Article 9. No judge or court shall decline to render judgment by reason of the silence, obscurity or insufficiency of the laws.

Article 10. In case of doubt in the interpretation or application of laws, it is presumed that the lawmaking body intended right and justice to prevail.

The sole purpose of government is to promote, protect and preserve these [human] rights. And when govermnent not only defaults in its duty but itself violates the very rights it was established to protect, it forfeits its authority to demand obedience of the governed and could be replaced with one to which the people consent. The Filipino people exercised this highest of rights in the EDSA Revolution of February 1986.^[13]

Section 1. The Judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law.

Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.

The first section starts with a sentence copied from former Constitutions. It says:

The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law.

I suppose nobody can question it.

The next provision is new in our constitutional law. I will read it first and explain.

Judicial power includes the duty of courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part or instrumentality of the government.

Fellow Members of this Commission, this is actually a product of our experience during martial law. As a matter of fact, it has some antecedents in the past, but the role of the judiciary during the deposed regime was marred considerably by the circumstance that in a number of cases against the government, which then had no legal defense at all, the solicitor general set up the defense of political questions and got away with it. As a consequence, certain principles concerning particularly the writ of habeas corpus, that is, the authority of courts to order the release of political detainees, and other matters related to the operation and effect of martial law failed because the government set up the defense of political question. And the Supreme Court said: "Well, since it is political, we have no authority to pass upon it." The Committee on the Judiciary feels that this was not a proper solution of the questions involved. It did not merely request an encroachment upon the rights of the people, but it, in effect, encouraged further violations thereof during the martial law regime....

x x x x

Briefly stated, courts of justice determine the limits of power of the agencies and offices of the govermnent as well as those of its officers. In other words, the judiciary is the final arbiter on the question whether or not a branch of government or any of its officials has acted without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction, or so capriciously as to constitute an abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction or lack of jurisdiction. This is not only a judicial power but a duty to pass judgment on matters of this nature.

This is the background of paragraph 2 of Section 1, which means that the courts cannot hereafter evade the duty to settle matters of this nature, by claiming that such matters constitute a political question.^[19] (Emphasis supplied)

The present Constitution limits resort to the political question doctrine and broadens the scope of judicial inquiry into areas which the Court, under previous constitutions, would have normally left to the political departments to decide.

x x x x

x x x When political questions are involved, the Constitution limits the determination to whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the official whose action is being questioned. If grave abuse is not established, the Court will not substitute its judgment for that of the official concerned and decide a matter which by its nature or by law is for the latter alone to decide.^[22]

To a great degree, the 1987 Constitution has narrowed the reach of the political question doctrine when it expanded the power of judicial review of this court not only to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable but also to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of government. Heretofore, the judiciary has focused on the "thou shalt not's" of the Constitution directed against the exercise of its jurisdiction. With the new provision, however, courts are given a greater prerogative to determine what it can do to prevent grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of government. Clearly, the new provision did not just grant the Court power of doing nothing.^[24] (Citations omitted and emphasis supplied)

It [referring to the refusal of the Supreme Court to review] did not merely request an encroachment upon the rights of the people, but it, in effect, encouraged further violations thereof during the martial law regime.^[27]

While the Court considered the President's "calling-out" power as a discretionary power solely vested in his wisdom, it stressed that this does not prevent an examination of whether such power was exercised within permissible constitutional limits or whether it was exercised in a manner constituting grave abuse of discretion. This ruling is mainly a result of the Court's reliance on Section 1, Article VIII of 1987 Constitution which fortifies the authority of the courts to determine in an appropriate action the validity of the acts of the political departments. Under the new definition of judicial power, the courts are authorized not only "to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable," but also "to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government."^[37] (Citations omitted)

The power of judicial review has since been strengthened in the 1987 Constitution. The scope of that power has been extended to the determination of whether in matters traditionally considered to be within the sphere of appreciation of another branch of government, an exercise of discretion has been attended with grave abuse. The expansion of this power has made the political question doctrine "no longer the insurmountable obstacle to the exercise of judicial power or the impenetrable shield that protects executive and legislative actions from judicial inquiry or review."^[56] (Citations omitted)

The genesis of the foregoing cases can be traced to the events prior to the historic May 2010 elections, when then Senator Benigno Simeon Aquino III declared his staunch condemnation of graft and corruption with his slogan, "Kung walang corrupt, walang mahirap." The Filipino people, convinced of his sincerity and of his ability to carry out this noble objective, catapulted the good senator to the presidency.

To transform his campaign slogan into reality, President Aquino found a need for a special body to investigate reported cases of graft and corruption allegedly committed during the previous administration.

Thus, at the dawn of his administration, the President on July 30, 2010, signed Executive Order No. 1 establishing the Philippine Truth Commission of 2010 (Truth Commission).^[60]

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." The President's power must be exercised in accordance with existing laws. Section 17, Article VII of the Constitution prescribes faithful execution of the laws by the President:

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

The President's discretion in the conferment of the Order of National Artists should be exercised in accordance with the duty to faithfully execute the relevant laws. The faithful execution clause is best construed as an obligation imposed on the President, not a separate grant of power. It simply underscores the rule of law and, corollarily, the cardinal principle that the President is not above the laws but is obliged to obey and execute them. This is precisely why the law provides that "[a]dministrative or executive acts, orders and regulations shall be valid only when they are not contrary to the laws or the Constitution."^[62] (Citations omitted and emphasis supplied)

Thus, we interpret and apply the law not independently of but in consonance with justice. Law and justice are inseparable, and we must keep them so. x x x

The spirit, rather than the letter of a statute determines its construction, hence, a statute must be read according to its spirit or intent. For what is within the spirit is within the statute although it is not within the letter thereof; and that which is within the letter but not within the spirit is not within the statute. Stated differently, a thing which is within the intent of the lawmaker is as much within the statute as within the letter; and a thing which is within the letter of the statute is not within the statute unless within the intent of the lawmakers.^[69]

Third, the assumption that there is, in all cases, a universal plain language is erroneous. In reality, universality and uniformity of meaning is a rarity. A contrary belief wrongly assumes that language is static.

The more appropriate and more effective approach is, thus, holistic rather than parochial: to consider context and the interplay of the historical, the contemporary, and even the envisioned. Judicial interpretation entails the convergence of social realities and social ideals. The latter are meant to be effected by the legal apparatus, chief of which is the bedrock of the prevailing legal order: the Constitution. Indeed, the word in the vernacular that describes the Constitution - saligan - demonstrates this imperative of constitutional primacy.

Thus, we refuse to read Section 5.2(a) of the Fair Election Act in isolation. Here, we consider not an abstruse provision but a stipulation that is part of the whole, i.e., the statute of which it is a part, that is aimed at realizing the ideal of fair elections. We consider not a cloistered provision but a norm that should have a present authoritative effect to achieve the ideals of those who currently read, depend on, and demand fealty from the Constitution.^[71]

SECTION 1. Until a legislature is elected and convened under a New Constitution, the President shall continue to exercise legislative power.

The President shall give priority to measures to achieve the mandate of the people to:

x x x x

d) Recover ill-gotten properties amassed by the leaders and supporters of the previous regime and protect the interest of the people through orders of sequestration or freezing of assets of accounts;

ARTICLE XVIII
Transitory Provisions

SECTION 26. The authority to issue sequestration or freeze orders under Proclamation No. 3 dated March 25, 1986 in relation to the recovery of ill-gotten wealth shall remain operative for not more than eighteen months after the ratification of this Constitution. However, in the national interest, as certified by the President, the Congress may extend said period.

In PCGG v. Peña, this Court, describing the rule of Marcos as a "well­-entrenched plundering regime" of twenty years, noted the "magnitude of the past regime's 'organized pillage' and the ingenuity of the plunderers and pillagers with the assistance of the experts and best legal minds available in the market." The evidence presented in this case reveals one more instance of this grand scheme. This Court - guardian of the high standards and noble traditions of the legal profession - has thus before it an opportunity to undo[,] even if only to a certain extent, the damage that has been done.^[92] (citations omitted)

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

The petitioners in this case are prominent victims of human rights violations who, deprived of the opportunity to directly confront the man who once held absolute rule over this country, have chosen to do battle instead with the earthly representative, his estate.^[95] (Emphasis supplied)

The Court adopts and approves the Report and its findings and holds on the basis thereof and of the evidence received and appreciated by the Commission and duly supported by the facts of public record and knowledge set forth above and hereinafter, that the then President (code named Olympus) had stage managed in and from Malacanang Palace "a scripted and pre-determined manner of handling and disposing of the Aquino-Galman murder case;" and that "the prosecution in the Aquino Galman case and the Justices who tried and decided the same acted under the compulsion of some pressure which proved to be beyond their capacity to resist", and which not only prevented the prosecution to fully ventilate its position and to offer all the evidences which it could have otherwise presented, but also pre-determined the final outcome of the case of total absolution of the twenty-six respondents accused of all criminal and civil liability.

x x x x

The record shows suffocatingly that from beginning to end, the then President used, or more precisely, misused the overwhelming resources of the government and his authoritarian powers to corrupt and make a mockery of the judicial process in the Aquino-Galman murder cases. x x x

Indeed, the secret Malacañang conference at which the authoritarian President called together the Presiding Justice of the Sandiganbayan and Tanodbayan Fernandez and the entire prosecution panel headed by Deputy Tanodbayan Herrera and told them how to handle and rig (moro-moro) the trial and the close monitoring of the entire proceedings to assure the pre­determined ignominious final outcome are without parallel and precedent in our annals and jurisprudence.^[100] (Emphasis supplied)

It was a long and horrible nightmare when our people's rights, freedoms and liberties were sacrificed at the altar of "national security" even though it involved nothing more than the President-dictator's perpetuation in office and the security of his relatives and some officials in high positions and their protection from public accountability of their acts of venality and deception in government, many of which were of public knowledge.

x x x x

The treacherous assassination on August 21, 1983 of the martyred Benigno S. Aquino, Jr., within minutes of his arrival at the Manila International Airport, although ringed with 2,000 soldiers, shocked and outraged the conscience of the nation. After three years of exile following almost eight years of detention since martial law, Aquino, although facing the military commission's predetermined death sentence, supra, yet refused proper travel documents, was returning home "to strive for genuine national reconciliation founded on justice." The late Senator Jose W. Diokno who passed away this year was among the first victims of the martial law coup d'etat to be locked up with Senator Aquino. In March, 1973, all of their personal effects, including their eyeglasses were ominously returned to their homes. Their wives' visitation privileges were suspended and they lost all contact for over a month. It turned out that Aquino had smuggled out of his cell a written statement critical of the martial law regime. In swift retribution, both of them were flown out blindfolded to the army camp at Fort Laur in Nueva Ecija and kept in solitary confinement in dark boarded cells with hardly any ventilation. When their persons were produced before the Court on habeas corpus proceedings, they were a pitiable sight having lost about 30 to 40 lbs. in weight. Senator Diokno was to be released in September, 1974 after almost two years of detention. No charges of any kind were ever filed against him. His only fault was that he was a possible rival for the presidency.

Horacia Morales, Jr., 1977 TOYM awardee for government service and then executive vice-president of the Development Academy of the Philippines, was among the hard-working government functionaries who had been radicalized and gave up their government positions. Morales went underground on the night he was supposed to receive his TOYM award, declaring that "(F)or almost ten years, I have been an official in the reactionary government, serviced the Marcos dictatorship and all that it stands for, serving a ruling system that has brought so much suffering and misery to the broad masses of the Filipino people. (I) refuse to take any more part of this. I have had enough of this regime's tyranny and treachery, greed and brutality, exploitation and oppression of the people," and "(I)n rejecting my position and part in the reactionary government, I am glad to be finally free of being a servant of foreign and local vested interest. I am happy to be fighting side by side with the people." He was apprehended in 1982 and was charged with the capital crime of subversion, until he was freed in March, 1986 after President Corazon C. Aquino's assumption of office, together with other political prisoners and detainees and prisoners of conscience in fulfillment of her campaign pledge.

