Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Facts:: Integrated Bar of The Philippines v. Zamora G.R. No. 141284. August 15, 2000

    Uploaded by

    Glenda Mae Gemal
    33 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) The President's determination that the armed forces are necessary is subject to judicial review to check for constitutional violations or grave abuse of discretion, but the court will not second-guess the wisdom of the decision. 2) The calling of the armed forces to assist the police in joint visibility patrols does not violate civilian supremacy over the military or the civilian character of the police, as the police remain in charge and the military provides limited, assisting functions under police direction and control.

    Original Description:

    aaa

    Original Title

    aaa

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) The President's determination that the armed forces are necessary is subject to judicial review to check for constitutional violations or grave abuse of discretion, but the court will not second-guess the wisdom of the decision. 2) The calling of the armed forces to assist the police in joint visibility patrols does not violate civilian supremacy over the military or the civilian character of the police, as the police remain in charge and the military provides limited, assisting functions under police direction and control.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    33 views1 page

    Facts:: Integrated Bar of The Philippines v. Zamora G.R. No. 141284. August 15, 2000

    Uploaded by

    Glenda Mae Gemal
    The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) The President's determination that the armed forces are necessary is subject to judicial review to check for constitutional violations or grave abuse of discretion, but the court will not second-guess the wisdom of the decision. 2) The calling of the armed forces to assist the police in joint visibility patrols does not violate civilian supremacy over the military or the civilian character of the police, as the police remain in charge and the military provides limited, assisting functions under police direction and control.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Integrated Bar of the Philippines v.

    Zamora
    G.R. No. 141284. August 15, 2000
    FACTS:
    The Secretary of National Defense, the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), the Chief
    of the PNP and the Secretary of the Interior and Local Government were tasked to conduct joint visibility
    patrols for the purpose of crime prevention and suppression. The PNP Chief, through Police Chief
    Superintendent Edgar B. Aglipay, formulated Letter of Instruction 02/2000 (LOI) which detailed the manner by
    which the joint visibility patrols would be conducted under the leadership of the Police Chief of Metro Manila.
    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 (IBP) questions the validity of the deployment and utilization of the Marines to
    assist the PNP in law enforcement. It contends that no lawless violence, invasion or rebellion exist to warrant
    the calling of the Marines. Thus, it prays that this Court review the sufficiency of the factual basis for Marine
    deployment.
    ISSUE:
    (1) Whether or not the President’s factual determination of the necessity of calling the armed forces is subject to
    judicial review.

    (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.
    HELD:
    (1) 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 - the problem
    being one of legality or validity, not its wisdom. Moreover, the jurisdiction to delimit constitutional boundaries
    has been given to this Court. 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. The Court,
    thus, cannot be called upon to overrule the President’s 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. The present petition fails to
    discharge such heavy burden as there is no evidence to support the assertion that there exists no justification for
    calling out the armed forces. There is, likewise, no evidence to support the proposition that grave abuse was
    committed because the power to call was exercised in such a manner as to violate the constitutional provision
    on civilian supremacy over the military. There is a 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.

    (2) No. The calling of the Marines in this case constitutes permissible use of military assets
    for civilian law enforcement. The limited participation of the Marines is evident in the
    provisions of the LOI itself, which sufficiently provides the metes and bounds of the
    Marines’ authority. It is noteworthy that the local police forces are the ones in charge of
    the visibility patrols at all times, the real authority belonging to the PNP. In fact, the
    Metro Manila Police Chief is the overall leader of the PNP-Philippine Marines joint visibility
    patrols. Under the LOI, the police forces are tasked to brief or orient the soldiers on
    police patrol procedures. It is their responsibility to direct and manage the deployment of
    the Marines. It is, likewise, their duty to provide the necessary equipment to the Marines
    and render logistical support to these soldiers. In view of the foregoing, it cannot be
    properly argued that military authority is supreme over civilian authority. Moreover, the
    deployment of the Marines to assist the PNP does not unmake the civilian character of
    the police force. Neither does it amount to an “insidious incursion” of the military in the
    task of law enforcement in violation of Section 5(4), Article XVI of the Constitution.
    Considering the above circumstances, the Marines render nothing more than assistance
    required in conducting the patrols.

    You might also like