Ampatuan v. Puno (2011)
Ampatuan v. Puno (2011)
v.
Puno
(2011)
|
G.R.
No.
190259
|
June
7,
2011
|
Ponente:
Abad,
J.
NATURE
OF
THE
CASE:
Petition
for
Prohibition
PETITIONERS:
Datu
Zaldy
Uy
Ampatuan,
Ansaruddin
Adiong,
Regie
Sahali-‐Generale
RESPONDENTS:
Hon.
Ronaldo
Puno
(DILG
Secretary
and
alter-‐ego
of
PGMA),
AFP
in
ARMM,
PNP
in
ARMM
SUMMARY:
Petitioners
assail
the
issuance
of
Proclamation
1946
as
well
as
the
exercise
of
PGMA
“call-‐out”
power
as
an
invalid
exercise
of
the
President’s
emergency
powers.
The
Court
ruled
otherwise
and
held
that
PGMA
had
factual
bases
for
her
actions.
DOCTRINE:
Commander-‐in-‐Chief;
call-‐out
power
FACTS:
• Nov.
23,
2009
–
Ampatuan
massacre
(57
people)
• Nov.
24,
2009
–
President
Gloria
Macapagal
Arroyo
(PGMA)
issued
Proclamation
1946
placing
“the
Provinces
of
Maguindanao
and
Sultan
Kudarat
and
the
City
of
Cotabato
under
a
state
of
emergency”
o Directed
the
Armed
Forces
of
the
Philippines
(AFP)
&
the
Philippine
National
Police
(PNP)
“to
undertake
such
measures
as
may
be
allowed
by
the
Constitution
and
by
law
to
prevent
and
suppress
all
incidents
of
lawless
violence”
• Nov.
27,
2009
–
PGMA
issued
Administrative
Order
273
(AO
273)
transferring
supervision
of
the
Autonomous
Region
of
Muslim
Mindanao
(ARMM)
from
the
Office
of
the
President
to
the
Department
of
Interior
Local
Government
(DILG)
o AO
273-‐A
–
amended
AO
273
due
to
issues
raised
over
terminology;
delegates
instead
of
transfers
supervision
of
the
ARMM
to
the
DILG
• Petitioners
filed
this
petition
for
prohibition
to
assail
the
proclamation
and
orders,
arguing
that:
o The
DILG
Secretary
is
empowered
to
take
over
ARMM’s
operations
and
seize
the
regional
government’s
powers,
in
violation
of
the
principle
of
local
autonomy
under
the
Constitution
and
RA
9054
(Expanded
ARMM
Act)
§ Since
the
DILG
Secretary
could
suspend
and
replace
ARMM
officials,
he
was
given
the
power
to
exercise
not
merely
administrative
supervision,
but
control
over
the
ARMM
o The
President
had
no
factual
basis
for
declaring
a
state
of
emergency
(especially
in
the
Province
of
Sultan
Kudarat
and
City
of
Cotabato
where
no
critical
violence
occurred)
§ Thus,
the
deployment
of
troops
and
the
taking
over
of
the
ARMM
was
an
invalid
exercise
of
the
President’s
emergency
powers
• Respondents
contend
that:
o PGMA
issued
Proclamation
1946
to
restore
peace
and
order,
pursuant
to
her
“calling
out”
power
as
Commander-‐in-‐Chief
under
Sec.
18,
Art.
7
of
the
1987
Constitution
§ The
determination
of
the
need
to
exercise
this
power
rests
solely
on
PGMA’s
wisdom,
using
judgment
based
on
intelligence
reports
and
information
available
o PGMA
merely
delegated
through
the
AOs
her
supervisory
powers
over
the
ARMM
to
the
DILG
Secretary,
her
alter
ego
§ The
orders
did
not
authorize
a
take
over
of
ARMM,
nor
give
him
blanket
authority
to
susepend
or
replace
ARMM
officials
§ Such
delegation
was
necessary
to
investigate
the
mass
killings
§ The
proclamation
and
AOs
did
not
provide
for
the
exercise
of
emergency
powers
• Normalcy
returned
to
the
subject
places,
but
the
Court
still
ruled
on
the
issues
as
some
acts
done
pursuant
to
the
proclamation
and
AOs
could
affect
the
administrative
and
criminal
cases
the
government
subsequently
filed
ISSUES
+
RULING:
1. WoN
Proclamation
1946
and
AOs
273
and
273-‐A
violate
the
principle
of
local
autonomy
under
Sec.