Countless others forfeited their lives and stand as witnesses to the tyranny and repression of the past regime. Driven by their dreams to free our motherland from poverty, oppression, iniquity and injustice, many of our youthful leaders were to make the supreme sacrifice. To mention a few: U.P. Collegian editor Abraham Sarmiento, Jr., worthy son of an illustrious member of the Court pricked the conscience of many as he asked on the front page of the college paper: Sino ang kikibo kung hindi tayo kikibo? Sino ang kikilos kung hindi tayo kikilos? Kung hindi ngayon, kailan pa? He was locked up in the military camp and released only when he was near death from a severe attack of asthma, to which he succumbed. Another TOYM awardee, Edgar Jopson, an outstanding honor student at the Ateneo University, instinctively pinpointed the gut issue in 1971 he pressed for a "non-partisan Constitutional Convention;" and demanded that the then president-soon-to-turn dictator "put down in writing" that he was  not going to manipulate the Constitution to remove his disqualification to run for a third term or perpetuate himself in office and was called down as "son of a grocer." When as he feared, martial law was declared, Jopson went underground to continue the struggle and was to be waylaid and killed at the age of 34 by 21 military troops as the reported head of the rebel movement in Mindanao. Another activist honor student leader, Emmanuel Yap, son of another eminent member of the Court, was to disappear on Valentine's Day in 1976 at the young age of 24, reportedly picked up by military agents in front of Channel 7 in Quezon City, and never to be seen again.

One of our most promising young leaders, Evelio B. Javier, 43, unarmed, governor of the province of Antique at 28, a Harvard-trained lawyer, was mercilessly gunned down with impunity in broad daylight at 10 a.m. in front of the provincial capitol building by six mad-dog killers who riddled his body with 24 bullets fired from M-16 armalite rifles (the standard heavy automatic weapon of our military). He was just taking a breather and stretching his legs from the tedious but tense proceedings of the canvassing of the returns of the presidential snap election in the capitol building. This was to be the last straw and the bloodless EDSA revolt was soon to unfold. The Court in Javier vs. Comelec, through Mr. Justice Cruz, said these meager words in tribute to a fallen hero who was struck down in the vigor of his youth because he dared to speak against tyranny. Where many kept a meekly silence for fear of retaliation, and still others feigned and fawned in hopes of safety and even reward, he chose to fight. He was not afraid. Money did not tempt him. Threats did not daunt him. Power did not awe him. His was a singular and all-exacting obsession: the return of freedom to his country. And though he fought not in the barricades of war amid the sound and smoke of shot and shell, he was a soldier nonetheless, fighting valiantly for the liberties of his people against the enemies of his race, unfortunately of his race too, who would impose upon the land a perpetual night of dark enslavement. He did not see the breaking of the dawn, sad to say, but in a very real sense Evelio B. Javier made that dawn draw nearer because he was, like Saul and Jonathan, swifter than eagles and stronger than lions.^[109] (Citations omitted)

The greatest threat to freedom is the shortness of human memory. We must note here the unforgettable and noble sacrifices of the countless brave and patriotic men and women who feel as martyrs and victims during the long dark years of the deposed regime. In vacating the death sentence imposed on the petitioners who survived the holocaust, we render them simple justice and we redeem and honor the memory of those who selflessly offered their lives for the restoration of truth, decency, justice and freedom in our beloved land.^[110] (Emphasis supplied)

To the President, the problem is one of balancing the general welfare and the common good against the exercise of rights of certain individuals. The power involved is the President's residual power to protect the general welfare of the people. It is founded on the duty of the President, as steward of the people. To paraphrase Theodore Roosevelt, it is not only the power of the President but also his duty to do anything not forbidden by the Constitution or the laws that the needs of the nation demand [See Corwin, supra, at 153]. It is a power borne by the President's duty to preserve and defend the Constitution. It also may be viewed as a power implicit in the President's duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed [see Hyman,The American President, where the author advances the view that an allowance of discretionary power is unavoidable in any government and is best lodged in the President].^[121] (Emphasis supplied)

Admittedly, service and protection of the people, the maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty and property, and the promotion of the general welfare are essentially ideals to guide governmental action. But such does not mean that they are empty words. Thus, in the exercise of presidential functions, in drawing a plan of government, and in directing implementing action for these plans, or from another point of view, in making any decision as President of the Republic, the President has to consider these principles, among other things, and adhere to them.^[122] (Emphasis supplied)

Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

3. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes:

(a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity;

(b) To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy;

(c) To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.^[147]

The obligations of States parties to provide redress under Article 14 are two-fold: procedural and substantive. To satisfy their procedural obligations, States parties shall enact legislation and establish complaints mechanisms, investigation bodies and institutions, including independent judicial bodies, capable of determining the right to and awarding redress for a victim of torture and ill-treatment, and ensure that such mechanisms and bodies are effective and accessible to all victims. At the substantive level, States parties shall ensure that victims of torture or ill-treatment obtain full and effective redress and reparation, including compensation and the means for as full rehabilitation as possible.^[174] (Emphasis supplied)

The Chamber accepts that the right to reparations is a well-established and basic human right, that is enshrined in universal and regional human rights treaties, and in other international instruments, including the UN Basic Principles; the Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power; the Guidelines on Justice in Matters involving Child Victims and Witnesses of Crime; the Nairobi Declaration; the Cape Town Principles and Best Practices on the Recruitment of Children into the Armed Forces and on Demobilization and Social Reintegration of Child Soldiers in Africa; and the Paris Principles. These international instruments, as well as certain significant human rights reports, have provided guidance to the Chamber in establishing the present principles.^[179] (Emphasis supplied)

Reparation must, as far as possible, wipe out all consequences of the illegal act and re-establish the situation which would, in all probability, have existed if that act had not been committed.^[183]

The [Inter-American Court of Human Rights] considers that, beyond the established legal system, the State has a key role and a primary responsibility to guarantee that victims of crimes against international law will have effective access under conditions of equality to measures of reparation, consistent with the standards of international law governing human rights. Access to reparations for victims of crimes against humanity must never be subject exclusively to determination of the criminal liability of the perpetrators, or the prior disposal of their personal goods, licit or illicit.^[186]

x x x x

The State must play a primary, rather than a secondary, role in guaranteeing victims' access to reparations in accordance with the standards of international law.^[187]

Emphasizing that the Basic Principles and Guidelines contained herein do not entail new international or domestic legal obligations but identify mechanisms, modalities, procedures and methods for the implementation of existing legal obligations under international human rights law and international humanitarian law which are complementary though different as to their norms x x x.^[196]

IX. Reparation for harm suffered

15. Adequate, effective and prompt reparation is intended to promote justice by redressing gross violations of international human rights law or serious violations of international humanitarian law. Reparation should be proportional to the gravity of the violations and the harm suffered. In accordance with its domestic laws and international legal obligations, a State shall provide reparation to victims for acts or omissions which can be attributed to the State and constitute gross violations of international human rights law or serious violations of international humanitarian law. In cases where a person, a legal person, or other entity is found liable for reparation to a victim, such party should provide reparation to the victim or compensate the State if the State has already provided reparation to the victim.

x x x x

18. In accordance with domestic law and international law, and taking account of individual circumstances, victims of gross violations of international human rights law and serious violations of international humanitarian law should, as appropriate and proportional to the gravity of the violation and the circumstances of each case, be provided with full and effective reparation, as laid out in principles 19 to 23, which include the following forms: restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition.

It is obvious that gross violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms, particularly when they have been committed on a massive scale, are by their nature irreparable. In such instances any remedy or redress stands in no proportional relationship to the grave injury inflicted upon the victims. It is nevertheless an imperative norm of justice that the responsibility of the perpetrators be clearly established and that the rights of the victims be sustained to the fullest possible extent.^[203] (Emphasis supplied)

19. Restitution should, whenever possible, restore the victim to the original situation before the gross violations of international human rights law or serious violations of international humanitarian law occurred. Restitution includes, as appropriate: restoration of liberty, enjoyment of human rights, identity, family life and citizenship, return to one's place of residence, restoration of employment and return of property.

20. Compensation should be provided for any economically assessable damage, as appropriate and proportional to the gravity of the violation and the circumstances of each case, resulting from gross violations of international human rights law and serious violations of international humanitarian law, such as:

(a)	Physical or mental harm;
(b)	Lost opportunities, including employment, education and social benefits;
(c)	Material damages and loss of earnings, including loss of earning potential;
(d)	Moral damage;
(e)	Costs required for legal or expert assistance, medicine and medical services, and psychological and social services.

21. Rehabilitation should include medical and psychological care as well as legal and social services.

22. Satisfaction should include, where applicable, any or all of the following:

(a)	Effective measures aimed at the cessation of continuing violations;
(b)	Verification of the facts and full and public disclosure of the truth to the extent that such disclosure does not cause further harm or threaten the safety and interests of the victim, the victim's relatives, witnesses, or persons who have intervened to assist the victim or prevent the occurrence of further violations;
(c)	The search for the whereabouts of the disappeared, for the identities of the children abducted, and for the bodies of those killed, and assistance in the recovery, identification and reburial of the bodies in accordance with the expressed or presumed wish of the victims, or the cultural practices of the families and communities;
(d)	An official declaration or a judicial decision restoring the dignity, the reputation and the rights of the victim and of persons closely connected with the victim;
(e)	Public apology, including acknowledgement of the facts and acceptance of responsibility;
(f)	Judicial and administrative sanctions against persons liable for the violations;
(g)	Commemorations and tributes to the victims;
(h)	Inclusion of an accurate account of the violations that occurred in international human rights law and international humanitarian law training and in educational material at all levels.

23. Guarantees of non-repetition should include, where applicable, any or all of the following measures, which will also contribute to prevention:

(a)	Ensuring effective civilian control of military and security forces;
(b)	Ensuring that all civilian and military proceedings abide by international standards of due process, fairness and impartiality;
(c)	Strengthening the independence of the judiciary;
(d)	Protecting persons in the legal, medical and health-care professions, the media and other related professions, and human rights defenders;
(e)	Providing, on a priority and continued basis, human rights and international humanitarian law education to all sectors of society and training for law enforcement officials as well as military and security forces;
(f)	Promoting the observance of codes of conduct and ethical norms, in particular international standards, by public servants, including law enforcement, correctional media, medical, psychological, social service and military personnel, as well as by economic enterprises;
(g)	Promoting mechanisms tor preventing and monitoring social conflicts and their resolution;
(h)	Reviewing and reforming laws contributing to or allowing gross violations of international human rights law and serious violations of international humanitarian law.

consists in full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which includes the re­ establishment of the previous situation. If this is not feasible, as in most cases of human rights violations, the Court will determine measures to guarantee the rights that have been violated and to redress the consequences of the violations. Therefore, the Court has found it necessary to award different measures of reparation in order to redress the damage fully, so that, in addition to pecuniary compensation, measures of restitution, rehabilitation and satisfaction, and parantees of non-repetition, have special relevance to the harm caused.^[214]

[I]f the victim, after exhausting in vain the domestic remedies before complaining at Strasbourg of a violation of his rights, were obliged to do so a second time before being able to obtain from the Court just satisfaction, the total length of the procedure instituted by the Convention would scarcely be in keeping with the idea of the effective protection of human rights. Such a requirement would lead to a situation incompatible with the aim and object of the Convention.^[217]

x x x x

Nevertheless, the provisions of Article 50 which recognise the Court's competence to grant to the injured party a just satisfaction also cover the case where the impossibility of restitutio in integrum follows from the very nature of the injury; indeed common sense suggests that this must be so a fortiori.^[218]

Among the important features of this bill are:

One, Congress recognition that those who have filed a case against the Marcoses before the US Federal District Court in Hawaii and are given favorable judgment are considered human rights violations victims. This is called legislative cognizance.

Two, any person who has secured or can secure a favorable judgment from any court in the country arising from a human rights violation is given a so-called conclusive presumption that he or she is a human rights violation victim.

Three, some ten billion pesos of funds seized from bank accounts and discovered investments of the Marcos family shall be used to compensate the victims; and

Four, an independent Human Rights Victims Compensation Board is created attached to, but not necessarily under the direct supervision of the CHR to ensure the proper disposition of the funds guided by this Act.

