Sc marcos burial omnibus motion exhumation contempt 20nov2016 (1)

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila

Filed with the SC Filed with the SC on on 11/21/16 11/21/16 at ____ AM at 11:52 AM

REP. EDCEL C. LAGMAN, et al.,

PETITIONERS - versus EXECUTIVE SECRETARY SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA, et al.,

RESPONDENTS. x----------------------------------------x

G.R. No. 225984 (Petition for Prohibition with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order or Writ of Preliminary Injunction)

URGENT MOTION OR PETITION FOR THE EXHUMATION OF WHATEVER WAS BURIED AS “MARCOS REMAINS” IN THE LIBINGAN NG MGA BAYANI ON 18 NOVEMBER 2016 PETITIONERS, through counsel, respectfully file the instant motion in accordance with the following presentation: 1.

In a Manifestation dated 10 November 2016, which was filed on even date with the Honorable Supreme Court by registered mail and personally filed in the morning of 11 November 2016, and with the prior knowledge and conformity of the Petitioners in G.R. Nos. 225973, 226097, 226116 and 226120, it was manifested, among others, that: “1. While they have not received the copies of the majority Decision, as well as the dissenting and concurring opinions in the above-captioned case and in the other related cases, they are respectfully informing the Honorable Supreme Court that they will definitely file a motion for reconsideration, either separate from or consolidated with motions for reconsideration of the other petitioners, within the prescriptive period from their receipt of the Decision.

1

“2. Considering that the subject Decision is not yet final and to foreclose the projected motion/s for reconsideration from being rendered moot by a precipitate burial of the late President Ferdinand Marcos in the Libingan ng mga Bayani, it is respectfully manifested and prayed that the Honorable Supreme Court may consider reissuing the Status (Quo) Ante Order and/or advising the Respondents not to proceed with the said burial pending resolution of the motion/s for reconsideration to be interposed seasonably by the herein petitioner and the other petitioners.

“3. The principle of courtesy and respect to be accorded by the parties to the Court pending the finality of its Decision is also relevant and compelling.”

A copy of said Manifestation is attached as ANNEX “A”.

2.

In the afternoon of 11 November 2016, Petitioners, through counsel, received copies of the majority Decision, Dissenting Opinions and Concurring/Separate Opinions in the above-entitled case which has been consolidated with G.R. Nos. 225973, 226097, 226116 and 226120.

3.

Accordingly, Petitioners have fifteen (15) days from 11 November 2016 or up to 26 November 2016 within which to interpose seasonably a motion for reconsideration. Since 26 November 2016, the expiry date, falls on a Saturday, the Motion for Reconsideration in due on or before 28 November 2016, the next working day.

4.

The rule is indubitable that the subject Decision of the Honorable Supreme Court becomes final and executory only after fifteen (15) days from the receipt of the Decision by the concerned party or parties, unless within the said 15-day reglementary period, a motion or motions for reconsideration are filed by the Petitioners, in which case the finality of the subject Decision is stayed.

5.

In the above eventuality, the subject Decision becomes final and executory 15 days after the concerned parties have received a copy of the resolution or decision granting the motion/s for reconsideration and reversing the challenged decision or denying the motion/s for reconsideration.

2

6.

Section 1 of Rule 52 (Motion for Reconsideration) unequivocally provides: “Section 1. Period for filing. — A party may file a motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution within fifteen (15) days from notice thereof, with proof of service on the adverse party.”

7.

Similarly, Section 4 of Rule 52 clearly provides: “Section 4. Stay of execution. — The pendency of a motion for reconsideration filed on time and by the proper party shall stay the execution of the judgment or final resolution sought to be reconsidered unless the court, for good reasons, shall otherwise direct.”

8.

The right of a party to file a motion for reconsideration partakes of due process. Such right is impaired and due process is derailed if a decision which is not final and executory is prematurely enforced or executed, like in the case at bar.

9.

The finality of the necessary lifting of the Status Quo Ante Order is contingent on the finality of the main Decision.

Consequently, pending finality of the main Decision, the lifting of the Status Quo Ante Order also pends.

