Summary of the Dissenting Opinions

in the Marcos-LNMB Case

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno
1. The court has the authority to resolve this controversy under the
expanded concept of judicial review in the 1987 Constitution.
a. With the advent of the 1987 Constitution, respondents can no longer
utilize the traditional political question doctrine to impede the power
of judicial review.
b. In the exercise of its expanded judicial power, the Court has decided
issues that were traditionally considered political questions.
c. The assertion that the burial is intended to implement an election
renders the matter non-justiciable.
2. The president acted with grave abuse of discretion and in violation of his
duty to faithfully execute the laws when he ordered the burial of Marcos in
the Libingan ng mga Bayani.
a. Statutes and jurisprudence establish a clear policy to condemn the
acts of Marcos and what he represents, which effectively prohibits
the incumbent President from honoring him through a burial in the
Libingan ng mga Bayani.
b. The AFP does not have the power to determine which persons are
qualified for interment in the Libingan.
c. The burial cannot be justified by mere reference to the President's
residual powers; it is not unfettered, and such power can only be
exercised in conformity with the entire Constitution.
3. To allow Marcos to be buried in the Libingan ng mga Bayani would violate
international human rights law ad an independent source of state
obligations, and would negate the remedies provided by Republic Act
10368.
a. Under international law, the Philippines is obligated to provide
effective remedies, including holistic reparations, to human rights
victims.
b. The burial would contravene the duty of the Philippines to provide
reparations to victims of human rights violations during the Marcos
regime.
c. The burial would run counter to the duty of the state to combat
impunity.
4. Public funds and property cannot be used for the burial as it serves no
legitimate public purpose.
a. The burial would contravene the purpose of the Libingan ng mga
Bayani.
b. Respondents have not explained how the burial would serve the
avowed policy of national unity and healing.
c. The burial would promote only the private interest of the Marcos
family.

Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa

 The burial of former President Marcos does not raise a political question
beyond the ambit of judicial review.
For the same reasons that the interment serves no legitimate public
purpose, no use of public property or public funds can be made to support
it.
The President may validly order the interment of former President Marcos
in the LNMB pursuant to his power of control and his duty to faithfully
execute laws, provided that no contravention of the Constitution, laws,
executive issuances, public policy, customs and international obligations
arises therefrom or is committed.
The Solicitor General failed to show any contingency for the valid exercise
of the President's residual powers, and likewise failed to demonstrate
sufficient factual basis to justify the interment of former President Marcos
in the LNMB
The interment of former President Marcos constitutes a violation of the
physical, historical and cultural integrity of the LNMB as a national shrine,
which the State has the obligation to conserve.

Associate Justice Antonio Carpio

Marcos is disqualified from being interred at the LNMB.
Marcos was forcibly removed from the Presidency by what is now referred
to as the People Power Revolution. This is the strongest form of
dishonorable discharge from office since it is meted out by the direct act of
the sovereign people.
Marcos' interment at the LNMB is contrary to public policy.

Associate Justice Marvic Leonen

The President's verbal order, which were the basis for the issuance of the
questioned orders of public respondents are invalid because they violate
Republic Act 289, which was never repealed.
The President's verbal orders, the Lorenzana Memorandum, and the
Enriquez Orders all violate the requirement in Section 1 of Republic Act No.
289 that those buried must have led lives worth of "inspiration and
emulation."
Public respondents gravely abused their discretion when they failed to
show that there was an examination of the sufficiency of the facts that
would reasonably lead them to believe that the burial of the remains of
Ferdinand E. Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani would be in
accordance with Republic Act 289.
The President's verbal orders were issued with grave abuse of discretion
because they violate Republic Act 10368 or the Human Rights Victims
Reparation and Recognition Act of 2013.
The President's verbal orders cannot be justified even under the provisions
of the Administrative Code of 1987.
The actions of public respondents are contrary to the President's oath of
office because they encourage impunity.