No amount of money can really be enough to compensate our living heroes and those survived by their kinds for the democracy that our people are now enjoying. The least we can do though is pass this bill to honor, in our small way, the sacrifices, that they have made for our country.^[220]

Sen. Guingona: Page 5, letter (d) "Monetary Compensation refers to financial consideration equivalent to." Then, we changed "economically assessable damage" just to - We just make it "refers to financial consideration extended to human rights violation victims."

Ang rationale dito kasi this one implies - The present definition implies that the damage - When you're human rights victim, it can be equivalent to a material damage when actually there is no adequate compensation when your human rights are violated. So we just make it just "financial consideration extended to human rights violation victims as defined in this Act." Ganoon.

Rep. Lagman: Baka instead of financial consideration, maski iyong consideration, ano, eh - Ah, financial reparation.

Sen. Guingona: Okay.

Rep. Lagman: Reparation.

Sen. Guingona: Reparation. Instead of "economically assessable" parang sinasabi mo you[r] right has been violated but that's eqivalent to this amount.^[226]

x x x x

Sen. Arroyo: x x x Here, we seemed to be concerned about the physical aspects of human rights, meaning torture and all that. But take for instance, those who were economically depressed, harassed. You mean to say the family of Chino Roces, who lost his entire Manila Times and his family, is not really living in poverty x x x.

Now they will not ask for compensation but they would want recognition. This is the purpose of recognition. That is why to us that roll of honor is very important. Because to others, they just want to be recognized.^[227] (Emphasis supplied)

As many recent reparations programmes have been proposed by truth commissions (which have broader mandates and goals than typical judicial instances), they are becoming less like mere compensation mechanisms and are increasingly proposing more complex reparations measures, including symbolic ones. Individualized letters of apology signed by the highest authority in Government, sending each victim a copy of the truth commission's report and supporting families to give a proper burial to their loved ones are some of the individual symbolic measures that have been tried with some success in different contexts. Some of the collective symbolic measures that have been tried are renaming public spaces, building museums and memorials, rededicating places of detention and torture, turning them into sites of memory, establishing days of commemoration and engaging in public acts of atonement. Like other reparations measures, symbolic benefits are, at least in part, geared towards fostering recognition. However, in contrast to other benefits, symbolic measures derive their great potential from the fact that they are carriers of meaning, and therefore can help victims in particular and society in general to make sense of the painful events of the past. Symbolic measures usually turn out to be so significant because, by making the memory of the victims a public matter, they disburden their families from their sense of obligation to keep the memory alive and allow them to move on. This is essential if reparations are to provide recognition to victims not only as victims but also as citizens and as rights holders more generally.^[236] (Emphasis supplied)

An exhaustive list of all truth and reconciliation commissions that have advocated the construction of memorials is beyond the scope of this document. Nevertheless, one should mention the recommendations of the truth and reconciliation commissions in El Salvador, Germany, Guatemala, Peru, Morocco and South Africa and the commission of inquiry in Chad, even though not all their recommendations were implemented.

The Commission on the Truth for El Salvador clearly called in its report for the construction of a national monument in El Salvador bearing the names of all victims of the conflict, recognition of their good name and the serious crimes of which they were the victims and the institution of a national holiday in memory of the victims of conflict as a symbol of reconciliation.

Similarly, the Commission for Historical Clarification in Guatemala recommended, among other things, that monuments and parks be constructed and the names of victims assigned to public buildings and highways in memory of the victims. The Commission stated that "the historical memory, both individual and collective, forms the basis of national identity."^[259]

With the passage of time, memorials have shifted from honouring soldiers dying in the line of duty to a victims' perspective and new visions of reconciliation. Starting in the 1980s, the creation of memorials has become linked to the idea that ensuring public recognition of past crimes is indispensable to the victims, essential for preventing further violence and necessary for redefining national unity. Memorialization is often a demand of victims and society at large and the path to national reconciliation is seen to pass through not only legal reparations, but also symbolic reparations such as memorials.^[260]

The site can be put to good use and "reinterpreted", with suitable techniques and pedagogy, in favour of the promotion of truth and memory, and given an educational and preventive purpose. It can hardly be construed as a place devoted to peace and reconciliation, so long as silence is maintained about the facts relevant to the context and origin of the site, and especially while the flower-covered tomb of the dictator remains in the centre of the monument.^[269] [Emphasis supplied]

The question is how to manage an architectural legacy with strong symbolic connotations when oppressive regimes collapse. Should a new democratic Government destroy, conserve or transform these legacies? Answers vary from situation to situation, frequently giving rise to intense controversy, including amongst victims. Striking examples include debates in Spain over the memorial in Valle de los caidos (the Valley of the Fallen) where Franco is buried, in Bulgaria over the mausoleum of former communist leader Georgy Dimitrov, which was finally destroyed, and in Germany over Hitler's bunker, now located beneath a parking lot in the centre of Berlin, marked only by a small sign.^[270]

Impunity arises from a failure by States to meet their obligations to investigate violations; to take appropriate measures in respect of the perpetrators, particularly in the area of justice, by ensuring that those suspected of criminal responsibility are prosecuted, tried and duly punished; to provide victims with effective remedies and to ensure that they receive reparation for the injuries suffered; to ensure the inalienable right to know the truth about violations; and to take other necessary steps to prevent a recurrence of violations.^[280]

PRINCIPLE 31. RIGHTS AND DUTIES ARISING OUT OF THE OBLIGATION TO MAKE REPARATION

Any human rights violation gives rise to a right to reparation on the part of the victim or his or her beneficiaries, implying a duty on the part of the State to make reparation and the possibility for the victim to seek redress from the perpetrator.

x x x x

PRINCIPLE 34. SCOPE OF THE RIGHT TO REPARATION

The right to reparation shall cover all injuries suffered by victims; it shall include measures of restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, and satisfaction as provided by international law.

On a collective basis, symbolic measures intended to provide moral reparation, such as formal public recognition by the State of its responsibility, or official declarations aimed at restoring victims' dignity, commemorative ceremonies, naming of public thoroughfares or the erection of monuments, help to discharge the duty of remembrance. In France, for example, it took more than 50 years for the Head of State formally to acknowledge, in 1996, the responsibility of the French State for the crimes against human rights committed by the Vichy regime between 1940 and 1944. Mention can be made of similar statements by President Cardoso concerning violations committed under the military dictatorship in Brazil, and more especially of the initiative of the Spanish Government, which recently conferred the status of ex-servicemen on the anti-Fascists and International Brigade members who fought on the Republican side during the Spanish civil war.^[283]

PRINCIPLE 3. THE DUTY TO PRESERVE MEMORY

A people's knowledge of the history of its oppression is part of its heritage and, as such, must be ensured by appropriate measures in 61fulfillment of the State's duty to preserve archives and other evidence concerning violations of human rights and humanitarian law and to facilitate knowledge of those violations. Such measures shall be aimed at preserving the collective memory from extinction and, in particular, at guarding against the development of revisionist and negationist arguments.

Aware that there can be no just and lasting reconciliation unless the need for justice is effectively satisfied,

Equally aware that forgiveness, which may be an important element of reconciliation, implies, insofar as it is a private act, that the victim or the victim's beneficiaries know the perpetrator of the violations and that the latter has acknowledged his or her deeds,

x x x x

Convinced, therefore, that national and international measures must be taken for that purpose with a view to securing jointly, in the interests of the victims of violations, observance of the right to know and, by implication, the right to the truth, the right to justice and the right to reparation, without which there can be no effective remedy against the pernicious effects of impunity.^[284]

[T]here can be no just and lasting reconciliation without an effective response to the need for justice; as a factor of reconciliation, forgiveness, insofar as it is a private act, implies that the victim must know the perpetrator of the violations and that the latter has been in a position to show repentance. For forgiveness to be granted, it must first have been sought.^[286]

In Pascual v. Secretary of Public Works, the Court laid down the test of validity of a public expenditure: it is the essential character of the direct object of the expenditure which must determine its validity and not the magnitude of the interests to be affected nor the degree to which the general advantage of the community, and thus the public welfare, may be ultimately benefited by their promotion. Incidental advantage to the public or to the State resulting from the promotion of private interests and the prosperity of private enterprises or business does not justify their aid by the use of public money.^[298] (Citations omitted and emphasis supplied)

Undeniably, no cadaver has polarized this nation for the longest time other than that of the former President Marcos. Thus, President Duterte deems that it is but high time to put an end to this issue by burying the mortal remains of a former President, Commander-in-Chief, and soldier.

President Duterte's decision to accord respect to the remains of former President Marcos is not simply a matter of political accommodation, or even whims. Viewed from a wider perspective, this decision should be dovetailed to his war against corruption and dangerous drugs, and his recent dealings with the CPP/NPA/NDF. All these are geared towards changing the national psyche and beginning the painful healing of this country.^[306]

x x x x

It should likewise be emphasized that President Duterte's order to allow former President Marcos' interment at the Libingan is based on his determination that it shall promote national healing and forgiveness, and redound to the benefit of the Filipino people. Surely, this is an exercise of his executive prerogative beyond the ambit of judicial review.^[307]

Every person is free, save only for the fetters of the law that limit but do not bind him unless he affronts the rights of others or offends the public welfare. Liberty is not derived from the sufferance of the government or its magnanimity or even from the Constitution itself, which merely affirms but does not grant it. Liberty is a right that inheres in every one of us as a member of the human family.^[317]

Cemeteries, as one type of memorial space, create a symbolic encounter between the living and the dead in the form of individual gravesites and the ritual activities taking place in the burial space. In contrast to communal cemeteries, national cemeteries are state shrines that belong to the national narrative of the people. The heroes buried there - most prominently national leaders and fallen soldiers - are privileged members of the national pantheon.^[318]

It is well-settled that an act of a court or tribunal can only be considered as with grave abuse of discretion when such act is done in a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility. It has also been held that "grave abuse of discretion arises when a lower court or tribunal patently violates the Constitution, the law or existing jurisprudence." [citations omitted]

SECTION 4. Entitlement to Monetary Reparation. Any [Human Rights Violation Victim] qualified under this Act shall receive reparation from the State, free of tax, as herein prescribed x x x.

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

SECTION 7. Source of Reparation. - The amount of Ten billion pesos (P10,000,000,000.00) plus accrued interest which form part of the funds transferred to the government of the Republic of the Philippines by virtue of the December 10, 1997 Order of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, adjudged by the Supreme Court of the Philippines as final and executory in Republic vs. Sandiganbayan on July 15, 2003 (G.R. No. 152154) as Marcos ill-gotten wealth and forfeited in favor of the Republic of the Philippines, shall be the principal source of funds for the implementation of this Act.

Article 2, Section 2, of the 1987 Philippine Constitution provides for an adherence to general principles of international law as part of the law of the land. One of these principles is the basic rule of pacta sunt servanda or the performance in good faith of a state's treaty obligations. Pacta sunt servanda is the foundation of all conventional international law, for without it, the superstructure of treaties, both bilateral and multilateral, which comprise a great part of international law, could well be inconsequential.

Article 2, paragraph 3, requires that States Parties make reparation to individuals whose Covenant rights have been violated. Without reparation to individuals whose Covenant rights have been violated, the obligation to provide an effective remedy, which is central to the efficacy of article 2, paragraph 3, is not discharged.

States Parties shall assure to everyone within their jurisdiction effective protection and remedies, through the competent national tribunals and other State institutions, against any acts of racial discrimination which violate his human rights and fundamental freedoms contrary to this Convention, as well as the right to seek from such tribunals just and adequate reparation or satisfaction for any damage suffered as a result of such discrimination.

1. Each State Party shall ensure in its legal system that the victim of an act of torture obtains redress and has an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation, including the means for as full rehabilitation as possible. In the event of the death of the victim as a result of an act of torture, his dependants shall be entitled to compensation.
   
   
2. Nothing in this article shall affect any right of the victim or other persons to compensation which may exist under national law.

Reparation must be adequate, effective and comprehensive. States parties are reminded that in the determination of redress and reparative measures provided or awarded to a victim of torture or ill-treatment, the specificities and circumstances of each case must be taken into consideration and redress should be tailored to the particular needs of the victim and be proportionate in relation to gravity of the violations committed against them. The Committee emphasi[z]es that the provision of reparation has an inherent preventive and deterrent effect in relation to future violations.

Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.

