Plots at the Libingan Ng Mga Bayani),

18
which superseded AFP Regulations G 161-372. It enumerated a list Authorized personnel who were convicted by final judgment of an
of deceased person who may be interred at the LNMB, namely: (a) offense involving moral turpitude.
Medal of Valor Awardees; (b) Presidents or Commanders-in-Chief,
AFP; (c) Ministers of National Defense; (d) Chiefs of Staff, AFP; (e) In the absence of any executive issuance or law to the contrary, the
General/Flag Officers of the AFP; (f) Active and retired military AFP Regulations G 161-375 remains to be the sole authority in
personnel of the AFP; (g) Veterans of Philippine Revolution of 1896, determining who are entitled and disqualified to be interred at the
WWI, WWII and recognized guerillas; and (h) Government LNMB. Interestingly, even if they were empowered to do so, former
Dignitaries, Statesmen, National Artist and other deceased persons Presidents Corazon C. Aquino and Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III,
whose interment or reinterment has been approved by the who were themselves aggrieved at the Martial Law, did not revise the
Commander-in-Chief, Batasang Pambansa or the Minister of rules by expressly prohibiting the burial of Marcos at the LNMB. The
National Defense. The regulation also stated that the Quartermaster validity of AFP Regulations G 161-375 must, therefor, be sustained
General shall be responsible for the allocation of specific for having been issued by the AFP Chief of Staff acting under the
section/areas for the said deceased persons, while the Commanding direction of the Secretary of National Defense, who is the alter ego of
Officer of the Quartermaster Graves Registration Company shall be the President.
charged with the preparation of grave sites, supervision of burials at x x x In Joson v. Torres, we explained the concept of the alter ego
LNMB and the registration of graves. principle or the doctrine of qualified political agency and its limit in
this wise:
On March 27, 1998, the AFP Chief of Staff, by order of the Secretary
of National Defense, issued AFP Regulations G 161-374 (Allocation Under this doctrine, which recognizes the establishment of a single
of Cemetery Plots at the Libingan Ng Mga Bayani), which executive, all executive and administrative organizations are adjuncts
superseded AFP Regulations G 161-373. It provided that the of the Executive Department, the heads of the various executive
following may be interred in the LNMB: (a) Medal of Valor departments are assistants and agents of the Chief Executive,
Awardees; (b) Presidents or Commanders-inChief, AFP; (c) and, except in cases where the Chief Executive is required by the
Secretaries of National Defense; (d) Chiefs of Staff, AFP; (e) Constitution or law to act in person or the exigencies of the
General/Flag Officers of the AFP; (f) Active and retired military situation demand that he act personally, the multifarious executive
personnel of the AFP; (g) Veterans of Philippine Revolution of 1890, and administrative functions of the Chief Executive are performed by
WWI, WWII and recognized guerillas; (h) Government Dignitaries, and through the executive departments, and the acts of the Secretaries
Statesmen, National Artists and other deceased persons whose of such departments, performed and promulgated in the regular
interment or reinterment has been approved by the Commander-in- course of business, are, unless disapproved or reprobated by the Chief
Chief, Congress or Secretary of National Defense; and (i) Former Executive presumptively the acts of the Chief Executive. (Emphasis
Presidents, Secretaries of Defense, CSAFP, Generals/Flag Officers, ours, citation omitted.)157
Dignitaries, Statesmen, National Artists, widows of former It has been held that an administrative regulation adopted pursuant to
Presidents, Secretaries of National Defense and Chief of Staff. The law has the force and effect of law and, until set aside, is binding
remains of the following were not allowed to be interred in the upon executive and administrative agencies, including the President
LNMB: (a) Personnel who were dishonorably as the chief executor of laws. 158
separated/reverted/discharged from the service; and (b) Authorized
personnel who were convicted by final judgment of an offense 1. Qualification under the AFP Regulations
involving moral turpitude. Like AFP Regulations G 161-373, it stated
that the Quartermaster General shall be responsible for the allocation AFP Regulations G 161-375 should not be stricken down in the
