Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Zamora, G.R. No. 141284, August 15, 2000

Ponente: KAPUNAN J.

A Special Civil Action in the Supreme Court. Certiorari and Prohibition.

Summary: 

Petitioner: Integrated Bar of the Philippines

Respondent: Hon. Ronaldo B. Zamora, Gen. Panfilo M. Lacson, Gen. Edgar B. Aglipay, Gen. Angelo Reyes

President Estrada deployed the Marines to patrol certain parts of Metro Manila. IBP questioned  the constitutionality of this action. The SC decided that the IBP has no locus standi but chose to take cognizance of the petition as it is of paramount importance to the public (especially in light of Martial Law). SC decided that Estrada's deployment of Marines is constitutional and dismissed the filed petition.

----------------------------------------

Facts:

President Estrada, in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief and through a verbal directive, deployed the Marines, to join the PNP in visibility patrols in response to alarming increase in violent crimes in Metro Manila.

The PNP Chief, through Police Chief Superintendent Edgar B. Aglipay, formulated Letter of Instruction (LOI) 02/2000 which detailed the manner by which the joint visibility patrols would be conducted.

President Estrada confirmed his previous directive on the deployment of the Marines in a Memorandum dated 24 January 2000.

IBP, asserting itself as the official organization of Filipino lawyers tasked with the bounden duty to uphold the rule of law, filed the instant petition to annul LOI 02/2000 and declare the deployment of Philippine Marines as null and void and unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court required Solicitor General to file a Comment on the petition. SolGen vigorously defended the deployment, contending that:

1. Petitioner IBP has no legal standing

2. The petition involves a political question i.e. organization and conduct of police visibility patrols

3. The team-up of Marines with PNP does not violate the civilian supremacy clause in the Constitution i.e. Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution.

Meanwhile, Petitioner IBP argued that:

1. The deployment of Philippine Marines in Metro Manila is violative of the constitution since there is no emergency situation. Said deployment constitutes an insidious incursion by the military in a civilian function of government. This deployment creates dangerous tendency to rely on the military to perform the civilian function of government.

2. 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.

----------------------------------------

Issue 1 of 3: WON the petition has merit.

Held: No since IBP has no locus standi.

IBP’s alleged responsibility to uphold the rule of law and the Constitution is too general an interest. It has not shown any specific injury which it has or may suffer by virtue of the deployment.

Nonetheless, despite the absence of locus standi, the Court may (and in this case does) take cognizance of the suit when the issues raised are of paramount importance to the public.

Issue 2 of 3: WON the President’s factual determination of the necessity of calling the armed forces is subject to judicial review.

Held: Yes.

When the grant of power is qualified, conditional, or subject to limitations, the issue of whether the prescribed qualifications or conditions have been met or the limitations respected is justiciable.

When the President calls on the armed forces, he necessarily exercises a discretionary power solely vested in his wisdom. 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.

BUT it is incumbent upon the petitioner to show that the President’s decision is totally bereft of factual basis. The present petition fails to do this.

Issue 3 of 3: 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 (Art II, Sec 3) and the civilian character of the PNP (Art XVI, Sec 5 (4)).

Held: No.

There is clear textual commitment under the Constitution to bestow on the President full discretionary power to call out the armed forces and to determine the necessity for the exercise of such power. (Art VII, Sec 18)

The President determined the necessity and basis for calling the armed forces: “violent crimes like bank/store robberies, holdups, kidnappings and carnappings”. The Court takes judicial notice of recent bombings, perpetrated by lawless elements in the shopping malls, public utilities, and other public places which are among the areas of deployment described in the LOI 02/2000. (i.e. decision is not bereft of factual basis)

The deployment of the Marines does not constitute a breach of the civilian supremacy clause. The calling of the Marines constitutes permissible use of military assets for civilian law enforcement. The local police forces are the ones in charge of the visibility patrols at all times, the real authority belonging to the PNP

The deployment of the Marines neither violates the civilian supremacy clause nor infringes the civilian character of the police force because the soldiers are briefed on police patrol procedures and the authority in these operations is lodged with the head of a civilian institution, the PNP.

None of the Marines was incorporated or enlisted as members of the PNP, there can be no appointment to civilian position to speak of. Hence, the deployment of the Marines in the joint visibility patrols does not destroy the civilian character of the PNP.

-------------------------------------

DECISION:  The petition is dismissed.

-------------------------------------

Separate Opinions:

PUNO, J.: He called out the attempt of the government to use as defense the political question doctrine. He opined that: 

If the attempt succeeded, it would have diminished the power of judicial review and weakened the checking authority of this Court over the Chief Executive when he exercises his commander-in-chief powers. The attempt should remind us of the tragedy that befell the country when this Court sought refuge in the political question doctrine and forfeited its most important role as protector of the civil and political rights of our people. The ongoing conflict in Mindanao may worsen and can force the Chief Executive to resort to the use of his greater commander-in-chief powers, hence, this Court should be extra cautious in assaying similar attempts. A laid back posture may not sit well with our people considering that the 1987 Constitution strengthened the checking powers of this Court and expanded its jurisdiction precisely to stop any act constituting "xxx grave abuse of jurisdiction xxx on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.

He concluded that:

We should not water down the ruling that deciding whether a matter has been committed by the Constitution to another branch of government, or whether the action of that branch exceeds whatever authority has been committed, is a delicate exercise in constitutional interpretation, and is a responsibility of the Court as ultimate interpreter of the fundamental law.59 When private justiciable rights are involved in a suit, the Court must not refuse to assume jurisdiction even though questions of extreme political importance are necessarily involved.

-------------------------------------

VITUG, J.: She explained the judicial power of the SC and opined that the act of the President in calling on the AFP to assist the PNP does not constitute grave abuse of discretion.

She opined that the judicial power vested on the Court by the Constitution does not mean that the Supreme Court must be deemed vested with the awesome power of overseeing the entire bureaucracy, let alone of institutionalizing judicial absolutism, under its mandate. But while the SC does not wield unlimited authority to strike down an act of its two co-equal branches of government, it must not wither under technical guise on its constitutionally ordained task to intervene, and to nullify if need be, any such act as and when it is attended by grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The proscription then against an interposition by the Court into purely political questions, no longer holds within that context.

Considering the foregoing, she concluded that:

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.

-------------------------------------

MENDOZA, J., concurring and dissenting:

I concur in the opinion of the Court insofar as it holds petitioner to be without standing to question the validity of LOI 02/2000 which mandates the Philippine Marines to conduct "joint visibility" patrols with the police in Metro Manila. But I dissent insofar as the opinion dismisses the petition in this case on other grounds. I submit that judgment on the substantive constitutional issues raised by petitioner must await an actual case involving real parties with "injuries" to show as a result of the operation of the challenged executive action. While as an organization for the advancement of the rule of law petitioner has an interest in upholding the Constitution, its interest is indistinguishable from the interest of the rest of the citizenry and falls short of that which is necessary to give petitioner standing.