If the Court finds that there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected by this Convention, the Court shall rule that the injured party be ensured the enjoyment of his right or freedom that was violated. It shall also rule, if appropriate, that the consequences of the measure or situation that constituted the breach of such right or freedom be remedied and that fair compensation be paid to the injured party.

If the Court finds that there has been violation of a human or peoples' rights, it shall make appropriate orders to remedy the violation, including the payment of fair compensation or reparation.

The victims of acts of enforced disappearance and their family shall obtain redress and shall have the right to adequate compensation, including the means for as complete a rehabilitation as possible. In the event of the death of the victim as a result of an act of enforced disappearance, their dependants shall also be entitled to compensation.

Victims should be treated with compassion and respect for their dignity. They are entitled to access to the mechanisms of justice and to prompt redress, as provided for by national legislation, for the harm that they have suffered.

Recalling the provisions providing a right to a remedy for victims of violations of international human rights law found in numerous international instruments. x x x

Recalling the provisions providing a right to a remedy for victims of violations of international human rights found in regional conventions. x x x

Recognizing that, in honouring the victims' right to benefit from remedies and reparation, the international community keeps faith with the plight of victims, survivors and future human generations and reaffirms the international legal principles of accountability, justice and the rule of law[.]

1. Obligation to respect, ensure respect for and implement international human rights law and international humanitarian law
   
   
   
   1. The obligation to respect, ensure respect for and implement international human rights law and international humanitarian law as provided for under the respective bodies of law emanates from:
      
      (a) Treaties to which a State is a party;
      (b) Customary international law;
      (c) The domestic law of each State.
      
      
   2. If they have not already done so, States shall, as required under international law, ensure that their domestic law is consistent with their intemational legal obligations by:
      
      

      (a)	Incorporating norms of international human rights law and international humanitarian law into their domestic law, or otherwise implementing them in their domestic legal system;
      (b)	Adopting appropriate and etfective legislative and administrative procedures and other appropriate measures that provide fair, effective and prompt access to justice;
      (c)	Making available adequate, effective, prompt and appropriate remedies, including reparation, as defined below;
      (d)	Ensuring that their domestic law provides at least the same level of protection for victims as that required by their international obligations.

3. The obligation to respect, ensure respect for and implement international human rights law and international humanitarian law as provided for under the respective bodies of law, includes, inter alia, the duty to:
   
   

   (a)	Take appropriate legislative and administrative and other appropriate measures to prevent violations;
   (b)	Investigate violations effectively, promptly, thoroughly and impartially and, where appropriate. take action against those allegedly responsible in accordance with domestic and international law;
   (c)	Provide those who claim to be victims of a human rights or humanitarian law violation with equal and effective access to justice, as described below, irrespective of who may ultimately be the bearer of responsibility for the violation; and
   (d)	Provide effective remedies to victims, including reparation, as described below.

1)	The Court incorporates herein its Judgment on Liability entered October 20, 1992 and its Order entered December 17, 1992 denying defendant's posttrial motions reliability.
2)	Judgment for compensatory damages is entered for the below named randomly selected class claims as follows:
	Torture Subclass
	Summary Execution Subclass
	Disappearance Subclass
3)	Judgment for compensatory damages is entered for the remaining members of the Plaintiff class as follows:
	a)	for the remaining Plaintiff subclass of all current citizens of the Republic of the Philippines, their heirs and beneficiaries, who between September 1972 and February 1986 were tortured while in the custody of the Philippine military or para-military groups in the aggregate of $251,819,811.00, to be divided pro rata.
	b)	for the remaining Plaintiff Subclass of all current citizens of the Republic of the Philippines, their heirs and beneficiaries, who between September 1972 and February 1986 were summarily executed while in the custody of the Philippine military or para-military groups in the aggregate of $409,191,760.00 to be divided pro rata.
	c)	for the remaining Plaintiff Subclass of all current citizens of the Republic of the Philippines, their heirs and beneficiaries, who between September 1972 and February 1986 disappeared (and are presumed dead) while in the custody of the Philippine military or para-military groups in the aggregate of $94,910,640.00 to be divided pro rata.
4)	Judgment for exemplary damages, to make an example for the public good, is entered in the aggregate of $1,197,227,417.90 to be divided pro rata among all members of the Plaintiff class.

SECTION 4. Entitlement to Monetary Reparation. Any HRVV qualified under this Act shall receive reparation from the State, free of tax, as herein prescribed x x x.

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

a. Medal of Valor Awardees;

b. Presidents or Commander-in-Chief, AFP;

c. Secretaries of National Defense;

d. Chiefs of Staff, AFP;

e. Generals/Flag Officers of the AFP;

f. Active and retired military personnel of the AFP to include active draftees and trainees who died in line of duty, active reservists and CAFGU Active Auxiliary (CAA) who died in combat operations or combat related activities;

g. Former members of the AFP who laterally entered or joined the Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) and the Philippine National Police (PNP);

h. Veterans of Philippine Revolution of 1890, WWI, WWII and recognized guerillas;

i. Government Dignitaries, Statesmen, National Artists and other deceased persons whose interment or reinterment has been approved by the Commander-in-Chief, Congress or the Secretary of National Defense; and

j. Former Presidents, Secretaries of Defense, Dignitaries, Statesmen, National Artists, widows of Former Presidents, Secretaries of National Defense and Chief[s] of Staff.

a. Personnel who were dishonorably separated/reverted/discharged from the service; and

b. Authorized personnel who were convicted by final judgment of an offense involving moral turpitude. (Emphasis supplied)

No less than the Freedom Constitution declared that the Aquino government was installed through a direct exercise of the power of the Filipino people in defiance of the provisions of the 1973 Constitution, as amended. It is familiar learning that the legitimacy of a government sired by a successful revolution by people power is beyond judicial scrutiny for that government automatically orbits out of the constitutional loop.^[6] (Emphasis supplied)

Equal protection simply provides that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated in a similar manner, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed. The purpose of the equal protection clause is to secure every person within a state's jurisdiction against intentional and arbitrary discrimination, whether occasioned by the express terms of a statute or by its improper execution through the state's duly constituted authorities. In other words, the concept of equal justice under the law requires the state to govern impartially, and it may not draw distinctions between individuals solely on differences that are irrelevant to a legitimate governmental objective.^[14]

All that is required of a valid classification is that it be reasonable, which means that the classification should be based on substantial distinctions which make for real differences; that it must be germane to the purpose of the law; that it must not be limited to existing conditions only; and that it must apply equally to each member of the class. This Court has held that the standard is satisfied if the classification or distinction is based on a reasonable foundation or rational basis and is not palpably arbitrary.^[16]

It bears stressing that the exemption from the SSL is a "privilege" fully within the legislative prerogative to give or deny. However, its subsequent grant to the rank-and-file of the seven other GFIs and continued denial to the BSP rank-and-file employees breached the latter's right to equal protection. In other words, while the granting of a privilege per se is a matter of policy exclusively within the domain and prerogative of Congress, the validity or legality of the exercise of this prerogative is subject to judicial review. So when the distinction made is superficial, and not based on substantial distinctions that make real differences between those included and excluded, it becomes a matter of arbitrariness that this Court has the duty and the power to correct. As held in the United Kingdom case of Hooper v. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, once the State has chosen to confer benefits, "discrimination" contrary to law may occur where favorable treatment already afforded to one group is refused to another, even though the State is under no obligation to provide that favorable treatment.

The disparity of treatment between BSP rank-and-file and the rank-and-file of the other seven GFIs definitely bears the unmistakable badge of invidious discrimination - no one can, with candor and fairness, deny the discriminatory character of the subsequent blanket and total exemption of the seven other GFIs from the SSL when such was withheld from the BSP. Alikes are being treated as unalikes without any rational basis.

Again, it must be emphasized that the equal protection clause does not demand absolute equality but it requires that all persons shall be treated alike, under like circumstances and conditions both as to privileges conferred and liabilities enforced. Favoritism and undue preference cannot be allowed. For the principle is that equal protection and security shall be given to every person under circumstances which, if not identical, are analogous. If law be looked upon in terms of burden or charges, those that fall within a class should be treated in the same fashion; whatever restrictions cast on some in the group is equally binding on the rest.^[19] (Italicization in the original)

Consistent with the foregoing, it is hereby declared the policy of the State to recognize the heroism and sacrifices of all Filipinos who were victims of summary execution, torture, enforced or involuntary disappearance and other gross human rights violations committed during the regime of former President Ferdinand E. Marcos covering the period from September 21, 1972 to February 25, 1986 and restore the victims' honor and dignity. The State hereby acknowledges its moral and legal obligation to recognize and/or provide reparation to said victims and/or their families for the deaths, injuries, sufferings, deprivations and damages they suffered under the Marcos regime. (Emphasis supplied)

1. Medal of Valor Awardees
   
   
2. Presidents or Commander-in-Chief, AFP
   
   
3. Secretaries of National Defense
   
   
4. Chiefs of Staff, AFP
   
   
5. Generals/Flag Officers of the AFP
   
   
6. Active and retired military personnel of the AFP to include active draftees and trainees who died in the line of duty, active reservists and CAFGU Active Auxiliary (CAA) who died in combat operations or combat related activities.
   
   
7. Former members of the AFP who laterally entered or joined the Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) and the Philippine National Police (PNP).
   
   
8. Veterans of Philippine Revolution of 1890, WWI, WWII, and recognized guerillas.
   
   
9. Government Dignitaries, Statesmen, National Artists and other deceased persons whose interment or reinternment has been approved by the Commander-in-Chief, Congress or the Secretary of National Defense.
   
   
10. Former Presidents, Secretaries of Defense, Dignitaries, Statesmen, National Artists, widows of Former Presidents, Secretaries of National Defense and Chief of Staff are authorized to be interred at the LNMB.

a. Personnel who were dishonorably separated/reverted/discharged from the service.

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

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

1. The body of President Marcos would be flown straight from Hawaii to Ilocos Norte province without any fanfare;^[3]
   
   
2. President Marcos would be given honors befitting a major, his last rank in the AFP;^[4] and
   
   
3. The body of President Marcos will be buried in Ilocos.^[5]

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

(a)	To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been omitted by persons acting in an official capacity;
(b)	To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy;
(c)	To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.

1. Medal of Valor awardees
   
   
2. Presidents or commanders-in-chief AFP
   
   
3. Secretaries of National Defense
   
   
4. Chiefs of staff, AFP
   
   
5. Generals/ flag officers of the AFP
   
   
6. Active and retired military personnel of the AFP
   
   
7. Former AFP members who laterally entered/joined the Philippine National Police and the Philippine Coast Guard
   
   
8. Veterans of Philippine Revolution of 1896, World War I, World War II and recognized guerillas
   
   
9. Government dignitaries, statesmen, national artists and other deceased persons whose interment or re-interment has been approved by the Commander-in-chief, Congress, or the Secretary of National Defense
   
   
10. Former Presidents, secretaries of defense, CSAFP, generals/flag officers, dignitaries, statesmen, national artists, widows of former presidents, secretaries of national defense and chief of staff

1. Personnel who were dishonorably separated, reverted, and/or discharged from the service
   
   
2. Authorized personnel who were convicted by final judgment of an offense involving moral turpitude

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

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

The same meaning, that of all the Citizens considered as a collective unit acting under a majority rule, is given to the term people in an Illinois decision which states that "in a representative government all powers of government belong ultimately to the people in their sovereign corporate capacity." Obviously it is in this sense that the term people is used in the Constitution of the Philippines when it declares in its Article II thus: The Philippines is a republican state. Sovereignty resides in the people and all governmental authority from them.^[33]

x x x x

Suffrage, or the right to vote, is a political right. Different views have been expressed about its nature. One is that it is merely a privilege to be given or withheld by the law-making power in the absence of constitutional limitations. Another view considers it as a natural right included among the liberties guaranteed to 'every citizen in a republican form of government, and may not therefore be taken away from him except by due process of law. A third view maintains that the right of suffrage is one reserved by the people to a definite portion of the population possessing the qualifications prescribed in the constitution. This view is based on the theory that the sovereign political power in a democratic state remains with the people and is to be exercised only in the manner indicated by the constitution. Consequently, a person who belongs to the class to whom the constitution grants this right may not be deprived of it by any legislative act except by due process of law. It is in this sense that suffrage may be understood in the Philippines at present.^[34] (Underscoring supplied)

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

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

In compliance to the verbal order of the President to implement his election campaign promise to have the remains of the late former President Ferdinand E. Marcos be interred at the Libangan ng mga Bayani, kindly undertake the necessary planning and preparations to facilitate the coordination of all agencies concerned specially the provisions for ceremonial and security requirements. Coordinate closely with the Marcos family regarding the date of interment and the transport of the late former President's remains from Ilocos Norte to the LNMB.