16,
Art.
10
of
the
1987
Constitution,
and
Sec.
1,
Art.
5
of
RA
9054
(Expanded
ARMM
Organic
Act)
–
NO
• DILG
Secretary
did
not
take
over
control
of
the
powers
of
the
ARMM
as
he
did
not
take
over
the
administration
or
operations
of
the
ARMM
o After
respondent
Governor
of
ARMM
was
taken
into
custody
for
alleged
complicity
in
the
Maguindanao
massacre,
the
ARMM
Vice-‐Governor
(petitioner
Adiong)
assumed
his
post
o Acting
Governor
Adiong
then
named
Speaker
of
the
ARMM
Regional
Assembly
(petitioner
Sahali-‐Generale)
as
Acting
ARMM
Vice-‐Governor
2. WON
PGMA
invalidly
exercised
emergency
powers
when
she
called
out
the
AFP
and
the
PNP
to
prevent
and
suppress
all
incidents
of
lawless
violence
in
the
subject
places
–
NO
• The
deployment
of
AFP
and
PNP
personnel
is
not
by
itself
an
exercise
of
emergency
powers
as
understood
under
Sec.
23
(2),
Art.
6
of
the
1987
Constitution
o “SEC.
23.
x
x
x
(2)
In
times
of
war
or
other
national
emergency,
the
Congress
may,
by
law,
authorize
the
President,
for
a
limited
period
and
subject
to
such
restrictions
as
it
may
prescribe,
to
exercise
powers
necessary
and
proper
to
carry
out
a
declared
national
policy.
Unless
sooner
withdrawn
by
resolution
of
the
Congress,
such
powers
shall
cease
upon
the
next
adjournment
thereof.”
• PGMA
did
not
proclaim
a
national
emergency,
only
a
state
of
emergency
in
the
three
places
mentioned.
She
likewise
did
not
act
pursuant
to
any
law
enacted
by
Congress
authorizing
her
to
exercise
extraordinary
powers.
• “Calling
out”
power
is
one
that
the
Constitution
directly
vests
in
the
President;
she
did
not
need
congressional
authority
to
exercise
this
power
3. WON
PGMA
had
factual
bases
for
her
actions
-‐
YES
• The
President’s
calling
out
power
is
vested
in
her
under
Sec.
18,
Art.
7
of
the
1987
Constitution
o “SEC.
18.
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.”
• While
the
Court
may
inquire
into
the
factual
bases
for
the
exercise
of
this
power,
it
would
generally
defer
to
the
President’s
judgment
o IBP
v.
Zamora:
The
Constitution
entrusts
to
the
President
the
determination
of
the
need
to
call
out
the
armed
forces
to
prevent/suppress
lawless
violence.
The
Court
will
only
look
into
the
factual
bases
by
a
showing
of
grave
abuse
of
discretion
in
such
determination.
o Difficult
for
the
Court
to
judge
necessity
without
textual
standards
+
verify
pertinent
information.
On
the
other
hand,
the
President
has
a
vast
intelligence
network
to
gather
information
(most
of
which
are
classified
as
highly
confidential).
o On-‐the-‐spot
decisions
may
be
imperative
in
emergency
situations;
the
decision
to
call
out
must
be
done
swiftly
to
avert
great
loss
of
human
lives
and
mass
destruction
of
property.
• Petitioners
failed
to
show
that
the
declaration
of
a
state
of
emergency
in
the
subject
places
+
the
President’s
exercise
of
the
“call
out”
power
had
no
factual
basis
o On
the
other
hand,
the
OSG
presents
the
following
factual
bases:
§ The
Ampatuan
and
Mangudadatu
clans
were
rivals
engaged
in
the
political
control
of
Maguindanao,
both
with
personal
armed
followers
and
Special
Civilian
Auxiliary
Army
personnel
§ As
the
principal
victims
of
the
Ampatuan
clan’s
brutal
massacre
were
members
of
the
Mangdadatu
clan,
the
military
and
police
had
to
prepare
for
and
prevent
retaliatory
actions.
Rebel
armed
groups
were
also
reported
to
be
involved.
§ Given
the
imminence
of
violence
and
anarchy,
PGMA
issued
Proclamation
1946
and
called
out
the
armed
forces
to
control
the
proliferation
of
loose
firearms
and
dismantle
the
armed
groups
threatenening
the
peace
and
security
in
the
subject
places.
FINAL
RULING:
Petition
dismissed
for
lack
of
merit.