IBP v. Zamora
IBP v. Zamora
IBP v. Zamora
SYNOPSIS
SYLLABUS
DECISION
KAPUNAN, J : p
At bar is a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition with prayer
for issuance of a temporary restraining order seeking to nullify on
constitutional grounds the order of President Joseph Ejercito Estrada
commanding the deployment of the Philippine Marines (the Marines) to join
the Philippine National Police (the "PNP") in visibility patrols around the
metropolis.
In view of the alarming increase in violent crimes in Metro Manila, like
robberies, kidnappings and carnappings, the President, in a verbal directive,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
ordered the PNP and the Marines to conduct joint visibility patrols for the
purpose of crime prevention and suppression. The Secretary of National
Defense, the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (the "AFP"),
the Chief of the PNP and the Secretary of the Interior and Local Government
were tasked to execute and implement the said order. In compliance with
the presidential mandate, the PNP Chief, through Police Chief
Superintendent Edgar B. Aglipay, formulated Letter of Instruction 02/2000 1
(the "LOI") which detailed the manner by which the joint visibility patrols,
called Task Force Tulungan, would be conducted. 2 Task Force Tulungan was
placed under the leadership of the Police Chief of Metro Manila.
Subsequently, the President confirmed his previous directive on the
deployment of the Marines in a Memorandum, dated 24 January 2000,
addressed to the Chief of Staff of the AFP and the PNP Chief. 3 In the
Memorandum, the President expressed his desire to improve the peace and
order situation in Metro Manila through a more effective crime prevention
program including increased police patrols. 4 The President further stated
that to heighten police visibility in the metropolis, augmentation from the
AFP is necessary. 5 Invoking his powers as Commander-in-Chief under
Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution, the President directed the AFP
Chief of Staff and PNP Chief to coordinate with each other for the proper
deployment and utilization of the Marines to assist the PNP in preventing or
suppressing criminal or lawless violence. 6 Finally, the President declared
that the services of the Marines in the anti-crime campaign are merely
temporary in nature and for a reasonable period only, until such time when
the situation shall have improved. 7
The LOI explains the concept of the PNP-Philippine Marines joint
visibility patrols as follows:
xxx xxx xxx
2. PURPOSE:
The Joint Implementing Police Visibility Patrols between the PNP
NCRPO and the Philippine Marines partnership in the conduct of
visibility patrols in Metro Manila for the suppression of crime prevention
and other serious threats to national security.
3. SITUATION:
Criminal incidents in Metro Manila have been perpetrated not
only by ordinary criminals but also by organized syndicates whose
members include active and former police/military personnel whose
training, skill, discipline and firepower prove well-above the present
capability of the local police alone to handle. The deployment of a joint
PNP NCRPO-Philippine Marines in the conduct of police visibility patrol
in urban areas will reduce the incidence of crimes specially those
perpetrated by active or former police/military personnel.
4. MISSION:
The PNP NCRPO will organize a provisional Task Force to conduct
joint NCRPO-PM visibility patrols to keep Metro Manila streets crime-
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
free, through a sustained street patrolling to minimize or eradicate all
forms of high-profile crimes especially those perpetrated by organized
crime syndicates whose members include those that are well-trained,
disciplined and well-armed active or former PNP/Military personnel.
5. CONCEPT IN JOINT VISIBILITY PATROL OPERATIONS:
a. The visibility patrols shall be conducted jointly by the
NCRPO [National Capital Regional Police Office] and the Philippine
Marines to curb criminality in Metro Manila and to preserve the internal
security of the state against insurgents and other serious threat to
national security, although the primary responsibility over Internal
Security Operations still rests upon the AFP.
b. The principle of integration of efforts shall be applied to
eradicate all forms of high-profile crimes perpetrated by organized
crime syndicates operating in Metro Manila. This concept requires the
military and police to work cohesively and unify efforts to ensure a
focused, effective and holistic approach in addressing crime
prevention. Along this line, the role of the military and police aside
from neutralizing crime syndicates is to bring a wholesome
atmosphere wherein delivery of basic services to the people and
development is achieved Hand-in-hand with this joint NCRPO-Philippine
Marines visibility patrols, local Police Units are responsible for the
maintenance of peace and order in their locality.