of specific section/areas for the deceased persons, whereas the absence of clear and unmistakable showing that it has been issued
Commanding Officer of the Quartermaster Graves Registration Unit with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
shall be charged with the preparation of grave sites, supervision of jurisdiction. Neither could it be considered ultra vires for purportedly
burials, and the registration of graves. providing incomplete, whimsical, and capricious standards for
qualification for burial at the LNMB.
Finally, on September 11, 2000, the AFP Chief of Staff, by the order
of the Secretary of National Defense, issued AFP Regulations G 161- To compare, We again refer to the U.S. Army regulations on
375 (Allocation of Cemetery Plots at the Libingan Ng Mga Bayani), Arlington. In the U.S., the Secretary of the Army, with the approval
which superseded AFP Regulations G 161-374. The regulation stated of the Secretary of Defense, determines eligibility for interment or
that the Chief of Staff shall be responsible for the issuance of inurnment in the Army national military cemeteries. 159 Effective
interment directive for all active military personnel for interment, October 26, 2016, the rule160 is as follows:
authorized personnel (such as those former members of the AFP who Only those who qualify as a primarily eligible person or a
laterally entered or joined the Philippine Coast Guard [PCG] and the derivatively eligible person are eligible for interment in Arlington
Philippine National Police [PNP]), and retirees, veterans and National Cemetery, unless otherwise prohibited as provided for in §§
reservists enumerated therein. The Quartermaster General is tasked to 553.19161-553.20,162 provided that the last period of active duty of the
exercise over-all supervision in the implementation of the regulation service member or veteran ended with an honorable discharge.
and the Commander ASCOM, PA through the Commanding Officer
of Grave Services Unit is charged with the registration of the (a) Primarily eligible persons. The following are primarily eligible
deceased/graves, the allocation of specific section/area at the LNMB persons for purposes of interment:
for interment of deceased, the preparation of grave sites, and the
supervision of burials. (1) Any service member who dies on active duty in the U.S. Armed
Forces (except those service members serving on active duty for
Under AFP Regulations G 161-375, the following are eligible for training only), if the General Courts Martial Convening Authority
interment at the LNMB: (a) Medal of Valor Awardees; (b) Presidents grants a certificate of honorable service. 
or Commanders-in-Chief, AFP; (c) Secretaries of National Defense;
(d) Chiefs of Staff, AFP; (e) General/Flag Officers of the AFP; (f) (2) Any veteran retired from a Reserve component who served a
Active and retired military personnel of the AFP to include active period of active duty (other than for training), is carried on the
draftees and trainees who died in line of duty, active reservists and official retired list, and is entitled to receive military retired pay.  
CAFGU Active Auxiliary (CAA) who died in combat operations or
combat related activities; (g) Former members of the AFP who (3) Any veteran retired from active military service and entitled to
laterally entered or joined the PCG and the PNP; (h) Veterans of receive military retired pay. 
Philippine Revolution of 1890, WWI, WWII and recognized
guerillas; (i) Government Dignitaries, Statesmen, National Artists (4) Any veteran who received an honorable discharge from the
and other deceased persons whose interment or reinterment has been Armed Forces prior to October 1, 1949, who was discharged for a
approved by the Commander-in-Chief, Congress or the Secretary of permanent physical disability, who served on active duty (other than
National Defense; and G) Former Presidents, Secretaries of Defense, for training), and who would have been eligible for retirement under
Dignitaries, Statesmen, National Artists, widows of Former the provisions of 10 U.S.C. 1201 had the statute been in effect on the
Presidents, Secretaries of National Defense and Chief of Staff. date of separation. 
Similar to AFP Regulations G 161-374, the following are not
qualified to be interred in the LNMB: (a) Personnel who were (5) Any veteran awarded one of the following decorations:
dishonorably separated/reverted/discharged from the service; and (b)