10. Pending the finality of the Decision, the absence of an Order enjoining a precipitate burial of Marcos is of no moment because the rule is clear that while the reglementary period for filing a motion for reconsideration by the proper party or parties has not expired, the principal Decision, together with any accessory Order, must not be implemented or enforced.

11. Thus, in TUNG HO STEEL ENTERPRISES CORPORATION vs. TING GUAN TRADING CORPORATION, (G.R. No. 182153, April 7, 2014), it was held that: “Following these rules, therefore, the pendency of Tung Ho’s MR with the CA made the entry of the judgment of the Court in the Ting Guan petition premature and inefficacious for not being final and executory.

3

“Based on the above consideration, the Court will not be in error if it applies its ruling in the case of Realty Sales Enterprises, Inc. and Macondray Farms, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. where the Court in a per curiam resolution ruled that an entry of judgment may be recalled or lifted motu proprio when it is clear that the decision assailed of has not yet become final under the rules.”

12. Hence, a premature and void execution of a decision which is not final and executory could be recalled and lifted even motu proprio by the Honorable Court.

13. In Realty Sales Enterprises, Inc. and Macondray Farms, Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court (G.R. No. L67451, April 25, 1989) it was ruled that “it was well within the power of the Court to issue its resolution of March 20, 1985 recalling the entry of judgment of March 18, 1985, as the judgment had not yet become final and executory, and giving the petition due course”.

14. In view of the foregoing, the burial of the supposed “remains” of the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos on 18 November 2016 in the Libingan ng mga Bayani, by the Marcos family with the complicity of the public respondents and the concerned military and police authorities, was premature, precipitate and irregular because on said date the subject Decision has not attained finality and was not executory.

15. To reiterate, there can be no valid execution or enforcement of a decision or judgment which is not final and executory.

16. Such premature execution is void ab initio and must perforce be recalled and rectified.

17. A resolution ordering the immediate exhumation of whatever was buried in the LNMB as the “mortal remains” of Marcos and the eventual return of the same to the Marcos family is warranted and justified because: (a) The burial was premature, precipitate and irregular pending the finality of the subject Decision.

4

(b) Since the object of the premature burial is the so-called interred “mortal remains” of Marcos, perforce the same must be exhumed as a rectification of the void execution. (c) The exhumation is imperative in order not to render moot and academic the Petitioners’ forthcoming and seasonable motion/s for reconsideration, the resolution of which had been preempted by the precipitate burial in the wake of nationwide protests and cogent commentaries against the subject Decision of the Honorable Supreme Court. (d) The exhumation is also to effectively censure and discipline the public respondents and the Marcoses for their contumacious disrespect against the Honorable Supreme Court and its processes, even as the premature and surreptitious burial revealed in bold relief the despicable chicanery of the Marcoses which is an affront against the Filipino nation and the Honorable Supreme Court itself.

18. Verily, the controversial majority Decision of the Supreme Court directed the burial of the “mortal remains” of the late dictator Marcos in the Libingan ng mga Bayani. However, with the inordinate haste and stealthy circumstances which shrouded the interment, there is no certainty as to what was actually buried in the LNMB. 19. Consequently, upon exhumation of whatever was buried in the LNMB, a forensic examination of the same be conducted in order that it could be determined with certainty that what was interred were the “mortal remains” of Marcos, not any other artifact or a wax replica of the late dictator, since his remains could have been buried decades ago in Batac, Ilocos Norte as he reportedly wished to be buried near his mother, the late Doña Josefa Edralin Marcos in Batac.

20. Petitioners reserve their right to file a verified petition charging with indirect contempt the public respondents, responsible members of the Marcos family and other persons who conspired and facilitated the premature and surreptitious burial of Marcos’ “mortal remains” in the Libingan ng mga Bayani, which constitutes, among others, “improper conduct, tending directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice”.

5

PRAYER ACCORDINGLY, it is respectfully prayed that the Honorable Supreme Court issue a Resolution: 1.