c. To ensure the effective implementation of this project, a
provisional Task Force "TULUNGAN" shall be organized to provide the
mechanism, structure, and procedures for the integrated planning,
coordinating, monitoring and assessing the security situation.
xxx xxx xxx. 8
II
IN MILITARIZING LAW ENFORCEMENT IN METRO MANILA, THE
ADMINISTRATION IS UNWITTINGLY MAKING THE MILITARY MORE
POWERFUL THAN WHAT IT SHOULD REALLY BE UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION. 10
1. Elections; 42
It appears that the present petition is anchored on fear that once the
armed forces are deployed, the military will gain ascendancy, and thus place
in peril our cherished liberties. Such apprehensions, however, are
unfounded. The power to call the armed forces is just that — calling out the
armed forces. Unless, petitioner IBP can show, which it has not, that in the
deployment of the Marines, the President has violated the fundamental law,
exceeded his authority or jeopardized the civil liberties of the people, this
Court is not inclined to overrule the President's determination of the factual
basis for the calling of the Marines to prevent or suppress lawless violence.
One last point. Since the institution of the joint visibility patrol in
January, 2000, not a single citizen has complained that his political or civil
rights have been violated as a result of the deployment of the Marines. It
was precisely to safeguard peace, tranquility and the civil liberties of the
people that the joint visibility patrol was conceived. Freedom and democracy
will be in full bloom only when people feel secure in their homes and in the
streets, not when the shadows of violence and anarchy constantly lurk in
their midst.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Melo, Purisima, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-
Santiago, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.
Puno and Vitug, JJ., see separate opinion.
Mendoza, J., see concurring and dissenting opinion.
Quisumbing, J., join in the opinion of J. Mendoza.
Bellosillo, J., on official leave.
Panganiban, J., concurs in the result.
Separate Opinions
PUNO, J.:
The issue revisited the Court twenty-two (22) years later. In 1946, in
Vera v. Avelino , 13 three senators-elect who had been prevented from taking
their oaths of office by a Senate resolution repaired to this Court to compel
their colleagues to allow them to occupy their seats contending that only the
Electoral Tribunal had jurisdiction over contests relating to their election,
returns and qualifications. Again, the Court refused to intervene citing
Alejandrino and affirmed the inherent right of the legislature to determine
who shall be admitted to its membership.
In the 1947 case of Mabanag v. Lopez-Vito, 14 three Senators and eight
representatives who were proclaimed elected by Comelec were not allowed
by Congress to take part in the voting for the passage of the Parity
amendment to the Constitution. If their votes had been counted, the
affirmative votes in favor of the proposed amendment would have been
short of the necessary three-fourths vote in either House of Congress to pass
the amendment. The amendment was eventually submitted to the people for
ratification. The Court declined to intervene and held that a proposal to
amend the Constitution is a highly political function performed by Congress
in its sovereign legislative capacity. 15
In the 1955 case of Arnault v. Balagtas, 16 petitioner, a private citizen,
assailed the legality of his detention ordered by the Senate for his refusal to
answer questions put to him by members of one of its investigating
committees. This Court refused to order his release holding that the process
by which a contumacious witness is dealt with by the legislature is a
necessary concomitant of the legislative process and the legislature's
exercise of its discretionary authority is not subject to judicial interference.
In the 1960 case of Osmeña v. Pendatun , 17 the Court followed the
traditional line. Congressman Sergio Osmeña, Jr. was suspended by the
House of Representatives for serious disorderly behavior for making a
privilege speech imputing "malicious charges" against the President of the
Philippines. Osmeña, Jr. invoked the power of review of this Court but the
Court once more did not interfere with Congress' power to discipline its
members.
The contours of the political question doctrine have always been tricky.
