Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 211 views

    Ampatuan Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Deanne Claire
    This document is a Supreme Court decision that dismissed a petition challenging proclamations and administrative orders issued in response to the Maguindanao massacre. The Court found that: 1) The proclamation declaring a state of emergency in parts of Mindanao and orders related to ARMM supervision did not violate principles of local autonomy. 2) The President was constitutionally authorized to call out armed forces to prevent violence without needing congressional approval. 3) Petitioners did not provide proof that the presidential actions lacked factual basis, so the Court deferred to the President's judgment about necessity.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Ampatuan Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Deanne Claire
    211 views2 pages
    This document is a Supreme Court decision that dismissed a petition challenging proclamations and administrative orders issued in response to the Maguindanao massacre. The Court found that: 1) The proclamation declaring a state of emergency in parts of Mindanao and orders related to ARMM supervision did not violate principles of local autonomy. 2) The President was constitutionally authorized to call out armed forces to prevent violence without needing congressional approval. 3) Petitioners did not provide proof that the presidential actions lacked factual basis, so the Court deferred to the President's judgment about necessity.

    Original Description:

    Consti Law I

    Original Title

    Ampatuan case digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document is a Supreme Court decision that dismissed a petition challenging proclamations and administrative orders issued in response to the Maguindanao massacre. The Court found that: 1) The proclamation declaring a state of emergency in parts of Mindanao and orders related to ARMM supervision did not violate principles of local autonomy. 2) The President was constitutionally authorized to call out armed forces to prevent violence without needing congressional approval. 3) Petitioners did not provide proof that the presidential actions lacked factual basis, so the Court deferred to the President's judgment about necessity.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    211 views2 pages

    Ampatuan Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Deanne Claire
    This document is a Supreme Court decision that dismissed a petition challenging proclamations and administrative orders issued in response to the Maguindanao massacre. The Court found that: 1) The proclamation declaring a state of emergency in parts of Mindanao and orders related to ARMM supervision did not violate principles of local autonomy. 2) The President was constitutionally authorized to call out armed forces to prevent violence without needing congressional approval. 3) Petitioners did not provide proof that the presidential actions lacked factual basis, so the Court deferred to the President's judgment about necessity.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    G.R. No.

    190259 June 7, 2011

    DATU ZALDY UY AMPATUAN, ANSARUDDIN ADIONG, REGIE SAHALI-GENERALE Petitioners,


    vs.
    HON. RONALDO PUNO, in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Interior and Local
    Government and alter-ego of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, and anyone acting in his stead and
    on behalf of the President of the Philippines, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES (AFP), or any of
    their units operating in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), and PHILIPPINE
    NATIONAL POLICE, or any of their units operating in ARMM, Respondents.

    D E C I S I O N (DISMISSED PETITION)

    ABAD, J.:

     November 24, 2009- the day after the gruesome massacre of 57 men and women, including some news
    reporters,
    o Proclamation 1946 (Pres. Gloria) placing: "the Provinces of Maguindanao and Sultan Kudarat and
    the City of Cotabato under a state of emergency."
     She directed the AFP and PNP "to undertake such measures as may be allowed by the
    Constitution and by law to prevent and suppress all incidents of lawless violence" in the
    named places.
     November 27 – (P. Gloria) AO 273 "transferring" supervision of the ARMM from the Office of the President
    to the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG).
    o But, due to issues raised over the terminology used in AO 273, the President issued AO 273-A
    amending the former, by "delegating" instead of "transferring" supervision of the ARMM to the
    DILG.
     PETITIONERS filed this petition for prohibition under Rule 65
    o Proclamation 1946 as well as AOs 273 and 273-A be declared unconstitutional and that respondents DILG Secretary,
    the AFP, and the PNP be enjoined from implementing them

     WON Proclamation 1946 and AOs 273 and 273-A violate the principle of local autonomy under Section
    16, Article X of the Constitution, and Section 1, Article V of the Expanded ARMM Organic Act;
    o NO. The DILG Sec. did not take over the administration or operations of the ARMM
     DILG merely acted as the alter ego of the President
     WON President Arroyo invalidly exercised emergency powers when she called out the AFP and the PNP
    to prevent and suppress all incidents of lawless violence in Maguindanao, Sultan Kudarat, and Cotabato
    City;
    o NO.
     The President did not proclaim a national emergency, only a state of emergency in the
    three places mentioned.
     she did not act pursuant to any law enacted by Congress that authorized her to exercise
    extraordinary powers.
     The calling out of the armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence in such places
    is a power that the Constitution directly vests in the President. She did not need a
    congressional authority to exercise the same.
     Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution
    o The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the
    Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such
    armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion.
    xxx
     WON the President had factual bases for her actions.
    o YES. Since petitioners are not able to demonstrate that the proclamation of state of emergency
    in the subject places and the calling out of the armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless
    violence there have clearly no factual bases, the Court must respect the President’s actions.
     They simply alleged that, since not all areas under the ARMM were placed under a state
    of emergency, it follows that the takeover of the entire ARMM by the DILG Secretary had
    no basis too.
     The Court may inquire into the factual bases for the President’s exercise of the above
    power, it would generally defer to her judgment on the matter
     If the petitioner fails, by way of proof, to support the assertion that the President acted
    without factual basis, then this Court cannot undertake an independent investigation
    beyond the pleadings.
     The factual necessity of calling out the armed forces is not easily quantifiable and cannot be
    objectively established since matters considered for satisfying the same is a combination of several
    factors which are not always accessible to the courts. Besides the absence of textual standards that
    the court may use to judge necessity, information necessary to arrive at such judgment might also
    prove unmanageable for the courts. Certain pertinent information might be difficult to verify, or wholly
    unavailable to the courts. In many instances, the evidence upon which the President might decide
    that there is a need to call out the armed forces may be of a nature not constituting technical proof.
     On the other hand, the President, as Commander-in-Chief has a vast intelligence network to gather
    information, some of which may be classified as highly confidential or affecting the security of the
    state. In the exercise of the power to call, on-the-spot decisions may be imperatively necessary in
    emergency situations to avert great loss of human lives and mass destruction of property. Indeed,
    the decision to call out the military to prevent or suppress lawless violence must be done swiftly and
    decisively if it were to have any effect at all. x x x.
     Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Hon. Zamora - it is clearly to the President that the
    Constitution entrusts the determination of the need for calling out the armed forces to
    prevent and suppress lawless violence. Unless it is shown that such determination was
    attended by grave abuse of discretion, the Court will accord respect to the President’s
    judgment

    You might also like