INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES v.
ZAMORA
G.R. No. 141284
AUGUST 15, 2000
J. KAPUNAN
SUBJECT MATTER:
Constitutional Interpretation; Rules of Construction
LEGAL BASIS AND APPLICABLE CONCEPT(S):
Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution – 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…
Section 3, Article II of the Constitution – 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.
Section 5 (4), Article XVI of the Constitution – No member of the armed forces in the active service shall, at any time,
be appointed or designated in any capacity to a civilian position in the Government including government-owned or
controlled corporations or any of their subsidiaries.
ACTION BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT:
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 Estrada commanding the deployment of the Marines to join the
PNP in visibility patrols around the metropolis.
Petitioner: Integrated Bar of the Philippines
Parties
Respondents: Hon. Ronaldo B. Zamora, Gen. Panfilo M. Lacson, Gen. Edgar B. Aglipay, and Gen.
Angelo Reyes,
SUMMARY:
Joseph Ejercito Estrada, in a verbal directive, ordered the PNP and the Marines to conduct joint visibility patrols for the
purpose of crime prevention and suppression. In compliance with the presidential mandate, the PNP Chief, through Police
Chief Superintendent Edgar B. Aglipay, formulated Letter of Instruction 02/2000 (the "LOI") which detailed the manner by
which the joint visibility patrols, called Task Force Tulungan, would be conducted. 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. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (the "IBP") filed the instant petition to annul
LOI 02/2000 and to declare the deployment of the Philippine Marines null and void and unconstitutional, arguing that the
deployment of marines in Metro Manila is violative of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court found no merit in the petition. When the President calls the armed forces to prevent or suppress
lawless violence, invasion or rebellion, he necessarily exercises a discretionary power solely vested in his wisdom. This is
clear from the intent of the framers and from the text of the Constitution itself. The Court also ruled that the calling of the
Marines in this case constitutes permissible use of military assets for civilian law enforcement. The participation of the
Marines in the conduct of joint visibility patrols is appropriately circumscribed.
ANTECEDENT FACTS:
● The President, in a verbal directive, ordered the PNP and the Marines to conduct joint visibility patrols for the
purpose of crime prevention and suppression.
○ In compliance, Edgar B. Aglipay formulated Letter of Instruction 02/2000 (the "LOI") which detailed the
manner by which the joint visibility patrols, called Task Force Tulungan, would be conducted.
BLOCK 1-H (CARIÑO) – LEGAL METHOD, PROF. TUGADE
■ Task Force Tulungan was placed under the leadership of the Polic Chief of Metro Manila
● The President further stated that to heighten police visibility in the metropolis, augmentation from the AFP is
necessary.
○ Estrada 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.
○ Estrada further 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.
● IBP filed a petition
○ To annul LOI 02/2000 and
○ To declare the deployment of the Philippine Marines null and void and unconstitutional.
● Arguments of IBP
○ The deployment of the Philippine Marines in Metro Manila is violative of the Constitution, in that:
■ No emergency situation obtains in Metro Manila as would justify, even only remotely, the
deployment of soldiers for law enforcement work
■ Said deployment constitutes an insidious incursion by the military in a civilian function of
government
■ Said deployment creates a dangerous tendency to rely on the military to perform the civilian
functions of the government.
○ 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.
● Argument of OSG for respondents
○ IBP has no legal standing
○ The question of deployment of the Marines is not proper for judicial scrutiny since the same involves a
political question
○ The team-up does not violate the civilian supremacy clause of the Constitution
ISSUE(S) AND HOLDING(S):
1. Whether or not the President committed grave abuse of discretion in calling out the Marines – NO
2. Whether or not 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
RATIO:
1.
○ When the President calls the armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion,
he necessarily exercises a discretionary power solely vested in his wisdom.
■ This is clear from the intent of the framers and from the text of the Constitution itself.
■ In other words, it is the intention of the Constitution to give the President full discretionary
power to determine the necessity of calling out the armed forces
○ It is incumbent upon IBP to show that Estrada’s decision is totally bereft of factual basis
■ IBP failed to discharge such heavy burden as there is no evidence to support the assertion that
there exist no justification for calling out the armed forces.
■ No evidence to support the notion that grave abuse was committed
○ Only criterion for the callin out power is “whenever it becomes necessary”
2.
○ The calling of the Marines constitutes permissible use of military assets for civilian law enforcement
■ The participation of the Marines in the conduct of joint visibility patrols is appropriately
circumscribed
■ It is evident in LOI that the local police forces are the ones in charge of the visibility patrols at all
times
○ The real authority in the team-up operations, as clearly stated in the LOI, is lodged with the head
of a civilian institution (PNP), and not with the military.
■ Marines render nothing more than assistance in conducting patrols
BLOCK 1-H (CARIÑO) – LEGAL METHOD, PROF. TUGADE
○ Hence, there can be no "insidious incursion" of the military in civilian affairs nor can there be a violation of
the civilian supremacy clause in the Constitution.
DISPOSITIVE:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
SEPARATE OPINION:
○ J. Puno
■ While a member's opinion expressed on the floor of the Constitutional Convention is valuable, it is
not necessarily expressive of the people's intent.
■ The proceedings of the Convention are less conclusive on the proper construction of the
fundamental law than are legislative proceedings of the proper construction of a statute
● In the latter case, it is the intent of the legislature the courts seek, while in the former,
courts seek to arrive at the intent of the people through the discussions and deliberations
of their representatives.
■ The conventional wisdom is that the Constitution does not derive its force from the convention
which framed it, but from the people who ratified it, the intent to be arrived at is that of the people.
BLOCK 1-H (CARIÑO) – LEGAL METHOD, PROF. TUGADE