To be sure, the Court did not always stay its hand whenever the doctrine is
invoked. In the 1949 case of Avelino v. Cuenco , 18 Senate President Jose
Avelino, who was deposed and replaced, questioned his successor's title
claiming that the latter had been elected without a quorum. The petition was
initially dismissed on the ground that the selection of Senate President was
an internal matter and not subject to judicial review. 19 On reconsideration,
however, the Court ruled that it could assume jurisdiction over the
controversy in light of subsequent events justifying intervention among
which was the existence of a quorum. 20 Though the petition was ultimately
dismissed, the Court declared respondent Cuenco as the legally elected
Senate President.
In the 1957 case of Tañada v. Cuenco , 21 the Court assumed
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
jurisdiction over a dispute involving the formation and composition of the
Senate Electoral Tribunal. It rejected the Solicitor General's claim that the
dispute involved a political question. Instead, it declared that the Senate is
not clothed with "full discretionary authority" in the choice of members of
the Senate Electoral Tribunal and the exercise of its power thereon is subject
to constitutional limitations which are mandatory in nature. 22 It held that
under the Constitution, the membership of the Senate Electoral Tribunal was
designed to insure the exercise of judicial impartiality in the disposition of
election contests affecting members of the lawmaking body. 23 The Court
then nullified the election to the Senate Electoral Tribunal made by Senators
belonging to the party having the largest number of votes of two of their part
members but purporting to act on behalf of the party having the second
highest number of votes.
In the 1962 case of Cunanan v. Tan, Jr ., 24 the Court passed judgment
on whether Congress had formed the Commission on Appointments in
accordance with the Constitution and found that it did not. It declared that
the Commission on Appointments is a creature of the Constitution and its
power does not come from Congress but from the Constitution.
The 1967 case of Gonzales v. Comelec 25 and the 1971 case of
Tolentino v. Comelec 26 abandoned Mabanag v. Lopez-Vito. The question of
whether or not Congress, acting as a constituent assembly in proposing
amendments to the Constitution violates the Constitution was held to be a
justiciable and not a political issue. In Gonzales, the Court ruled:
"It is true that in Mabanag v. Lopez-Vito, this Court characterizing
the issue submitted thereto as a political one, declined to pass upon
the question whether or not a given number of votes cast in Congress
in favor of a proposed amendment to the Constitution — which was
being submitted to the people for ratification — satisfied the three-
fourths vote requirement of the fundamental law. The force of this
precedent has been weakened, however, by Suanes v. Chief
Accountant of the Senate, Avelino v. Cuenco, Tañada v. Cuenco , and
Macias v. Commission on Elections . In the first, we held that the
officers and employees of the Senate Electoral Tribunal are under its
supervision and control, not of that of the Senate President, as claimed
by the latter; in the second, this Court proceeded to determine the
number of Senators necessary for a quorum in the Senate; in the third,
we nullified the election, by Senators belonging to the party having the
largest number of votes in said chamber, purporting to act on behalf of
the party having the second largest number of votes therein, of two (2)
Senators belonging to the first party, as members, for the second party,
of the Senate Electoral Tribunal; and in the fourth, we declared
unconstitutional an act of Congress purporting to apportion the
representative districts for the House of Representatives, upon the
ground that the apportionment had not been made as may be possible
according to the number of inhabitants of each province. Thus, we
rejected the theory, advanced in these four cases, that the issues
therein raised were political questions the determination of which is
beyond judicial review." 27
VITUG, J.:
It is here when the Court must have to depart from the broad principle of
separation of powers that disallows an intrusion by it in respect to the purely
political decisions of its independent and coordinate agencies of
government.
The term grave abuse of discretion is long understood in our
jurisprudence as being, and confined to, a capricious and whimsical or
despotic exercise of judgment amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Minus the not-so-unusual exaggerations often invoked by litigants in the duel
of views, the act of the President in simply calling on the Armed Forces of
the Philippines, an executive prerogative, to assist the Philippine National
Police in "joint visibility patrols" in the metropolis does not, I believe,
constitute grave abuse of discretion that would now warrant an exercise by
the Supreme Court of its extraordinary power as so envisioned by the
fundamental law.