The overall OPR for this activity will the PVAO since the LNMB is under its supervision and administration. PVAO shall designate the focal person for this activity who shall be the overall overseer of the event.

Submit your Implementing Plan to my office as soon as possible.

Justice Caguioa:

Was this a unilateral act on the part of the President or was this a request from the Marcos family?

Solicitor General Calida:

I do not know the circumstances in which this promise was made, Your Honor, but if I know President Duterte, he already had a plan for the Philippines, a plan to unite all the Filipinos of different persuasions, ideologist, in fact, this policy of reconciliation is now manifested in the recent Oslo, Norway talks, Your Honor. He wants an inclusive government, Your Honor.

Justice Caguioa:

So, what are we saying here that the testimonials made by human rights victims and other people like them which the Claims Board has numbered at around seventy-five thousand (75), those pain, the pain that they feel they do not reflect the national phyche today, is that what you're saying?

Solicitor General Calida:

Your Honor, I'm human being I feel their pain, but we are in a Court of law, Your Honor. And there are venues where that pain will be expressed by the victims, and as far as I know, making them recount their horrible experience is a form of retraumatization.

Justice Caguioa:

I understand from their testimonies and the summation made by the human rights, what is retraumatizing them is the act of burying President Marcos, do you dispute that?

Solicitor General Calida:

I do not agree with that, Your Honor.

Justice Caguioa:

When the President made this decision to allow the interment of President Marcos in the Libingan, did they also considered the injury that the Marcos family would suffer if the burial did not take place?

x x x x

Solicitor General Calida:

Well, the urgency, Your Honor, is that President Duterte has already stated that among his policies, Your Honor, is the policy of reconciliation, national healing, and any day that is, shall I rephrase if Your Honor. This is the policy that he has adopted: the remains of Marcos should now be interred at the Libingan even the 218 Congressmen, Your Honor, of the 15^th Congress agreed that this place is the most fitting place where former President Marcos will be buried, Your Honor.

Justice Caguioa:

And this wisdom, this decision is over and above the pain and sufferings of the human rights victims do I understand that correctly as a political decision that he made?

Solicitor General Calida:

Well, the President will take every matter into consideration, Your Honor, and I assume he considered that too.

Justice Caguioa:

Alright, thank you.^[37]

Jojo Binay - 5,416,140 votes
Miriam Defensor Santiago - 1,455,532 votes
Grace Poe - 9,100,991 votes
Roy Señeres - 25,779 votes

SECRETARY ALUN :

The official agreement is what I personally, I officially submitted to the President of the Philippines on August 19 which was altered by Imelda Marcos. The following day, she sent her version of the Memorandum of Agreement that she signed without my signature but which was disregarded by the President. In fact, if I may share, the comment of the President when he saw the words temporarily interred was that, this was a sign of bad faith.^[25]

Look, there is the courts. Pumunta kayo ng korte kasi yung taong hinahabol niyo, cadaver na (Go to the courts because the person you're after is already a cadaver). What do you want more from the guy? Patay nga (He's already dead) . . . . Sabi niyo si Marcos, hindi dapat diyan (ilibing) (You said that Marcos should not be buried there). That is (on) the question of his abuses. It is something that is attached to his persona forever. Marcos might not really be a hero, I accept that proposition, maybe. But certainly he was a soldier, Duterte said.

. . . .

In addition to being a president, he was a soldier. So yung sinabi mo noong dinakip ng martial law, nandiyan ang korte (So those who were arrested during the martial law, the courts are there for you). It's just a matter of distributing the award. So anong problema? Patay na yung tao. Anong gusto niyo? (So what is the problem? The guy is already dead. What do you want?) You want the cadaver to be burned? Will that satisfy your hate? he added.

. . . .

Alam mo kapag nagbitaw ako ng salita, yun na yun. Magpakamatay na ako diyan (If I have already uttered the words, that's it already. I am willing to stake my life on it). I will do things that I promised to do. I will not die if I do not become President. I will stake my honor, my life, and the presidency itself. Bantayan niyo ang salita ko (Pay attention to my words), Duterte said.^[26]

1. Mr. Marcos lied about receiving U.S. medals: Distinguished Service Cross, Silver Star, and Order of the Purple Heart, which he claimed as early as about 1945.

2. His guerilla unit, the Ang Mga Maharlika, was never officially recognized and neither was his leadership of it.

3. U.S. officials did not recognize Mr. Marcos's rank promotion from Major in 1944 to Lt. Col. By 1947.

4. Some of Mr. Marcos's actions as a soldier were officially called into question by upper echelons of the U.S. military, such as his command over the Alias Intelligence Unit (described as usurpation), his commissioning of officers (without authority), his abandonment of USAFIP-NL presumably to build an airfield for Gen. Roxas, his collection of money for the airfield (described as "illegal"), and his listing of his name on the roster of different units (called a "malicious criminal act").^[31]

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

WHEREAS, the Armed Forces of the Philippines is maintaining the Bataan Memorial Cemetery in the province of Bataan and the Republic Memorial Cemetery in Fort Wm McKinley, Rizal province, thereby splitting the expenses of maintenance and upkeep therefor;

WHEREAS, there are other remains of our war dead interred at other places throughout the Philippines which are not classified as cemeteries;

WHEREAS, the said cemetery in Bataan province and the other places in the Philippines where our dead war heroes are interred are not easily accessible to their widows, parents, children, relatives and friends; and

WHEREAS, in the national observance of the occasion honoring the memory of those war dead, it is fitting and proper that their remains be interred in one national cemetery;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, RAMON MAGSAYSAY, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by law, do hereby order that 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 Republic Memorial Cemetery at Fort Wm McKinley, Rizal Province.

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

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

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the Republic of the Philippines to be affixed.

1. General: This regulation prescribes the allocation of cemetery plots and construction of grave markers at the Libingan Ng Mga Bayani (LNMB).
   

. . . .

3. Who are qualified to be interred in the Libingan Ng Mga Bayani: The remains of the following deceased persons are qualified and, therefore, authorized to be interred in the Libingan Ng Mga Bayani:

1. Medal of Valor Awardees
   
   
2. Presidents of Commander-in-Chief, AFP
   
   
3. Secretaries of National Defense
   
   
4. Chiefs of Staff, AFP
   
   
5. Generals/Flag Officers of the AFP
   
   
6. Active and retired military personnel of the AFP to include active draftees and trainees who died in line of duty, active reservists and CAFGU Active Auxiliary (CAA) who died in combat operations or combat related activities.
   
   
7. Former members of the AFP who laterally entered or joined the Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) and the Philippine National Police (PNP).
   
   
8. Veterans of Philippine Revolution of 1890, WWI, WWII and recognized guerrillas.
   
   
9. Government Dignitaries, Statesmen, National Artists and other deceased persons whose interment or reinterment has been approved by the Commander-in-Chief, Congress or the Secretary of National Defense.
   
   
10. Former Presidents, Secretaries of Defense, Dignitaries, Statesmen, National Artists, widows of Former Presidents, Secretaries of National Defense and Chief of Staff are authorized to be interred at the LNMB.^[47]

JUSTICE LEONEN:

If the Libingan ng mga Bayani is a military cemetery, why is it that there is "national artist" also included in the order?

SOLICITOR GENERAL CALIDA:

 Because they fall under the classification of probably dignitaries, Your Honors.

JUSTICE LEONEN:

Why single out national artists?

SOLICITOR GENERAL CALIDA:

Because they have contributed something to society, Your Honor.

JUSTICE LEONEN:

Maybe I will tell you because there is a law that actually allows national artists to be interred in the Libingan ng mga Bayani, is that not correct?^[52]

(a)	To determine the location of a suitable site....
(b)	To order and supervise the construction thereon of uniform monuments, mausoleums, or tombs.... [and]
(c)	To cause to be interred therein the mortal remains of all Presidents of the Philippines, the national heroes and patriots[.]

It is well settled that every law has in its favor the presumption of validity. Unless and until a specific provision of the law is declared invalid and unconstitutional, the same is valid and binding for all intents and purposes. The mere absence of implementing rules cannot effectively invalidate provisions of law, where a reasonable construction that will support the law may be given. In People v. Rosenthal, this Court ruled that:

In this connection we cannot pretermit reference to the rule that "legislation should not be held invalid on the ground of uncertainty if susceptible of any reasonable construction that will support and give it effect. An Act will not be declared inoperative and ineffectual on the ground that it furnishes no adequate means to secure the purpose for which it is passed, if men of common sense and reason can devise and provide the means, and all the instrumentalities necessary for its execution are within the reach of those intrusted therewith."

In Garcia v. Executive Secretary, the Court underlined the importance of the presumption of validity of laws and the careful consideration with which the judiciary strikes down as invalid acts of the legislature:

The policy of the courts is to avoid ruling on constitutional questions and to presume that the acts of the political departments are valid in the absence of a clear and unmistakable showing to the contrary. To doubt is to sustain. This presumption is based on the doctrine of separation of powers which enjoins upon each department a becoming respect for the acts of the other departments. The theory is that as the joint act of Congress and the President of the Philippines, a law has been carefully studied and determined to be in accordance with the fundamental law before it was finally enacted.

The necessity for vesting administrative authorities with power to make rules and regulations is based on the impracticability of lawmakers' providing general regulations for various and varying details of management. To rule that the absence of implementing rules can render ineffective an act of Congress, such as the Revised Securities Act, would empower the administrative bodies to defeat the legislative will by delaying the implementing rules. To assert that a law is less than a law, because it is made to depend on a future event or act, is to rob the Legislature of the power to act wisely for the public welfare whenever a law is passed relating to a state of affairs not yet developed, or to things future and impossible to fully know. It is well established that administrative authorities have the power to promulgate rules and regulations to implement a given statute and to effectuate its policies, provided such rules and regulations conform to the terms and standards prescribed by the statute as well as purport to carry into effect its general policies. Nevertheless, it is undisputable that the rules and regulations cannot assert for themselves a more extensive prerogative or deviate from the mandate of the statute. Moreover, where the statute contains sufficient standards and an unmistakable intent, as in the case of Sections 30 and 36 of the Revised Securities Act, there should be no impediment to its implementation.^[61] (Emphasis supplied)

Senator Diokno passed away a year ago last February 27^th. He, together with the martyred Senator Benigno "Ninoy" Aquino Jr. were the first victims of martial law imposed in September 1972 by then President Ferdinand E. Marcos, destroying in one fell swoop the Philippines' 75 years of stable democratic traditions and established reputation as the showcase of democracy in Asia. They were the first to be arrested in the dark of the night of September 22, 1972, as the military authorities spread out through the metropolis upon orders of the President-turned-dictator to lock up the opposition together with newspaper editors, journalists and columnists and detain them at various army camps. What was the martial law government's justification for the arrest and detention of Diokno and Aquino? The government's return to their petitions for habeas corpus claimed that they were "regarded as participants or as having given aid and comfort 'in the conspiracy to seize political and state power and to take over the government by force.'" The fact is that they just happened to be the foremost contenders for the Presidency of the Republic in the scheduled November 1973 presidential elections, at which time Mr. Marcos would have finished his second 4-year term and barred under the prevailing 1935 Constitution from running for a third term....

. . . .