Ordering the immediate exhumation of whatever was buried as the “mortal remains” of the late President Ferdinand E. Marcos in the Libingan ng mga Bayani on 18 November 2016 because the hasty and surreptitious interment was premature, void and irregular considering that the subject Decision dated 08 November 2016 was indubitably not final and executory, and the lifting of the Status Quo Ante Order, an accessory directive, was also not yet final; 2.

Subjecting whatever is exhumed to a forensic examination in order to determine with certainty that the “mortal remains” of the late dictator Marcos, not any other artifact or a wax replica of him, were interred in the Libingan ng mga Bayani on 18 November 2016; and 3.

Making of record Petitioners’ reservation to file a verified petition for contempt against the public respondents, responsible members of the Marcos family and culpable military and police officials and personnel who conspired and facilitated the premature and clandestine Marcos burial.

Petitioners pray for other just and equitable reliefs.

Quezon City, for Manila 21 November 2016 LAGMAN* LAGMAN & MONES LAW FIRM Counsel for the Petitioners 2/F Tempus Place Condominium Makatarungan cor. Matalino Sts., Brgy.

Central, Diliman, Quezon City Telefax: 433-5353 lagmanlaw@gmail.com

----------------------*Rep. Edcel C. Lagman is on leave for being a Member of the House of Representatives

6

EDCEL GRECO A. B. LAGMAN Roll of Attorney’s No. 45738 24 May 2001 PTR No. 3309045/Quezon City/16 August 2016 IBP Lifetime No. 012364/16 January 2014/Albay Chapter MCLE Compliance No. V No. 000288 Mobile No. 09163324958

NOTICE The Clerk of Court Supreme Court En Banc Padre Faura, Manila G R E E T I N G S: Please submit the foregoing urgent motion or petition for the consideration of the Honorable Supreme Court en banc as soon as possible.

EDCEL GRECO A. B. LAGMAN EXPLANATION The foregoing Manifestation is filed personally with the Honorable Supreme Court and copies thereof served on the other parties, through counsel, by registered mail because of time and personnel constraints, although earnest efforts will be made to effect personal service.

EDCEL GRECO A. B. LAGMAN Copy furnished by registered mail:

SOLICITOR GENERAL JOSE C. CALIDA Counsel for the Public Respondents OSG Building, 134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village, Makati City

QC Hall Post Office Registry Receipt No. ____ 21 November 2016

7

ATTY. HYACINTH E. RAFAEL-ANTONIO Counsel for the Heirs of Ferdinand E. Marcos Suite A, 18th Floor, Tower 6798 6789 Ayala Avenue, Makati City

QC Hall Post Office Registry Receipt No. ____ 21 November 2016

ATTYS. EDRE U. OLALIA, JULIAN F. OLIVA, JR., EPHRAIM B. CORTEZ, MINERVA F. LOPEZ, MARIA AGATHA A. MIJARES, JOSALEE S. DENILA, ODINA E. BATNAG AND FRANK LLOYD B. TIONGSON Counsel for Petitioners Saturnino Ocampo, et al.

National Union of People’s Lawyers (NUPL) 3/F Erythrina Bldg., No. 1 Matatag corner Maaralin Sts., Central District, Quezon City

QC Hall Post Office Registry Receipt No. ____ 21 November 2016

ATTYS. IBBARA M. GUTIERREZ III, MARIA CONCEPCION B. MENDOZA-BALDUEZA, DARWIN P. ANGELES Counsel for Petitioners Loretta Ann Rosales, et al.

9/F Filgarcia Bldg., Kalayaan Avenue corner Mayaman St., Quezon City

QC Hall Post Office Registry Receipt No. ____ 21 November 2016

ATTY. REODY ANTHONY M. BALISI Counsel for Petitioners Heherson Alvarez, et al.

4/F S and L Building, de la Rosa corner Esteban Sts., Legaspi Village, Makati City

QC Hall Post Office Registry Receipt No. ____ 21 November 2016

ATTY. ALGAMAR A. LATIPH Malayang and Latiph Law Office Counsel for Petitioners in G.R. No. 226120 G/F ICC Bldg., NIA Compound, EDSA Diliman, Quezon City

QC Hall Post Office Registry Receipt No. ____ 21 November 2016

8