Accordingly, I vote for the dismissal of the petition.
For these reasons and with due appreciation of the scholarly attention
lavished by the majority opinion on the constitutional questions raised, I am
constrained to limit my concurrence to the dismissal of this suit on the
ground of lack of standing of petitioner and the consequent lack of an actual
case or controversy.
Footnotes
Sec. 4. The prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the
people. The Government may call upon the people to defend the State and,
in the fulfillment thereof, all citizens may be required, under conditions
provided by law, to render personal, military or civil service.
24. 369 U.S. 186, 82 S ct. 691, 7 L. Ed. 2d 663, 678 (1962).
25. Article VIII, Sec. 1 of the 1987 CONSTITUTION.
26. Santiago v. Guingona, Jr., 298 SCRA 756 (1998).
27. Bengzon, Jr. v. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, 203 SCRA 767 (1991).
28. Marcos v. Manglapus, supra note 21, see also Daza v. Singson , 180 SCRA
496 (1988); Coseteng v. Mitra , 187 SCRA 377 (1990).
29. Sinon v. Civil Service Commission , 215 SCRA 410 (1992); See also
Producers Bank v. NLRC, 165 SCRA 284 (1988); Litton Mills v. Galleon Trader,
Inc., 163 SCRA 494 (1988).
30. Ledesma v. Court of Appeals, 278 SCRA 656 (1997).
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
31. Bondoc v. Pineda, 201 SCRA 792 (1991).
32. Drilon v. Lim, 235 SCRA 135 (1994).
33. Sarmiento v. Mison, 156 SCRA 549 (1987).
34. II RECORD OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION: PROCEEDINGS AND
DEBATES, pp. 409, 412 (1986).
35. Rollo, p. 75.
36. Section 3, provides:
Civilian authority, is at all times, supreme over the military. The Armed
Forces of the Philippines is the protector of the people and the State. Its goal
is to secure the sovereignty of the State and the integrity of the national
territory.
c. RLD/R4
— Coordinate with the Directorate for Logistics for the issuance of the
following equipments (sic) to be utilize (sic) by the Philippine Marines
personnel: 500 pieces Probaton, 500 whistle (sic), 500 pieces brazzard
blazoned.
— Coordinate with the Directorate for Logistics for the issuance of the
following for use of PNP personnel involved in the visibility patrol operations:
1,000 sets of PNP GOA Uniform
43. Republic Act No. 95 (1947), Section 5, which is entitled "An Act to
Incorporate the Philippine National Red Cross Section;" Republic Act No. 855
(1953), Section 1, which is entitled "An Act to Amend Section V of Republic
Act Numbered Ninety-Five, entitled "An Act to Incorporate the Philippine
National Red Cross."
44. Republic Act No. 7077 (1991), Article III, Section 7, which is entitled "An Act
Providing for the Development, Administration, Organization, Training,
Maintenance and Utilization of the Citizen Armed Forces of the Armed Forces
of the Philippines and for other Purposes."
45. Republic Act No. 6847 (1990), Section 7, which is entitled "An Act Creating
and Establishing The Philippine Sports Commission, Defining its Powers,
Functions and Responsibilities, Appropriating Funds therefor, and for other
Purposes."
46. Republic Act No. 8492 (1998), Section 20, which is entitled "An Act
Establishing a National Museum System, Providing for its Permanent Home
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
and for other Purposes."
47. Republic Act No. 8550 (1998), Section 124, which is entitled "An Act
Providing for the Development, Management and Conservation of the
Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, Integrating All Law Pertinent Thereto, and
for other Purposes; Memorandum Circular No. 150 (1996), which is entitled
"Amending Memorandum Circular No. 128, dated July 20, 1995 by
Reorganizing the Presidential Task Force on Tubbataha Reef National Marine
Park;" Executive Order No. 544 (1979), Letter I, which is entitled "Creating a
Presidential Committee for the Conservation of the Tamaraw, Defining its
Powers and for other Purposes."