Senator Ninoy Aquino underwent an even more tortuous ordeal. He was charged on August 11, 1973 with murder, subversion and illegal possession of firearms and found guilty and sentenced to death by a military commission, notwithstanding his being a civilian and the fact that said general offenses were allegedly committed before the imposition of martial law, and could not fall within the jurisdiction of military commissions, which are not courts but mere adjuncts of the Commander­in-Chief to enforce military discipline. Mr. Marcos had publicly pronounced the evidence against Ninoy as "not only strong but overwhelming" in a nation-wide press conference on August 24, 1971 following the Plaza Miranda bombing three days earlier of the LP proclamation meeting, yet had not charged him before the civil courts. Ninoy had contended correctly but in vain that he had been publicly indicted and his guilt prejudged by Mr. Marcos, and he could not possibly get due process and a fair trial before a group of Mr. Marcos' military subordinates[.]^[84]

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

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

Having been charged with the herculean task of bailing the country out of the fmancial bankruptcy and morass of the previous regime and returning to the people what is rightfully theirs, the Commission could ill-afford to be impeded or restrained in the performance of its functions by writs or injunctions emanating from tribunals co-equal to it and inferior to this Court. Public policy dictates that the Commission be not embroiled in and swamped by legal suits before inferior courts all over the land, since the loss of time and energy required to defend against such suits would defeat the very purpose of its creation.

. . . .

The rationale of the exclusivity of such jurisdiction is readily understood. Given the magnitude of the past regime's 'organized pillage' and the ingenuity of the plunderers and pillagers with the assistance of the experts and best legal minds available in the market, it is a matter of sheer necessity to restrict access to the lower courts, which would have tied into knots and made impossible the Commission's gigantic task of recovering the plundered wealth of the nation, whom the past regime in the process had saddled and laid prostrate with a huge $27 billion foreign debt that has since ballooned to $28.5 billion.^[88]

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

"Proclamation 1081 not only declared martial law, but also set the stage for what plaintiffs alleged, and the jury found, to be acts of torture, summary execution, disappearance, arbitrary detention, and numerous other atrocities for which the jury found MARCOS personally responsible.

MARCOS gradually increased his own power to such an extent that there were no limits to his orders of the human rights violations suffered by plaintiffs in this action. MARCOS promulgated General Order No. 1 which stated he was the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. The order also stated that MARCOS was to govern the nation and direct the operation of the entire Government, including all its agencies and instrumentalities. By General Orders 2 and 2-A, signed by MARCOS immediately after proclaiming martial law, MARCOS authorized the arrest, by the military, of a long list of dissidents. By General Order 3, MARCOS maintained, as captive, the executive and judicial branches of all political entities in the Philippines until otherwise ordered by himself personally.

. . . .

Immediately after the declaration of martial law the issuance of General Orders 1, 2, 2A, 3 and 3A caused arrests ofpersons accused of subversion, apparently because of their real or apparent opposition to the MARCOS government. These arrests were made pursuant to orders issued by the Secretary of defense Juan Ponce Emile ('ENRILE') or MARCOS himself.

The arrest orders were means for detention of each of the representatives of the plaintiff class as well as each of the individual plaintiffs. During those detentions the plaintiffs experienced human rights violations including, but not limited to the following:

1. Beatings while blindfolded by punching, kicking and hitting with the butts of rifles;

2. The 'telephone' where a detainee's ears were clapped simultaneously, producing a ringing sound in the head;

3. Insertion of bullets between the fingers of a detainee and squeezing the hand;

4. The 'wet submarine', where a detainee's head was submerged in a toilet bowl full of excrement;

5. The 'water cure' where a cloth was placed over the detainee's mouth and nose, and water poured over it producing a drowning sensation;

6. The 'dry submarine', where a plastic bag was placed over the detainee's head producing suffocation;

7. Use of a detainee's hands for putting out lighted cigarettes;

8. Use of flat-irons on the soles of a detainee's feet;

9. Forcing a detainee while wet and naked to sit before an air conditioner often while sitting on a block of ice;

10. Injection of a clear substance into the body of a detainee believed to be truth serum;

11. Stripping, sexually molesting and raping female detainees; one male plaintiff testified he was threatened with rape;

12. Electric shock where one electrode is attached to the genitals of males or the breast of females and another electrode to some other part of the body, usually a finger, and electrical energy produced from a military field telephone is sent through the body;

13. Russian roulette; and

14. Solitary confinement while handcuffed or tied to a bed.

All these forms of torture were used during 'tactical interrogation', attempting to elicit information from detainees concerning opposition to the MARCOS government. The more the detainees resisted, whether purposefully or out of lack of knowledge, the more serious the torture used.^[92]

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

We agree with petitioner that respondent Marcoses made judicial admissions of their ownership of the subject Swiss bank deposits in their answer, the General Supplemental Agreements, Mrs. Marcos' Manifestation and Constancia dated May 5, 1999, and the Undertaking dated February 10, 1999. We take note of the fact that the Associate Justices of the Sandiganbayan were unanimous in holding that respondents had made judicial admissions of their ownership of the Swiss funds.

In their answer, aside from admitting the existence of the subject funds, respondent likewise admitted ownership thereof. Paragraph 22 of respondents' answer stated:

 22. Respondents specifically DENY PARAGRAPH 23 insofar as it alleges that respondents clandestinely stashed the country's wealth in Switzerland and hid the same under layers and layers of foundations and corporate entities for being false, the truth being that respondents' aforesaid properties were lawfully acquired.

By qualifying their acqmsttion of the Swiss bank deposits as lawful, respondents unwittingly admitted their ownership thereof.

. . . .

Petitioner Republic presented not only a schedule indicating the lawful income of the Marcos spouses during their incumbency but also evidence that they had huge deposits beyond such lawful income in Swiss banks under the names of five different foundations. We believe petitioner was able to establish the prima facie presumption that the assets and properties acquired by the Marcoses were manifestly and patently disproportionate to their aggregate salaries as public officials. Otherwise stated, petitioner presented enough evidence to convince us that the Marcoses had dollar deposits amounting to US $356 million representing the balance of the Swiss accounts of the five foundations, an amount way, way beyond their aggregate legitimate income of only $304,372.43 during their incumbency as government officials.

Considering, therefore, that the total amount of the Swiss deposits was considerably out of proportion to the known lawful income of the Marcoses, the presumption that said dollar deposits were unlawfully acquired was duly established.^[98] (Emphasis supplied)

Section 2. Declaration of Policy. - ....

Consistent with the foregoing, it is hereby declared the policy of the State to recognize the heroism and sacrifices of all Filipinos who were victims of summary execution, torture, enforced or involuntary disappearance and other gross human rights violations committed during the regime of former President Ferdinand E. Marcos covering the period from September 21, 1972 to February 25, 1986 and restore the victims' honor and dignity. The State hereby acknowledges its moral and legal obligation to recognize and/or provide reparation to said victims and/or their families for the deaths, injuries, sufferings, deprivations and damages they suffered under the Marcos regime.

Similarly, it is the obligation of the State to acknowledge the sufferings and damages inflicted upon persons whose properties or businesses were forcibly taken over, sequestered or used, or those whose professions were damaged and/or impaired, or those whose freedom of movement was restricted, and/or such other victims of the violations of the Bill of Rights.

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

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

The campaign of the Ilaga in Mindanao in 1970-1971 involved indiscriminate killings and burning of houses with the intention of terrorizing and expelling the Moro and indigenous population from their homes and ancestral territories. Violent incidents took place chronologically in a progressive fashion over a widespread area, occurring among other places in Upi, Maguindanao (March and September 1970); Polomok, South Cotabato (August 1970); Alamada, Midsayap, and Datu Piang, Cotabato (December 1970); Bagumbayan and Alamada, Cotabato (January 1971); Wao, Lanao del Sur (July and August 1971); Ampatuan, Cotabato (August 1971); Kisolan, Bukidnon (October 1971); Siay, Zamboanga del Sur (November 1971); Ipil, Zamboanga del Sur (December 1971); and Palembang, South Cotabato (January 1972).

The armed bands of Christian paramilitaries, primarily Ilongga settlers, that comprised the Ilaga, maintained ties with state authorities, including local and national politicians, the Philippine Constabulary, and the military. In most cases, the paramilitaries acted on their own initiative; on other occasions, however, it is believed that their attacks were conducted in close coordination with government authorities. This was allegedly the circumstance in the case of the mass killings of Moro villagers that took place in a mosque and outlying houses in a rural Barangay of Carmen, (North) Cotabato on June 19, 1971. Known as the "Manili massacre," this event spurred the Moro armed resistance and was one of the few incidents that received attention in international media.

. . . .

. . . During the height of Ilaga atrocities, women's bodies were mutilated by cutting off their nipples and breasts, ripping babies out of pregnant women's wombs, and disfiguring their reproductive organs....

. . . [D]uring the TJRC Listening Process, there were accounts of women being raped by Ilaga and soldiers in front of their families or of women forced to have sex with their husbands in front of and for the amusement of soldiers. Many Moro women and young girls who were abducted and raped were never seen again; others were allowed to return home. According to the TJRC Listening Process report, incidents of sexual violence took place during the period of Martial Law that amount to military sexual slavery:

. . . [B]etween 1972 and 1974, Ilaga and soldiers alike made Bangsamoro women in Labangan and Ipil, Sibugay become "sex slaves" of navy men, whose boat was docked at Labangan and Ipil ports. For more than a week, soldiers rounded up a group of at least ten women from Labangan and forced them to the naval boats to serve the "sexual needs" of the navy men. The following day, they were released; only to be replaced with another group of women, and so on. . . . More than 200 women were [believed to be] enslaved in this way.^[106]

MRS. ROSALES:

My name is Loretta Ann P. Rosales. I am a torture victim under the Marcos regime. I was sexually molested and according to the latest Rape Act, I was actually raped, that is the definition. I had electric shock; I suffered from Russian roulette, modified water cure and several other ways of harassing me. So I'm a torture victim and so I applied before the Claims Board compensation for the violations committed by the Marcos regime during my time.

CHIEF JUSTICE SERENO:

By Russian roulette, what is it, Ms. Rosales?

MRS. ROSALES:

They had a gun and they threatened me to answer the questions otherwise they would shoot. So that was a psywar. So I said if I would give in to them, they'll shoot me then they won't ... then they won't be able to get confession from me cause I'll be dead by then. So that was all psywar so I just kept on with my position and they finally gave up. So they went into other methods of torture in order to try to draw confession, exact confession from me. And the worst part, of course, was that sexual molestation and electric shock and the modified water cure.

CHIEF JUSTICE SERENO:

How long did these incidents transpire, the entire duration? You don't have to count the number of days ... (interrupted)

MRS. ROSALES:

No, no, in fact, I don't know. I mean it was just a continuing thing like twenty-four (24) hours continuing torture. There was no sleeping, there was no eating. It just went on and on because until ... such time, it was after the electric shock I suffered . . . I was traumatized, physically traumatized so I couldn't control the tremor in my body and they finally stop[ped]. I pretended I was dying but they knew I wasn't dying. So that's all psywar throughout. Anyway, after the electric part, which was the worst part, that was the last part, they finally pushed me and put me somewhere and I don't know how long that took.^[107]

MS. BAWAGAN:

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

MS. NARCISO:

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

MS. ARCE:

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

ATTY. COLMENARES:

And for the record, Your Honor, I'm also conclusively presumed under the law as a human rights victim being in the Hawaii case for my torture of seven days and four years of imprisonment when I was eighteen years old, Your Honor. Thank You.

CHIEF JUSTICE SERENO:

You were eighteen years old. You were a student leader at that time, Congressman ... ?

ATTY. COLMENARES:

Yes, I was the chairman of the student catholic action and we were demanding the return of student council and student papers when I was arrested. And I was tortured, Your Honor, the usual, they ... cigarette butts, the electric shocks, the M16 bullets in between your fingers, the Russian roulette and so on, Your Honor. So under the law, human rights victims who are in Hawaii, the Hawaii case are conclusively presumed to be human rights violation victims your Honor.^[111]

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

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

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

(a) conduct and support all kinds of research relating to Philippine national and local history;

(b) develop educational materials in various media, implement historical educational activities for the popularization of Philippine history, and disseminate information regarding Philippine historical events, dates, places and personages;

(c) undertake and prescribe the manner of restoration, conservation and protection of the country's historical movable and immovable objects;

(d) manage, maintain and administer national shrines, monuments, historical sites, edifices and landmarks of significant historico-cultural value; and

(e) actively engage in the settlement or resolution of controversies or issues relative to historical personages, p1aces, dates and events.^[117]

"With regard to Mr. Marcos' war medals, we have established that Mr. Marcos did not receive, as the wartime history of the Ang Mga Maharlika and Marcos' authorized biography claim, the Distinguished Service Cross, the Silver Medal, and the Order of the Purple Heart. In the hierarchy of primary sources, official biographies and memoirs do not rank at the top and are never taken at face value because of their self serving orientation, as it is abundantly palpable in Mr. Marcos' sanctioned biographies. In a leader's earnestness to project himself to present and succeeding generations as strong and heroic, personally authorized accounts tend to suffer from a shortage of facts and a bounty of embellishment."

