I. Introduction: B. 1987 Constitution 4.
ion 4. By April ’09, there has already been irregular arrests like that of SPO1 Jadjuli who was
G.R. No. 187298 – Kulayan et al v. Gov. Tan
Sereno
3 members of Red Cross were kidnapped in Sulu by the Abu Sayyaf Group. Because of this,
the governor of Sulu issued Proclamation No. 1-09 declaring a state of emergency in the
province of Sulu. The Court ruled that such issuance was done in excess of his powers as
only the President is vested w/ calling-out powers as the commander-in-chief of the
Republic.
DOCTRINE
A governor cannot exercise the Commander-in-Chief powers of the President – Respondent
provincial governor is not endowed w/ the power to call upon the armed forces at his own
bidding. In issuing the assailed proclamation, Gov. Tan exceed his authority when he
declared a state of emergency and called upon the Armed Forces, the police, and his own
Civilian Emergency Force. The calling-out powers contemplated under the Constitution is
exclusive to the President.
FACTS
1. Jan 15, ’09 – 3 members from the Int’l Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) were
kidnapped in the vicinity of the Provincial Capitol in Patikul, Sulu.
a. Andreas Notter – Swiss nat’l
b. Eugenio Vani – Italian nat’l
c. Marie Jean Lacaba – Filipino engineer
They were inspecting a water and sanitation project for the Sulu Provincial Jail when
they were seized by 3 armed men (later confirmed to be members of the Abu Sayyaf Group
or ASG). Note: The leader of the kidnappers was the former guard at the Sulu Provincial Jail
2. Several groups/task forces were organized as a result of the incident. The governor
of Sulu, Gov. Abdusakur Mahail Tan, organized the Civilian Emergency Forces (CEF)
w/c is a group of armed male civilians. This was a result of an MOU between the
provincial gov’t of Sulu (rep by Gov. Tan), the AFP (rep. by Gen. Saban), and the PNP
(P/Supt. Latag).
3. In light of the situation in Sulu, Gov. Tan issued Proclamation 1-09 on Mar 31, ’09,
declaring a state of emergency in Sulu. It invoked Sec. 465, Local Gov’t Code of
1991 (RA 7160), w/c bestows on the Provincial Governor the power to carry out
emergency measures during man-made and natural disasters and calamities, and to
call upon the appropriate national law enforcement agencies to suppress disorder and
lawless violence. In the same proclamation, Gov. Tan called upon the PNP and CEF to
- set up checkpoints and chokepoints
- conduct general search and seizures including arrests
- take other actions necessary to ensure public safety
1 Sec. 23 (2) In times of war or other national emergency, the Cong. may, by law, authorize the President, for
a limited period and subject to such restriction as it may prescribe to exercise powers necessary and proper to
carry out a declared national policy. Unless sooner withdrawn by resolution of the Cong, such powers shall
cease upon the next adjournment thereof.”
2 Sec. 18, The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines whenever it
becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or
asked to report to one of the respondents, P/SUPT. Kasim. He was asked about his
filiation w/ several deceased persons and was immediately detained upon admitting
that he was related to the said individuals.
People who were suspected to be supporters of the ASG were arrested and
detained under Proclamation 1-09.
5. Petitioner Jamar M. Kulayan, along w/ other individuals including SPO1 Jadjuli filed the
present Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition. They claim that Proc. 1-09 was issued w/
grave abuse of discretion, that it was issued (along w/ its Guidelines) ultra vires, and
thus null and void for violating Sec. 1 and 18, Art. VII – w/c grants the President the
sole authority to exercise emergency powers and calling-out powers as the chief
executive of the RP and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces.
- They also claim that the Provincial Gov. is not authorized by any law to create
civilian armed forces under his command.
RESPONDENTS’ defense: Proc. 1-09 was not issued ultra vires because
a. Gov. Tan acted pursuant to Sec. 16 and 465 of the Local Gov’t Code, w/c
empowers the Provincial Gov. to carry out emergency measures during calamities
and disasters, and to call upon the appropriate nat’l law enforcement agencies to
suppress disorder.
b. The Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Sulu authorized the declaration of a state of
emergency as evidence by Res. No. 4 Ser. of ‘09 issued during its regular session.
ISSUE with HOLDING: W/N Sec. 465, in relation to Sec. 16, of the LGC authorizes Gov.
Tan to declare a state of emergency, and exercise the powers enumerated under Proc.
1-09, specifically the conduct of general searches and seizures. – NO.
1. Only the President is vested w/ calling-out powers, as the commander-in-chief of
the Republic. (One executive, one commander-in-chief)
a. Villena v. Sec. of Interior – there is one repository of executive powers,
and that is the Pres. of the Republic. “Executive power” in Sec. 1, Art. VII
pertaints to the President and no one else.
b. It is only the Pres., as Executive, who is authorized to exercise
emergency powers as provided under Sec. 23 1, Art. VI and Sec. 7, Art. VII
(aka “calling-out powers”) (this includes Sec. 18, Art. VII2)
c. The Pres. also acts as the leader of the country’s police forces, under the
mandate of Sec. 17, Art. VII3. The discussions of the Constitutional
Commission regarding this provision show that framers never intended for
local chief executives to exercise unbridled control over the police in
emergency situations:
i. A local chief executive, such as the provincial governor,
exercises operational supervision over the police and may exercise
control only in day-to-day operation.
rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he may, for a period not
exceeding 60 days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Phils or any part thereof
under martial law.
3 Sec. 17 The President shall have control of all the exec depts., bureaus, and offices. He shall ensure that
the laws be faithfully executed.”
1
 ii. It’s not advisable to provide either in our Constitution or by law
full control of the police by the local chief executive/s, the mayor. By
experience, this has spawned warlordism, bossism and sanctuaries
for vices and abuses.
iii. If a local gov’t can’t handle its peace and order problems, the
nat’l gov’t may step in especially if requested by the local executives.