19
(i) Medal of Honor;163 is available in the same gravesite, and all close relatives of the
primarily eligible person concur; 
(ii) Distinguished Service Cross, Air Force Cross, or Navy Cross; 
(v) Any cost of moving, recasketing, or revaulting the remains will be
(iii) Distinguished Service Medal;  paid from private funds.
There is a separate list of eligible with respect to the inurnment of
(iv) Silver Star; or  cremated remains in the Columbarium, 166 interment of cremated
remains in the Unmarked Area, 167 and group burial.168 As a national
(v) Purple Heart.  military cemetery, eligibility standards for interment, inurnment, or
memorialization in Arlington are based on honorable military
(6) Any veteran who served on active duty (other than active duty for service.169 Exceptions to the eligibility standards for new graves,
training) and who held any of the following positions: which are rarely granted, are for those persons who have
made significant contributions that directly and substantially
(i) President or Vice President of the United States;  benefited the U.S. military.170

(ii) Elected member of the U.S. Congress;  Judging from the foregoing, it is glaring that the U.S. Army
regulations on Arlington and the AFP Regulations G 161-375 on the
(iii) Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States or LNMB, as a general rule, recognize and reward the military services
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States;  or military related activities of the deceased. Compared with the
latter, however, the former is actually less generous in granting the
(iv) A position listed, at the time the person held the position, in 5 privilege of interment since only the spouse or parent, under certain
U.S.C. 5312164 or 5313165 (Levels I and II of the Executive Schedule); conditions, may be allowed "if space is available in the gravesite of
or the primarily eligible person."

(v) Chief of Mission of a Category 4, 5, or post if the Department of It is not contrary to the "well-established custom," as the dissent
State classified that post as a Category 4, 5, or 5+ post during the described it, to argue that the word "bayani" in the LNMB has
person's tenure as Chief of Mission. become a misnomer since while a symbolism of heroism may attach
to the LNMB as a national shrine for military memorial, the same
(7) Any former prisoner of war who, while a prisoner of war, served does not automatically attach to its feature as a military cemetery and
honorably in the active military service, and who died on or after to those who were already laid or will be laid therein. As stated, the
November 30, 1993.  purpose of the LNMB, both from the legal and historical
perspectives, has neither been to confer to the people buried there the
(b) Derivatively eligible persons. The following individuals are title of "hero" nor to require that only those interred therein should be
derivatively eligible persons for purposes of interment who may be treated as a "hero." In fact, the privilege of internment at the LNMB
interred if space is available in the gravesite of the primarily eligible has been loosen up through the years. Since 1986, the list of eligible
person: includes not only those who rendered active military service or
military-related activities but also non-military personnel who were
(1) The spouse of a primarily eligible person who is or will be recognized for their significant contributions to the Philippine society
interred in Arlington National Cemetery. A former spouse of a (such as government dignitaries, statesmen, national artists, and other
primarily eligible person is not eligible for interment in Arlington deceased persons whose interment or reinterment has been approved
National Cemetery under this paragraph. by the Commander-in-Chief, Congress or Secretary of National
Defense). In 1998, the widows of former Presidents, Secretaries of
(2) The spouse of an active duty service member or an eligible National Defense and Chief of Staff were added to the list. Whether
veteran, who was: or not the extension of burial privilege to civilians is unwarranted and
should be restricted in order to be consistent with the original purpose
(i) Lost or buried at sea, temporarily interred overseas due to action of the LNMB is immaterial and irrelevant to the issue at bar since it is
by the Government, or officially determined to be missing in action; indubitable that Marcos had rendered significant active military
service and military-related activities.
(ii) Buried in a U.S. military cemetery maintained by the American
Battle Monuments Commission; or  Petitioners did not dispute that Marcos was a former President and
Commander-in-Chief, a legislator, a Secretary of National Defense, a
(iii) Interred in Arlington National Cemetery as part of a group burial military personnel, a veteran, and a Medal of Valor awardee. For his
(the derivatively eligible spouse may not be buried in the group burial alleged human rights abuses and corrupt practices, we may disregard
gravesite). Marcos as a President and Commander-in-Chief, but we cannot deny
him the right to be acknowledged based on the other positions he held
(3) The parents of a minor child or a permanently dependent adult or the awards he received. In this sense, We agree with the
child, whose remains were interred in Arlington National Cemetery proposition that Marcos should be viewed and judged in his totality
based on the eligibility of a parent at the time of the child's death, as a person. While he was not all good, he was not pure evil either.
unless eligibility of the non-service connected parent is lost through Certainly, just a human who erred like us.
divorce from the primarily eligible parent.
Our laws give high regard to Marcos as a Medal of Valor awardee
(4) An honorably discharged veteran who does not qualify as a and a veteran. R.A. No. 9049171 declares the policy of the State "to
primarily eligible person, if the veteran will be buried in the same consistently honor its military heroes in order to strengthen the
gravesite as an already interred primarily eligible person who is a patriotic spirit and nationalist consciousness of the military."172 For
close relative, where the interment meets the following conditions: the "supreme self-sacrifice and distinctive acts of heroism and
gallantry,"173 a Medal of Valor awardee or his/her
(i) The veteran is without minor or unmarried adult dependent dependents/heirs/beneficiaries are entitled to the following social
children;  services and financial rewards:
1. Tax-exempt lifetime monthly gratuity of Twenty Thousand
(ii) The veteran will not occupy space reserved for the spouse, a Pesos (P20,000.00), which is separate and distinct from any
minor child, or a permanently dependent adult child;  salary or pension that the awardee currently receives or will
receive from the government of the Philippines;174
(iii) All other close relatives of the primarily eligible person concur 2. Precedence in employment in government agencies or
with the interment of the veteran with the primarily eligible person by government-owned or controlled corporation, if the job
signing a notarized statement;  qualifications or requirements are met; 
3. Priority in the approval of the awardee's housing
(iv) The veteran's spouse waives any entitlement to interment in application under existing housing programs of the
Arlington National Cemetery, where such entitlement might be based government;
on the veteran's interment in Arlington National Cemetery. The
Executive Director may set aside the spouse's waiver, provided space