"With respect to Mr. Marcos' guerilla unit, the Ang Mga Maharlika was never recognized during the war and neither was Mr. Marcos' leadership of it. Note that other guerilla units in northern Luzon were recognized, such as:

 103^rd Regiment, East Central Luzon

 Pangasinan Anti-Crime Service, Pangasinan Military Area, LGAF

 100^th Bn/100^th Inf. Regiment LGAFA

 Southern Pangasinan Guerilla Forces (Gonzalo C. Mendoza Commander).

"Furthermore, grave doubts expressed in the military records about Mr. Marcos' actions and character as a soldier do not provide sound, unassailable basis for the recognition of a soldier who deserves to be buried at the LNMB.

"On these grounds, coupled with Mr. Marcos' lies about his medals, the NATIONAL HISTORICAL COMMISSION OF THE PHILIPPINES opposes the plan to bury Mr. Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani."^[121]

41. During the campaign period leading to the May 2016 elections, President Duterte, then only a candidate to the highest executive post in the land, openly expressed his desire to have the remains of former President Marcos interred at the Libingan.

42. On 9 May 2016, more than 16 million voters elected President Duterte to the position.

43. True to his campaign promise of unifying the nation, President Duterte gave verbal orders on 11 July 2016 to Defense Secretary Lorenzana to effect the interment of the remains of former President Marcos at the Libingan.

44. On 7 August 2016, and pursuant to the verbal orders of the President, Defense Secretary Lorenzana issued a Memorandum addressed to AFP Chief of Staff General Ricardo R. Visaya informing him of the verbal orders of the President, and for this purpose, to "undertake the necessary planning and preparations to facilitate the coordination of all agencies concerned specially the provisions for ceremonial and security requirements."

45. In the same Memorandum, Defense Secretary Lorenzana tasked the PVAO as the "OPR" (Office of Primary Responsibility) for the interment of the remains of former President Marcos, as the Libingan is under the PVAO's supervision and administration. Defense Secretary Lorenzana likewise directed the Administrator of the PVAO to designate the focal person for and overseer of the event.

46. On 9 August 2016, Rear Admiral Emesto Enriquez, by command of General Visaya, issued a Directive to the Commanding General of the Philippine Army to prepare a grave for former President Marcos at the Libingan.^[122]

SOLICITOR GENERAL CALIDA:

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

WHEREAS, the new government was installed through a direct exercise of the power of the Filipino people assisted by units of the New Armed Forces of the Philippines;

WHEREAS, the heroic action of the people was done in defiance of the provisions of the 1973 Constitution, as amended;

WHEREAS, the direct mandate of the people as manifested by their extraordinary action demands the complete reorganization of the government, restoration of democracy, protection of basic rights, rebuilding of confidence in the entire governmental system, eradication of graft and corruption, restoration of peace and order, maintenance of the supremacy of civilian authority over the military, and the transition to a government under a New Constitution in the shortest time possible;

Article II
The President, the Vice-President, and the Cabinet

SECTION 1. Until a legislature is elected and convened under a new Constitution, the President shall continue to exercise legislative power.

The President shall give priority to measures to achieve the mandate of the people to:

a)	Completely reorganize the government and eradicate unjust and oppressive structures, and all iniquitous vestiges of the previous regime;
b)	Make effective the guarantees of civil, political, human, social, economic and cultural rights and freedoms of the Filipino people, and provide remedies against violations thereof;
c)	Rehabilitate the economy and promote the nationalist aspirations of the people;
d)	Recover ill-gotten properties amassed by the leaders and supporters of the previous regime and protect the interest of the people through orders of sequestration or freezing of assets of accounts;
e)	Eradicate graft and corruption in government and punish those guilty thereof; and,
f)	Restore peace and order, settle the problem of insurgency, and pursue national reconciliation based on justice.

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

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

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

A beautiful irony which cannot be overlooked is the fact that this new Constitution was discussed, debated, and fmally written within the walls of this hall which saw the emergence of what was called by its author a "constitutional authoritarianism", but which, in effect, was a dictatorship, pure and simple. This hall was the seat of a combined executive and legislative power skillfully placed in the hands of one man for more than a decade. However, the miracle of prayer and of a people's faith and determined struggle to break the shackles of dictatorship toppled down the structure of despotism and converted this hall into hallowed grounds where the seeds of a newly found freedom have been sown and have borne fruit.

My countrymen, we open the new Charter with a Preamble which is the beacon light that shines and brightens the path in building a new structure of government for our people. In that Preamble is expounded in positive terms our goals and aspirations. Thus, imploring the aid of Almighty God, we shall establish a just and humane society, a social order that upholds the dignity of man, for as a Christian nation, we adhere to the principle that, and I quote: "the dignity of man and the common good of society demand that society must be based on justice." We uphold our independence and a democratic way of life and, abhorring despotism and tyranny, we bind ourselves to live under the rule of law where no man is above the law, and where truth, justice, freedom, equality, love and peace will prevail.

For the first time in the history of constitution making in this country, the word "love" is enshrined in the fundamental law. This is most significant at this period in our national life when the nation is bleeding under the forces of hatred and violence. Love which begets understanding is necessary if reconciliation is to be achieved among the warring factions and conflicting ideologies now gripping the country. Love is imperative if peace is to be restored in our nativeland, for without love there can be no peace.

We have established a republican democratic form of government where sovereignty resides in the people and civilian supremacy over the military is upheld.

For the first time, the Charter contains an all-embracing expanded Bill of Rights which constitutes the cornerstone of the structure of government. Traditional rights and freedoms which are hallmarks of our democratic way of life are reaffirmed. The right to life, liberty and property, due process, equal protection of the laws, freedom of religion, speech, the press, peaceful assembly, among others, are reasserted and guaranteed. The Marcos provision that search warrants or warrants of arrest may [be] issued not only by a judge but by any responsible officer authorized by law is discarded. Never again will the Filipino people be victims of the much-condemned presidential detention action or PDA or presidential commitment orders, the PCOs, which desecrate the rights to life and liberty, for under the new provision a search warrant or warrant of arrest may be issued only by a judge. Mention must be made of some new features in the Bill of Rights, such as the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended only in cases of invasion or rebellion, and the right to bail is not impaired during such suspension, thereby discarding jurisprudence laid down by the Supreme Court under the Marcos dispensation that the suspension of the privilege of the writ carried with it the suspension of the right to bail. The death penalty is abolished, and physical, psychological or degrading punishment against prisoners or detainees, substandard and subhuman conditions in penitentiaries are condemned.

For the first time, the Constitution provides for the creation of a Commission on Human Rights entrusted with the grave responsibility of investigating violations of civil and political rights by any party or groups and recommending remedies therefor.

From the Bill of Rights we proceed to the structure of government established in the new Charter.

We have established the presidential system of government with three branches the legislative, executive, and judicial each separate and independent of each other, but affording an effective check and balance of one over the other.

All legislative power is returned and exclusively vested in a bicameral legislature where the Members are elected by the people for a definite term, subject to limitations for reelection, disqualification to hold any other office or employment in the government including government-owned or controlled cotporations and, among others, they may not even appear as counsel before any court of justice.

For the first time in our Constitution, 20 percent of Members the Lower House are to be elected through a party list system and, for three consecutive terms after the ratification of the Constitution, 25 of the seats shall be allocated to sectoral representatives from labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, women, youth and other sectors as may be provided by law. This innovation is a product of the signs of the times when there is an intensive clamor for expanding the horizons of participatory democracy among the people.

The executive power is vested in the President of the Philippines elected by the people for a six-year term with no reelection for the duration of his/her life. While traditional powers inherent in the office of the President are granted, nonetheless for the first time, there are specific provisions which curtail the extent of such powers. Most significant is the power of the Chief Executive to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas cotpus or proclaim martial law.

The flagrant abuse of that power of the Commander-in-Chief by Mr. Marcos caused the imposition of martial law for more than eight years and the suspension of the privilege of the writ even after the lifting of martial law in 1981. The new Constitution now provides that those powers can be exercised only in two cases, invasion or rebellion when public safety demands it, only for a period not exceeding 60 days, and reserving to Congress the power to revoke such suspension or proclamation of martial law which congressional action may not be revoked by the President. More importantly, the action of the President is made subject to judicial review thereby again discarding jurisprudence which render the executive action a political question and beyond the jurisdiction of the courts to adjudicate.

For the first time, there is a provision that the state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution nor abolish civil courts or legislative assemblies, or vest jurisdiction to military tribunals over civilians, or suspend the privilege of the writ. Please forgive me if, at this point, I state that this constitutional provision vindicates the dissenting opinions I have written during my tenure in the Supreme Court in the martial law cases.^[129]

Section 2. Declaration of Policy. - Section 11 of Article II of the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines declares that the State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights. Pursuant to this declared policy, Section 12 of Article III of the Constitution prohibits the use of torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation or any other means which vitiate the free will and mandates the compensation and rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices and their families.

By virtue of Section 2 of Article II of the Constitution adopting generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land, the Philippines adheres to international human rights laws and conventions, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, including the International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention Against Torture (CAT) and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment which imposes on each State party the obligation to enact domestic legislation to give effect to the rights recognized therein and to ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms have been violated shall have an effective remedy, and even if the violation is committed by persons acting in an official capacity. In fact, the right to a remedy is itself guaranteed under existing human rights treaties and/or customary international law, being peremptory in character (jus cogens) and as such has been recognized as non-derogable.

Consistent with the foregoing, it is hereby declared the policy of the State to recognize the heroism and sacrifices of all Filipinos who were victims of summary execution, torture, enforced or involuntary disappearance and other gross human rights violations committed during the regime of former President Ferdinand E. Marcos covering the period from September 21, 1972 to February 25, 1986 and restore the victims' honor and dignity. The State hereby acknowledges its moral and legal obligation to recognize and/or provide reparation to said victims and/or their families for the deaths, injuries, sufferings, deprivations and damages they suffered under the Marcos regime.

Similarly, it is the obligation of the State to acknowledge the sufferings and damages inflicted upon persons whose properties or businesses were forcibly taken over, sequestered or used, or those whose professions were damaged and/or impaired, or those whose freedom of movement was restricted and/or impaired, and/or such other victims of the violations of the Bill of Rights.

ARTICLE II

. . . .

State Policies
. . . .

SECTION 11. The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights.

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

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

ARTICLE III
Bill of Rights

. . . .

SECTION 12....

(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited.

. . . .

(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this section as well as compensation to and rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, and their families.