48. Executive Order No. 129-A (1987) Section 5 (m), which is entitled
"Modifying Executive Order No. 129 Reorganizing and Strengthening the
Department of Agrarian Reform and for other Purposes."
49. Republic Act No. 1937 (1957), Section 2003, which is entitled "An Act to
Revise and Codify the Tariff and Customs Laws of the Philippines;" Executive
Order No. 45 (1998), which is entitled "Creating a Presidential Anti-
Smuggling Task Force to Investigate and Prosecute Crimes Involving Large-
Scale Smuggling and other Frauds upon Customs and Providing Measures to
Expedite Seizure Proceedings;"
50. These cases involved joint military and civilian law enforcement operations:
People v. Escalante , G.R. No. 106633, December 1, 1994; People v .
Bernardo, G.R. No. 97393, March 17, 1993; People v. De la Cruz, G.R. No.
83260, April 18, 1990; Guanzon v. de Villa, 181 SCRA 623, 631 (1990). (This
case recognizes the complementary roles of the PNP and the military in
conducting anti-crime campaigns, provided that the people's rights are not
violated in these words: "If the military and the police must conduct
concerted campaigns to flush out and catch criminal elements, such drives
must be consistent with the constitutional and statutory rights of all people
affected by such actions." The creation of the Task Force also finds support in
Valmonte v. de Villa, 185 SCRA 665 (1990). Executive Order No. 62 (1999),
which is entitled "Creating the Philippine Center on Transnational Crime to
Formulate and Implement a Concerted Program of Action of All Law
Enforcement, Intelligence and other Agencies for the Prevention and Control
of Transnational Crime;" Executive Order No. 8 (1998), which is entitled
"Creating a Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Commission and a Presidential
Anti-Organized Crime Task Force, to Investigate and Prosecute Criminal
Elements in the Country;" Executive Order No. 280 (1995), which is entitled
"Creating a Presidential Task Force of Intelligence and Counter-Intelligence to
Identify, Arrest and Cause the Investigation and Prosecution of Military and
other Law Enforcement Personnel on their Former Members and Their
Cohorts Involved in Criminal Activities."
51. Memorandum Circular No. 141 (1996), which is entitled "Enjoining
Government Agencies Concerned to Extend Optimum Support and
Assistance to the Professional Regulation Commission in its Conduct of
Licensure Examinations."
52. Memorandum Circular No. 32 (1999), which is entitled "Directing the
Government Agencies Concerned to Extend Maximum Support and
Assistance to the National Educational Testing and Research Center (NETRC)
of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) in the Conduct of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
Tests of National Coverage."
53. Executive Order No. 61 (1999), which is entitled "Creating the National
Drug Law Enforcement and Prevention Coordinating Center to Orchestrate
Efforts of National Government Agencies, Local Government Units, and Non-
Government Organizations for a More Effective Anti-Drug Campaign."
54. Republic Act No. 4089 (1984), which is entitled "An Act Making the City
Health Officer of Bacolod City the Local Civil Registrar, Amending for the
Purpose Section Forty-Three of the Charter of said City;" Republic Act No. 537
(1950), which is entitled "An Act to Revise the Charter of Quezon City;"
Commonwealth Act No. 592 (1940), which is entitled "An Act to Create the
City of Dansalan;" Commonwealth Act No. 509 (1939); which is entitled "An
Act to Create Quezon City;" Commonwealth Act No. 326 (1938), which is
entitled "An Act Creating the City of Bacolod;" Commonwealth Act No. 39
(1936), which is entitled "An Act Creating the City of Zamboanga;"
Commonwealth Act No. 51 (1936), which is entitled "An Act Creating the City
of Davao."
55. Republic Act No. 36 (1946), which is entitled "Census Act of Nineteen
Hundred and Forty-Six."
