Integrated Bar of the Philippines vs Zamora GR NO. 141284 August 15, 2000 Petitioner: IBP Respondents: Hon.

Ronaldo B. Zamora, Gen. Panfilo Lacson, Gen. Edgar Aglipay and Gen. Angelo Reyes Nature of the Case: Special Civil Action in the SC. Certiorari and Prohibition. Ponente: Kapunan, J. Facts: Alarming increase in violent crimes in Metro Manila The President ordered the PNP and the Marines to conduct joint visibility patrols for the purpose of crime prevention and suppression. The PNP Chief, through Police Chief Supt. Edgar B. Aglipay, formulated the Letter of Instruction 02/2000 (the LOI) which detailed how the joint visibility patrols, called Task Force Tulungan, would be conducted. Task Force Tulungan was placed under the PNP chief. 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 augment the PNP. The President declared that the services of the Marines in the campaign are only temporary. On January 17, 2000, IBP filed a petition to annul the LOI arguing that: 1. The deployment of the philippine marines in metro manila is violative of the constitution, in that: a. No emergency situation would justify the deployment of soldiers for law enforcement b. Said deployment constitutes an insidious incursion by the military in a civilian function of government c. Said deployment creates a dangerous tendency to rely on the military to perform the civilian functions of the government. 2. the administration is unwittingly making the military more powerful than what it should really be under the constitution. Issues : 1. WON petitioner has legal standing 2. (WON the government act is within the scope of the presidents powers) 3. WON the presidents factual determination of the necessity of calling the armed forces is subject to judicial review 4. WON the calling of the armed forces to assist the PNP in joint visibility patrols violates the constitutional provisions on civilian supremacy over the military and the civilian character of the PNP Petition has no merit. Issue 1: Legal Standing Petitioner failed to show that it is in possession of the requisites of standing to raise the issues in the petition. When questions of constitutional significance are raised, the court can exercise its power of judicial review only if the ff requisites are complied with 1. The existence of an actual and appropriate case 2. Legal standing of the party raising the constitutional question 3. the exercise of judicial review is pleaded at the earliest opportunity; and 4. the constitutional question is the lis mota of the case. The IBP has not shown any specific injury which it has suffered or may suffer by virtue of the questioned act. o Legal standing or locus standi has been defined as a personal and substantial interest in the case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of a governmental act that is being challenged

Interest - means material interest as distinguished from mere interest in the question involved or incidental interest o The mere invocation of the IBP of its duty to preserve the rule of law and nothing more, while undoubtedly true, is not sufficient to clothe it with standing in this casetoo general interestnot a specific and substantial interest in the resolution of the case -IBP fundamental purpose, which is to elevate the standards of the law profession and to improve the administration of justice, is not affected by the deployment of the Marines. -No actual cases of arrest of members, etc. o What the IBP fears is the militarization of law enforcement which might threaten Philippine democratic institutions. The presumed injury is not personal, too vague, highly speculative and uncertain. o Legal standing not sufficiently established HOWEVER, since the court deemed the issue to be of transcendental significance to the people, affecting their security, and since the court deemed that it would probably face the same case again, the court decided to resolve the issue. o

Issue 2: Scope of Power IBP contends that no lawless violence, invasion or rebellion exist to warrant the calling of the Marines. The Court however, sees the power involved as for mere maintenance of peace and order and promotion of the general welfare and NOT the power to call out the armed forces since: o there does not exist a state of warfare, widespread civil unrest or anarchy o the full brunt of the military is not brought upon the citizenry President did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction o the enumeration of powers of the president as commander-in-chief cannot be said to exclude the (1) calling of the armed forces, or (2) suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or (3) declaring martial law, in order to keep the peace, and maintain public order and security o Even if it is conceded that the power involved is the Presidents power to call out the armed forces, the same resolution will be reached. President is granted the broadest discretion in using the power to call out because it is considered as the lesser and more benign power compared to the power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus and the power to impose martial law. o The only criterion is that whenever it becomes necessary o BERNAS: When he judges that it is necessary to impose martial law or suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, his judgment is subject to review. We are making it subject to review by the Supreme Court and subject to concurrence by the National Assembly. But when he exercises this lesser power of calling on the Armed Forces, when he says it is necessary, it is my opinion that his judgment cannot be reviewed by anybody. The Constitution bestowed on the President full discretionary power to call out the armed forces and to determine the necessity for the exercise of such power. o President has a vast intelligence network to gather information, some of which may be classified as highly confidential or affecting the security of the state. There was no evidence to support the proposition that there was no necessity for the act and that grave abuse was committed. Hence, the Presidents exercise of judgment deserves to be accorded respect from this Court. There is absence of textual standards that the court may use to judge whether or not there is necessity. Issue 3: Judicial Review

Issue is justiciable. When the grant of power is qualified, conditional or subject to limitations, the issue of whether the prescribed conditions have been met is justiciable - the problem being one of legality, not its wisdom. The jurisdiction to delimit constitutional boundaries has been given to the Courts. When political questions are involved, the Constitution limits the determination as to whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion. o When the President called the armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion, he necessarily exercises a discretionary power solely vested in his wisdom. The Court, thus, cannot be called upon to overrule the Presidents wisdom or substitute its own. However, 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. Determination of the necessity for the calling out power if subjected to unregulated judicial scrutiny would be limit the power of the president since temporary restraining orders will be issued every time it is exercised.