(b) Human rights violation refers to any act or omission committed during the period from September 21, 1972 to February 25, 1986 by persons acting in an official capacity and/or agents of the State, but shall not be limited to the following:

(1) Any search, arrest and/or detention without a valid search warrant or warrant of arrest issued by a civilian court of law, including any warrantless arrest or detention carried out pursuant to the declaration of Martial Law by former President Ferdinand E. Marcos as well as any arrest, detention or deprivation of liberty carried out during the covered period on the basis of an Arrest, Search and Seizure Order (ASSO), a Presidential Commitment Order (PCO), or a Preventive Detention Action (PDA) and such other similar executive issuances as defined by decrees of former President Ferdinand E. Marcos, or in ay manner that the arrest, detention or deprivation ofliberty was effected;

(2) The infliction by a person acting in an official capacity and or an agent of the State of physical injury, torture, killing, or violation of other human rights, of any person exercising civil or political rights, including but not limited to the freedom of speech, assembly or organization; and/or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances, even if such violation took place during or in the course of what the authorities at the time deemed an illegal assembly or demonstration: Provided, That torture in any form or under any circumstance shall be considered a human rights violation;

(3) Any enforced or involuntary disappearance caused upon a person who was arrested, detained or abducted against one's will or otherwise deprived of one's liberty, as defined in Republic Act No. 10350, otherwise known as the Anti-Enforced or Involuntary Disappearance Act of 2012;

(4) Any force or intimidation causing the involuntary exile of a person from the Philippines;

(5) Any act of force, intimidation or deceit causing unjust or illegal takeover of a business, confiscation of property, detention of owner/s and or their families, deprivation of livelihood of a person by agents of the State, including those caused by Ferdinand E. Marcos, his spouse Imelda R. Marcos, their immediate relatives by consanguinity or affmity, as well as those persons considered as among their close relatives, associates, cronies and subordinates under Executive Order No. 1, issued on February 28, 1986 by then President Corazon C. Aquino in the exercise of her legislative powers under the Freedom Constitution;'

(6) Any act or series of acts causing, committing and/or conducting the following:

"(i) Kidnapping or otherwise exploiting children of persons suspected of committing acts against the Marcos regime;

"(ii) Committing sexual offenses against human rights victims who are detained and/or in the course of conducting military and/or police operations; and

"(iii) Other violations and/or abuses similar or analogous to the above, including those recognized by international law."^[142]

(c) Human Rights Violations Victim (HRVV) refers to a person whose human rights were violated by persons acting in an official capacity and/or agents of the State as defined herein. In order to qualifY for reparation under this Act, the human rights violation must have been committed during the period from September 21, 1972 to February 25, 1986: Provided however, That victims of human rights violations that were committed one (1) month before September 21, 1972 and one (1) month after February 25, 1986 shall be entitled to reparation under this Act if they can establish that the violation was committed:

(1) By agents of the State and/or persons acting in an official capacity as defined hereunder;

(2) For the purpose of preserving, maintaining, supporting or promoting the said regime; or

(3) To conceal abuses during the Marcos regime and/or the effects of Martial Law.^[143]

(d) Persons Acting in an Official Capacity and/or Agents of the State. - The following persons shall be deemed persons acting in an official capacity and/or agents of the State under this Act:

(1) Any member of the former Philippine Constabulary (PC), the former Integrated National Policy (INP), the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the Civilian Home Defense Force (CHDF) from September 21, 1972 to February 25, 1986 as well as any civilian agent attached thereto: and any member of a paramilitary group even if one is not organically part of the PC, the INP, the AFP or the CHDF so long as it is shown that the group was organized, funded, supplied with equipment, facilities and/or resources, and/or indoctrinated, controlled and/or supervised by any person acting in an official capacity and/or agent of the State as herein defined;

(2) Any member of the civil service, including persons who held elective or appointive public office at any time from September 21, 1972 to February 25, 1986;

(3) Persons referred to in Section 2 (a) of Executive Order No. 1, creating the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), issued on February 28, 1986 and related laws by then President Corazon C. Aquino in the exercise of her legislative powers under the Freedom Constitution, including former President Ferdinand E. Marcos, spouse Imelda R. Marcos, their immediate relatives by consanguinity or affinity, as well as their close relatives, associates, cronies and subordinates; and

(4) Any person or group/s of persons acting with the authorization, support or acquiescence of the State during the Marcos regime.^[144]

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

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

17. Crucial to the Satisfaction component of effective reparation is the official acknowledgement of the truth of the abuses and violations that the victim suffered, including an acknowledgement of the responsibility of the perpetrator as well as a public apology.

18. Burying the remains of Ferdinand Marcos at the LNMB with the pomp and pageantry accorded to a hero is the complete antithesis of any such apology, and would constitute a denial or reversal of any previous acknowledgement of his many sins against the victims of human rights violations under his government. It is an act that, for all of the discussion as to what "bayani" means, will inevitably extol him and his actions in government for all future generations....

19. Moreover, the burial of Mr. Marcos' remains at the LNMB sends a very dangerous message to Philippine society and even to the world by treating him as a hero, and violates the Guarantee of Non­Repetition component of effective reparations....

20. To bury a legally confirmed human rights violator as hero would fly in the face of any effort to educate the Filipino people on the importance of human rights, and would, rather than promote reform in favor of respect for human rights, tend to promote impunity by honoring a man known all over the world for having perpetrated human rights violations for nearly two decades in order to perpetuate his hold on power;

21. Worse still, this would even send a message to other leaders that adopting a similar path of abuse and violations that characterized the Marcos dictatorship would ultimately result not in condemnation but instead acknowledgment and accolades of heroism, constituting thereby a set of circumstance not contemplated by the holistic notion of reparation, in particular violating both the standard of Satisfaction and the Guarantee of Non-Repetition. Therefore, this will not only deprive the victims of human rights violations of their right to effective reparations but will place future generations in genuine peril of the real prospect of coming face-to-face once more with authoritarian rule characterized by rampant human rights violations.^[146]

And what is public policy? In the words of the eminent Spanish jurist, Don Jose Maria Manresa, in his commentaries of the Codigo Civil, public policy (orden publico):

[R]epresents in the law of persons the public, social and legal interest, that which is permanent and essential of the institutions, that which, even if favoring an individual in whom the right lies, cannot be left to his own will. It is an idea which, in cases of the waiver of any right, is manifested with clearness and force.

As applied to agreements, Quintus Mucius Scaevola, another distinguished civilist gives the term "public policy" a more defined meaning:

Agreements in violation of orden public must be considered as those which conflict with law, whether properly, strictly and wholly a public law (derecho) or whether a law of the person, but law which in certain respects affects the interest of society.

Plainly put, public policy is that principle of the law which holds that no subject or citizen can lawfully do that which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against the public good. As applied to contracts, in the absence of express legislation or constitutional prohibition, a court, in order to declare a contract void as against public policy, must find that the contract as to the consideration or thing to be done, has a tendency to injure the public, is against the public good, or contravenes some established interests of society, or is inconsistent with sound policy and good morals, or tends clearly to undermine the security of individual rights, whether of personal liability or of private property.^[148] (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)

JUSTICE LEONEN:

I am not challenging whether the action of the President was regular or not, that's not the point. The point is, you know for a fact that it was a proclamation creating the Libingan ng mga Bayani, and now without changing the name, they are now, the President, according to you, verbally ordered the interment of the remains of the former President. Yet now, you take the position that the intention of government is not to honor the body of Ferdinand Marcos as the body of a hero. Although the Libingan's name is Libingan ng mga Bayani. So, can you explain that?

SOLICITOR GENERAL CALIDA:

But, as I said, Your Honor, in my opening statement, that is not the purpose to bury him as a hero. But, by military standards, Your Honor, former President Marcos fits in to the defmition of a hero. As defined by the Lagman's Petition, Your Honor.

JUSTICE LEONEN:

Excuse me, Counsel, a while ago, this morning, before we took lunch, you said that there was no intention to honor. In fact, you read from your Comment, that there was no intention to bury the President as a hero.

SOLICITOR GENERAL CALIDA:

Yes, we stand by that, Your Honor.

JUSTICE LEONEN:

Okay.

SOLICITOR GENERAL CALIDA:

However, based on the military standards given to a Medal of Valor awardee, he fits in to the definition which was proposed by Petitioner Lagman, Your Honor.

JUSTICE LEONEN:

A Medal of Valor awardee, is he or she a hero?

SOLICITOR GENERAL CALIDA:

May I read into the records, Your Honor.

JUSTICE LEONEN:

A Medal of Valor, please do not ignore my question.

SOLICITOR GENERAL CALIDA:

Yes.

JUSTICE LEONEN:

A Medal of Valor awardee, is he a hero or not a hero? Is he or she a hero or not a hero?

SOLICITOR GENERAL CALIDA:

Based on the wordings of Presidential Decree 1687, Your Honor, it says here, "The Medal of Valor is the highest award that may be given to a Filipino soldier in recognition of conspicuous acts of gallantry above and beyond a call of duty and in total disregard of personal safety; Whereas, an awardee of the Medal of Valor for his supreme self-sacrifice and distinctive act of gallantry, performed more than ordinarily hazardous service and deserved due recognition from a grateful government and people." ...

JUSTICE LEONEN:

Is this a Presidential Decree, Counsel?

SOLICITOR GENERAL CALIDA:

... the definition, Your Honor, in the Lagman Petition ...

JUSTICE LEONEN:

Is this a Presidential Decree?

SOLICITOR GENERAL CALIDA:

Yes, Your Honor.

JUSTICE LEONEN:

Who issued the Presidential Decree?

. . . .

SOLICITOR GENERAL CALIDA:

Well, a judicial notice can be taken that it was during the term of President Marcos, Your Honor.

JUSTICE LEONEN:

Ferdinand Marcos, who is a Medal of Valor awardee, issued this Presidential Decree.

SOLICITOR GENERAL CALIDA:

However, Your Honor, the Medal of Valor ...

JUSTICE LEONEN:

No, no, no, however, he had the power to issue the Presidential Decree, I'm not questioning that. Okay, my question here, which you ignored, is, is a Medal of Valor awardee a hero?

SOLICITOR GENERAL CALIDA:

By the definition, Your Honor, he is a hero.

JUSTICE LEONEN:

So, therefore, you are going back against what you said in the Comment ...

SOLICITOR GENERAL CALIDA:

But we will set aside that, Your Honor.

JUSTICE LEONEN:

How can you set that aside?

SOLICITOR GENERAL CALIDA:

We will set it aside because ...

JUSTICE LEONEN:

Which part of Marcos will you not bury as a Medal of Valor awardee and which part will you bury?

SOLICITOR GENERAL CALIDA:

Because, Your Honor ...

JUSTICE LEONEN:

It's the same person.

SOLICITOR GENERAL CALIDA:

... President Duterte's announcement is that he will allow the burial not as a hero, but as a former president, a former veteran and a soldier, that's all, Your Honor.^[151]

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

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

Section 26. Roll of Victims. - Persons who are HRVVs, regardless of whether they opt to seek reparation or not, shall be given recognition by enshrining their names in a Roll of Human Rights Victims to be prepared by the Board.

A Memorial/Museum/Library shall be established in honor and in memory of the victims of human rights violations whose names shall be inscribed in the Roll. A compendium of their sacrifices shall be prepared and may be readily viewed and accessed in the internet. The Memorial/Museum/Library/Compendium shall have an appropriation of at least Five hundred million pesos (P500,000,000.00) from the accrued interest of Ten billion pesos (P10,000,000,000.00) fund.

The Roll may also be displayed in government agencies as may be designated by the HRVV Memorial Commission as created hereunder.

Section 27. Human Rights Violations Victims' Memorial Commission. - There is hereby created a Commission to be known as the Human Rights Violations Victims' Memorial Commission, hereinafter referred to as the Commission, primarily for the establishment, restoration, preservation and conservation of the Memorial / Museum / Library / Compendium in honor of the HRVVs during the Marcos regime.

. . . .

The Commission shall be attached to the CHR solely for budgetary and administrative purposes. The operating budget of the Commission shall be appropriated from the General Appropriations Act.

The Commission shall also coordinate and collaborate with the DepEd and the CHED to ensure that the teaching of Martial Law atrocities, the lives and sacrifices of HRVVs in our history are included in the basic, secondary and tertiary education curricula.

[E]very statutory grant of power, right or privilege is deemed to include all incidental power, right or privilege. In Atienza v. Villarosa, the doctrine was explained, thus:

No statute can be enacted that can provide all the details involved in its application. There is always an omission that may not meet a particular situation. What is thought, at the time of enactment, to be an all-embracing legislation may be inadequate to provide for the unfolding events of the future. So-called gaps in the law develop as the law is enforced. One of the rules of statutory construction used to fill in the gap is the doctrine of necessary implication. The doctrine states that what is implied in a statute is as much a part thereof as that which is expressed. Every statute is understood, by implication, to contain all such provisions as may be necessary to effectuate its object and purpose, or to make effective rights, powers, privileges or jurisdiction which it grants, including all such collateral and subsidiary consequences as may be fairly and logically inferred from its terms. Ex necessitate legis. And every statutory grant of power, right or privilege is deemed to include all incidental power, right or privilege. This is so because the greater includes the lesser, expressed in the maxim, in eo plus sit, simper inest et minus.^[159]