20
 4. Priority in the acquisition of public lands under the Public his own, sui generis. The other Presidents were never removed by
Land Act and preferential right in the lease of pasture lands People Power Revolution and were never subject of laws declaring
and exploitation of natural resources;  them to have committed human rights violations. Thus, the intended
5. Privilege of obtaining loans in an aggregate amount not burial would be an act of similarly treating persons who are
exceeding Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) differently situated.
from governmentowned or controlled financial institutions
without having to put up any collateral or constitute any Despite all these ostensibly persuasive arguments, the fact remains
pledge or mortgage to secure the payment of the loan;  that Marcos was not convicted by final judgment of any offense
6. Twenty (20%) percent discount from all establishments involving moral turpitude. No less than the 1987 Constitution
relative to utilization of transportation services, hotels and mandates that a person shall not be held to answer for a criminal
similar lodging establishments, restaurants, recreation and offense without due process of law and that, "[i]n all criminal
sport centers and purchase of medicine anywhere in the prosecutions, the accused shall be presum innocent until the contrary
country;  is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and
7. Twenty (20%) percent discount on admission fees charged counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
by theaters, cinema houses and concert halls, circuses, against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the
carnivals and other similar places of culture, leisure and witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the
amusement;  attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his
8. Free medical and dental services and consultation in behalf."179 Even the U.N. principles on reparation and to combat
hospital and clinics anywhere in the country;  impunity cited by petitioners unequivocally guarantee the rights of
9. Exemption from the payment of tuition and matriculation the accused, providing that:
fees in public or private schools, universities, colleges and XIII. Rights of others
other educational institutions in any pre-school,
baccalaureate or post graduate courses such as or including 27. Nothing in this document is to be construed as derogating from
course leading to the degree of Doctor of Medicine (MD), internationally or nationally protected rights of others, in particular
Bachelor of Laws (LLB), and Bachelor of Science in the right of an accused person to benefit from applicable standards of
Nursing (BSN) or allied and similar courses; due process.
and cralawlawlibrary xxx
10. If interested and qualified, a quota is given to join the cadet
corps of the Philippine Military Academy or otherwise PRINCIPLE 9. GUARANTEES FOR PERSONS IMPLICATED
priority for direct commission, call to active duty (CAD)
and/or enlistment in regular force of the AFP. Before a commission identifies perpetrators in its report, the
On the other hand, in recognizing their patriotic services in times of individuals concerned shall be entitled to the following guarantees:
war and peace for the cause of freedom and democracy; for the
attainment of national unity, independence, and socioeconomic (a) The commission must try to corroborate information implicating
advancement; and for the maintenance of peace and order, 175 R.A. individuals before they are named publicly;
No. 6948, as amended,176 grants our veterans177 and their dependents
or survivors with pension (old age, disability, total administrative (b) The individuals implicated shall be afforded an opportunity to
disability, and death) and non-pension (burial, education, provide a statement setting forth their version of the facts either at a
hospitalization, and medical care and treatment) benefits as well as hearing convened by the commission while conducting its
provisions from the local governments. Under the law, the benefits investigation or through submission of a document equivalent to a
may be withheld if the Commission on Human Rights certifies to the right of reply for inclusion in the commission's file.
AFP General Headquarters that the veteran has been found guilty by To note, in the U.S., a person found to have committed a Federal or
final judgment of a gross human rights violation while in the State capital crime (i.e., a crime which a sentence of imprisonment
service, but this factor shall not be considered taken against his next for life or death penalty may be imposed) but who has not been
of kin.178 convicted by reason of not being available for trial due to death or
flight to avoid prosecution, may be ineligible for interment,
2. Disqualification under the AFP Regulations inurnment, or memorialization in an Army national military
cemetery. Nevertheless, such ineligibility must still observe the
Aside from being eligible for burial at the LNMB, Marcos possessed procedures specified in § 553.21.180
none of the disqualifications stated in AFP Regulations G 161-375.
He was neither convicted by final judgment of the offense involving The various cases cited by petitiOners, which were decided with
moral turpitude nor dishonorably separated/reverted/discharged from finality by courts here and abroad, have no bearing in this case since
active military service. they are merely civil in nature; hence, cannot and do not establish
moral turpitude.
Petitioners, however, protest that a narrow interpretation of the AFP
regulations disregards historical context and the rule on statutory Also, the equal protection clause is not violated. Generally, there is
construction. They urge the Court to construe statutes not literally but no property right to safeguard because even if one is eligible to be
according to their spirit and reason. buried at the LNMB, such fact would only give him or her
the privilege to be interred therein. Unless there is a favorable
It is argued that Marcos committed offenses involving moral recommendation from the Commander-in-Chief, the Congress or the
turpitude for his gross human rights violations, massive graft and Secretary of National Defense, no right can be said to have ripen.
corruption, and dubious military records, as found by foreign and Until then, such inchoate right is not legally demandable and
local courts as well as administrative agencies. By going into exile, enforceable.
he deliberately evaded liability for his actions. And by allowing death
to overtake him, he inevitably escaped the prospect of facing Assuming that there is a property right to protect, the requisites of
accountability for his crimes. They also contend that his removal in equal protection clause are not met. 181 In this case, there is a real and
the 1986 popular uprising is a clear sign of his discharge from the substantial distinction between a military personnel and a former
AFP. The People Power Revolution was the direct exercise of the President. The conditions of dishonorable discharge under the
Filipinos' power to overthrow an illegitimate and oppressive regime. Articles of War182 attach only to the members of the military. There is
As a sovereign act, it necessarily includes the power to adjudge him also no substantial distinction between Marcos and the three
as dishonorably discharged from the AFP. Philippine Presidents buried at the LNMB (Presidents Quirino,
Garcia, and Macapagal). All of them were not convicted of a crime
Furthermore, according to petitioners, to limit the application of the involving moral turpitude. In addition, the classification between a
disqualifying provisions of AFP Regulations G 161-375 only to military personnel and a former President is germane to the purposes
soldiers would be unfair (since, unlike Presidents, soldiers have an of Proclamation No. 208 and P.D. No. 1076. While the LNMB is a
additional cause for disqualification) and lead to absurd results national shrine for military memorials, it is also an
(because soldiers who were dishonorably discharged would be active military cemetery that recognizes the status or position held
disqualified for acts that are less atrocious than that committed by by the persons interred therein.
Marcos). Also, the AFP regulations would place Marcos in the same
class as the other Philippine Presidents when in fact he is a class of Likewise, Marcos was honorably discharged from military service.

