Roundup: Concurring opinions of SC justices on Marcos burial

Patricia Lourdes Viray - Philstar.com
Roundup: Concurring opinions of SC justices on Marcos burial
Associate Justices Jose Mendoza, Lucas Bersamin, Arturo Brion and Jose Perez released their separate concurring opinions on the Marcos burial case.
SC PIO / Released

MANILA, Philippines – Nine justices of the Supreme Court voted to dismiss the consolidated petitions against the order of President Rodrigo Duterte to bury former President Ferdinand Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani.

Majority of the SC magistrates ruled that Duterte did not commit grave abuse of discretion in ordering a hero's burial for the ousted dictator.

Associate Justices Estela Perlas-Bernabe, Lucas Bersamin, Arturo Brion, Leonardo-De Castro, Mariano Del Castillo, Jose Mendoza, Diosdado Peralta, Jose Perez, and Presbitero Velasco Jr. voted to dismiss the petitions.

The SC Public Information Office released the concurring opinions of Bersamin, Brion, Perez and Mendoza on the Marcos burial cases.

Here's a summary of their main points.

Associate Justice Lucas Bersamin

  • The foregoing antecedents render it quite evident to me that the interment of the remains of President Marcos in the LNMB is a matter that exclusively pertains to the discretion of President Duterte as the Chief Executive.
  • The several laws the petitioner have invoked to prevent the interment are not relevant to the LNMB.
  • AFP regulations list those who are disqualified to have their remains interred in the LNMB:
  • Personnel who were dishonorably separated/reverted/discharged from the service.
  • Authorized personnel who were convicted by final judgment of an offense involving moral turpitude.

Associate Justice Arturo Brion

  • Judicial review, even under our Court's expanded jurisdiction, does not empower the Court to directly pass upon allegations involving violations of statutes.
  • The Constitution's "faithful execution" clause cannot be made the basis to question the Executive's manner of implementing our laws.
  • The petitioners failed to specify any treaty obligation prohibiting Marcos' burial at the LNMB.
  • The Constitution, while built on the ashes of the Marcos regime, should not be interpreted in a way that would prevent reconciliation and the country's move towards national unity.
  • The necessity of Marcos' burial at the LNMB is a political question that the President has decided, and is not without support from the Filipino electorate.

Associate Justice Jose Perez

  • Whether the policy of healing and reconciliation "over and above the pain and suffering of the human rights victims" is in grave abuse of executive discretion or not is answered by the evidently substantial Marcos vote during the fresh and immediately preceding national elections of 2016.
  • A Marcos vote came out of the elections, substantial enough to be a legitimate consideration in the executive policy formulation.
  • The redemption of an election pledge and the policy which has basis in the result of the election, cannot be tainted with grave abuse of discretion.

Associate Justice Jose Mendoza

  • Issues involved are truly political questions which are non-justiciable.
  • Interment of President Marcos in the LNMB is a discretionary act of President Duterte.
  • No grave abuse of discretion
  • The Court is not passing in whether President Marcos truly deserves to be buried in the LNMB. It is merely exercising judicial restraint as the issues at hand are truly political in nature and are best left to the discretion of the President.

FULL TEXT: Supreme Court ruling on Marcos' burial

ROUNDUP: Dissenting opinions of SC justices on Marcos burial

  • Latest
  • Trending
Are you sure you want to log out?

Philstar.com is one of the most vibrant, opinionated, discerning communities of readers on cyberspace. With your meaningful insights, help shape the stories that can shape the country. Sign up now!

or sign in with