56. Republic Act No. 776 (1952), Section 5, which is entitled "An Act to
Reorganize the Civil Aeronautics Board and the Civil Aeronautics
Administration, To Provide for the Regulation of Civil Aeronautics in the
Philippines and Authorizing the Appropriation of Funds Therefor."
57. Republic Act No. 6613 (1972), Section 4, which is entitled "An Act Declaring
a Policy of the State to Adopt Modern Scientific Methods to Moderate
Typhoons and Prevent Destruction by Floods, Rains and Droughts, Creating a
Council on Typhoons and Prevent Destruction by Flood, Rains and Droughts,
Creating a Council on Typhoon Moderation and Flood Control Research and
Development, Providing for its Powers and Functions and Appropriating
Funds Therefor."
58. Local Government Code of 1991, Book I, Title Seven, Section 116.
59. This theory on gloss of executive power was advanced by Justice
Frankfurter in his concurring opinion in Youngstown Sheet and Tube v.
Sawyer, 343 US 579, 610-611 (1952).
60. Bissonette v. Haig, 766 F.2d 1384, 1389 (1985).
61. 18 U.S.C.A § 1385 (1878).
62. Ibid.
63. Bissonette v. Haig, supra note 60, at 1390.
64. A power regulatory in nature is one which controls or directs. It is
proscriptive if it prohibits or condemns and compulsory if it exerts some
coercive force. See US v. Yunis, 681 F. Supp. 891 (D.D.C., 1988). See also
FOURTH AMENDMENT AND POSSE COMITATUS ACT RESTRICTIONS ON
MILITARY INVOLVEMENT IN CIVIL LAW ENFORCEMENT, 54 George
Washington Law Review, pp. 404-433 (1986), which discusses the four
divergent standards for assessing acceptable involvement of military
personnel in civil law enforcement. See likewise HONORED IN THE BREECH:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THE LAWS WITH MILITARY FORCE, 83
Yale Law Journal, pp. 130-152, 1973.
65. L.O.I. 02/2000, "TULUNGAN," Rollo , pp. 17-22.
66. No. 6 of the LOI states: DEPLOYMENT/EMPLOYMENT OF JOINT NCRPO-
PHILIPPINE MARINES:
a. The PNP NCPRO thru Police Districts will continue to deploy
uniformed PNP personnel dedicated for police visibility patrols in tandem with
the Philippine Marines.
48. Ibid.
49. 121 SCRA 472 [1983].
50. Id. at 490-491.
51. Id. at 500-501.
52. 121 SCRA 538 [1983].
53. Id. at 563.
54. See Concepcion's sponsorship speech, I Record 434-435; see also Bernas,
The Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines A Commentary, p. 863
[1996].
55. J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. v. Land Tenure Administration, 31 SCRA 413, 423-
426 [1970].
56. Vera v. Avelino, 77 Phil. 192, 215 [1946]; see also Agpalo, Statutory
Construction, 4th ed., p. 454 [1998].
57. Black, Handbook on the Construction and Interpretation of the Laws, 2d ed.,
p. 39 [1911].
58. 42 SCRA at 506-507, see also Rossiter, The Supreme Court and the
Commander in-Chief, pp. 16-17 [1951].
59. Baker v. Carr, 7 L Ed. 2d at 682.
60. Willoughby on the Constitution of the United States, vol. 3, 2d ed., p. 1336
[1929].
61. Tanada v. Macapagal , 103 Phil. at 1067, quoting In re McConaughy, 119
NW 408 [1909].
62. Id.
VITUG, J.:
1. Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution.
2. 83 Phil. 17.
3. Sen Miriam Defensor Santiago, et al. vs. Sen. Teofisto Guingona, Jr., et al.,
298 SCRA 756.
MENDOZA, J., concurring and dissenting:
1. Tatad v. Garcia, 243 SCRA 436, 473 (1995) (concurring). Accord,
Telecommunication and Broadcast Attorneys of the Philippines v. COMELEC,
289 SCRA 343 (1998).
2. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 119 L. Ed. 2d 351 (1992).
3. See CONST., ART. VII, §18.