21
PVAO expressly recognized him as a retired veteran pursuant to R.A. - to adjudge. The Court could only do so much in accordance with the
No. 6948, as amended. Petitioners have not shown that he was clearly established rules and principles. Beyond that, it is ultimately
dishonorably discharged from military service under AFP Circular for the people themselves, as the sovereign, to decide, a task that may
17, Series of 1987 (Administrative Discharge Prior to Expiration of require the better perspective that the passage of time provides. In
Term of Enlistment) for violating Articles 94, 95 and 97 of the the meantime, the country must move on and let this issue rest.
Articles of War.183 The NHCP study184 is incomplete with respect to
his entire military career as it failed to cite and include the official WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the petitions
records of the AFP. are DISMISSED. Necessarily, the Status Quo Ante Order is
hereby LIFTED.
With respect to the phrase "[p]ersonnel who were dishonorably
separated/reverted/discharged from the service," the same should be
viewed in light of the definition provided by AFP Regulations G 161-
375 to the term "active service" which is "[s]ervice rendered by a
military person as a Commissioned Officer, enlisted man/woman,
probationary officer, trainee or draftee in the Armed Forces of the
Philippines and service rendered by him/her as a civilian official or
employee in the Philippine Government prior to the date of his/her
separation or retirement from the Armed Forces of the Philippines,
for which military and/or civilian service he/she shall have received
pay from the Philippine Government, and/or such others as may be
hereafter be prescribed by law as active service (PD 1638, as
amended)."185 To my mind, the word "service" should be construed as
that rendered by a military person in the AFP, including civil service,
from the time of his/her commission, enlistment, probation, training
or drafting, up to the date of his/her separation or retirement from the
AFP. Civil service after honorable separation and retirement from the
AFP is outside the context of "service" under AFP Regulations G
161-375.