2. The provincial governor does not possess the same calling-out powers as the
President
a. Gov. Tan is not endowed w/ the power to call upon the armed forces at
his own bidding.
b. In issuing Proc. 1-09 Gov Tan exceeded his authority when he declared
a state of emergency and called upon the AFP, the police, and his own CEF
c. The calling-out powers contemplated under the Constitution is
exclusive to the President
d. Respondents are wrong in citing David vs. Arroyo insisting that said case
did not limit the power to call out in cases of emergency. But what is
contemplated there is NATIONAL emergency, not local.

3. Sec. 465 of the LGC cannot be invoked to justify the powers enumerated under
Proc. 1-09.
a. A closer look at the said proclamation shows that there is not provision
in the LGC nor in any law on w/c the broad and unwarranted powers granted
to Gov. Tan may be based.
i. Sec. 465 (vii) speaks only of calamities and disasters, whether
man-made or natural.
ii. Sec. 465 (vi) speaks of “national law enforcement agency”—a
ground w/c AFP does NOT fall under.
b. The proclamation includes “General Search & Seizure including arrests
in the pursuit of the kidnappers and their supporters—w/c is violative of the
constitutional proscription against general search warrants and gen. seizures

DISPOSITIVE PORTION
Petition granted. Proclamation declared null and void.

OTHER NOTES
I. Transcendental public importance warrants a relaxation of the Doctrine
of Hierarchy of Courts (w/c was invoked by respondents in an effort to
frustrate the petitioners’ relief sought).
II. Provincial governor is not authorized to convene CEF.
a. Sec. 24, Art. XVIII “Private armies and other armed groups not
recognized by duly constituted authority shall be dismantled. All
paramilitary forces including Civilian Home Defense Forces (CHDF) not
consistent w/ the citizen armed forces established in this Constitution,
shall be dissolved or, where appropriate, converted into the regular
force.”

DIGESTER: Viveka