Issue 4: Civilian Supremacy The calling of the Marines constitutes permissible use of military assets for civilian law enforcement. There is limited participation of the Marines. Real authority belongs to PNP, which is a civilian institution. History reveals that it is not the government averse to requesting the assistance of the military in the implementation and execution of certain traditionally civil functions and such were never before questioned. What we have here is mutual support and cooperation between the military and civilian authorities. Military involvement does not violate the Posse Comitatus Act unless it actually regulates, forbids or compels some conduct on the part of those claiming relief. A mere threat of some future injury would be insufficient. The designation of tasks does not constitute the exercise of regulatory, proscriptive, or compulsory military power. o The soldiers do not control or direct the operation o The soldiers also have no power to prohibit or condemn. All arrested persons are brought to the nearest police stations for proper disposition. o These soldiers apply no coercive force. o Thus, There was no impermissible use of military power for civilian law enforcement. Not a single citizen has complained that his political or civil rights have been violated as a result of the deployment of the Marines. Petition Dismissed. SEPARATE OPINION Puno, J Political question being invokedit will diminish judicial review power- to check the authority being exercised the Chief exec Defined political question doctrine The court brushed aside the political question doctrine and assumed jurisdiction whenever it found constitutionally imposed limits on the exercise of powers conferred upon the legislature The court hewed the same line as regards exercise of executive powerexecutive discretion Separation of powers Exercise of pres of his powers as CIC vis--vis political question doctrine

1940- pres has the power to determine whether war in its legal sense still continues or has terminated (within the political not judicial department) - 1952- habeas corpus casediscretionary to the presfinal and conclusive on the courts - 1971lansang reversed the previous caseshabeas corpus not a political question- the court declared that the power to suspend the privilege of the writ is neither absolute nor unqualified because the constitution sets limits on the exercise of executive discretion on the mattersetting conditions (invasion rebellion and public safety) - Function of the court is not to supplant but merely check the executive; to ascertain whether the pres has gone beyond the constitutional limits of his jurisdiction, not to exercise power vested in him or to determine the wisdom of his act - Judicial inquiry is confined to the question of whether the pres did not act arbitrariltyusing this yardstickthe court found that the pres did not - 1973javellanaratification of the 19873 constipolitical question - Martial lawdivided judiciarypoltical and justiciable - History shows hat the improper reliance of the court on this doctrine eroded the peoples faith in its capacity to check abuses committed by the exec in the exercise of his power as CIC particularly violation against human rights - The refusal of the courts to be proactive in the exercise of its checking powers drove the people to the streets to seek for extralegal remediesEDSA - 1987 constisec 1 Art VIII court is now given the authority to check if there are acts that amount to grave abuse of discretion of both the legislative and executive departments BERNAS OPINION during the deliberationcalling out powerthough valuable but it is not necessarily expressive of the peoples intentproceedings are less conclusive than intent - Though calling out power is lesser power than martial law and suspension of the writit cannot be left to the absolute discretion of the chief exec as CIC as its impacts on the rights of the people protected by the consti cannot be downgraded - When private jusiticiable rights are involved in a suit, the court must not refuse to assume jurisidcition even though questions of extreme political importance are necessarily involved SEPARATE OPINION Vitug, J - Judicial power defined - When grave abuse of discretion is involved, the courts can intervene - Grave abuse of discretion defined - Vote for dismissal of petition - Simply calling out the marines to assist the PNP in a joint visibility patrol in the metropolis does not constitute grave abuse of discretion that would warrant an exercise by the SC of its extraordinary power so as envisioned by the fundamental law CONCURRING and DISSENTING Mendoza,J. - Petitioner without standing - Dissent: in dismissal - Compliance with standing requirement - Need for evidenceseffect of military presence in malls and areas within MMto test its relevance with public safety - Exercise of Pres powers as CIC requires proof not mere assertions - Stressed on the judicial review only when there are substantial interests and actual cases or controversies - paramount interest to the nation does not justify the obvious lack of standing of petitioner - petition dismissed due to the lack of legal standing of petitioner and the lack of an actual case or controversy