Hence, it cannot be conveniently claimed that Marcos' ouster from

the presidency during the EDSA Revolution is tantamount to his
dishonorable separation, reversion or discharge from the military
service. The fact that the President is the Commander-in-Chief of the
AFP under the 1987 Constitution only enshrines the principle of
supremacy of civilian authority over the military. Not being a
military person who may be prosecuted before the court martial, the
President can hardly be deemed "dishonorably
separated/reverted/discharged from the service" as contemplated by
AFP Regulations G 161-375. Dishonorable discharge through a
successful revolution is an extra-constitutional and direct sovereign
act of the people which is beyond the ambit of judicial review, let
alone a mere administrative regulation.

It is undeniable that former President Marcos was forced out of office

by the people through the so-called EDSA Revolution. Said political
act of the people should not be automatically given a particular legal
meaning other than its obvious consequence- that of ousting him as
president. To do otherwise would lead the Court to the treacherous
and perilous path of having to make choices from multifarious
inferences or theories arising from the various acts of the people. It is
not the function of the Court, for instance, to divine the exact
implications or significance of the number of votes obtained in
elections, or the message from the number of participants in public
assemblies. If the Court is not to fall into the pitfalls of getting
embroiled in political and oftentimes emotional, if not acrimonious,
debates, it must remain steadfast in abiding by its recognized guiding
stars - clear constitutional and legal rules - not by the uncertain,
ambiguous and confusing messages from the actions of the people.

Conclusion

In sum, there is no clear constitutional or legal basis to hold that there

was a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction which would justify the Court to interpose its authority to
check and override an act entrusted to the judgment of another
branch. Truly, the President's discretion is not totally unfettered.
"Discretion is not a free-spirited stallion that runs and roams
wherever it pleases but is reined in to keep it from straying. In its
classic formulation, 'discretion is not unconfined and vagrant' but
'canalized within banks that keep it from overflowing.'" 186 At bar,
President Duterte, through the public respondents, acted within the
bounds of the law and jurisprudence. Notwithstanding the call of
human rights advocates, the Court must uphold what is legal and just.
And that is not to deny Marcos of his rightful place at the LNMB. For
even the Framers of our Constitution intend that full respect for
human rights is available at any stage of a person's development,
from the time he or she becomes a person to the time he or she leaves
this earth.187

There are certain things that are better left for history - not this Court

22