IBP v. Zamora Aug.

15 2000

Background information:

- There was a rash of bombings and robberies throughout Metro Manila. To counter it, then President Joseph E.
Estrada commanded the Marines to join the PNP in “visibility patrols” around the Metro.

- These visibility patrols were referred to as Task Force Tulungan, and were under the leadership of the Police
Chief of Metro Manila.

Reminders:- In compliance with presidential mandate, PNP Chief of Staff formulated Letter of Instructions 02/2000 (LOI)

o The joint
Locus Standi – A personal visibility patrols
and substantial wasinmeant
interest to suppress
the case such thatcrime and other
the party threats toornational
has sustained security
will sustain and
direct will as a resul
injury
be applied to eradicate high-profile crimes perpetrated by organized crime syndicates
Judicial review requires that:
o Visibility patrols are to be under the authority of the PNP, not the military
There is an actual case at bar
Case at bar: Special Civil Action in the Supreme Court. Certiorari and Prohibition
The party raising the constitutional question has a personal and substantial interest in the case
The IBP prays for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order to nullify the President’s order of deploying the
The exercise of to
Marines judicial review
help the PNP.is pleaded at the earliest opportunity

The constitutional
The IBP arguequestion is the
that the lis mota of
deployment the case
is null and void because it’s unconstitutional because:

Lis Mota – The reason why the

o There suit
is no was filed in
Emergency the first place; the "commencement of the controversy and the beginning of the suit" (
Situation

 In derogation of Art 2, Sec. 3 of the Constitution

o The deployment is an insidious incursion by the military into a civilian function of government

 In derogation of Art 16, Sec. 5 of the Constitution

o The deployment creates a dangerous tendency to rely on the military for civilian government functions

IBP says that it has standing because it is the official organization of Filipino lawyers tasked with the “bounden duty to
uphold the rule of law and the Constitution”

The Solicitor General says:

o Petitioner has no legal standing

o The question of the Marines’ deployment is a political question and not proper for judicial scrutiny

o The organization of Task Force Tulungan does not violate the civilian supremacy clause of the
Constitution

ISSUES:

1. Does the petitioner have legal standing?

2. Is the President’s factual determination of the necessity of calling the armed forces subject to judicial review?

3. Does the calling of the armed forces to assist the PNP in joint visibility patrols violate constitutional provisions
on civilian supremacy?

DECISION: Petition is DISMISSED as being without merit

Why?

1. No, the petitioner does NOT have legal standing. Its only basis for legal standing is its “bounden duty,”
which is insufficient.

o It’s too general; it’s an interest shared by the whole citizenry and the IBP hasn’t sufficiently showed a
 “sufficient and substantial interest” in the resolution of the case

o IBP’s fundamental purpose is to “elevate the standards of the law profession and to improve the
administration of justice. That has NOTHING to do with the deployment of Marines.

o Despite the fact that the petitioner has no legal standing though, the Court has decided to take
cognizance of the issues raised, because of their transcendental significance and their seriousness,
novelty, and weight as precedents, and because the issues will probably not go away until they’ve
been resolved.

2. The President has full discretion to call out the military

o The question is a JUSTICIABLE question, and not a political one; it involves a question of legality and
not wisdom

o The Court cannot overrule the President’s wisdom; it can only determine whether or not he has
committed any abuse of discretion (a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment that is patent
and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by
law)

o Petitioner has failed to show that the exercise of that discretion was gravely abused

3. The deployment of the Marines is not a breach of the civilian supremacy clause

o The provisions of the LOI outline how the Marines will participate in the visibility patrols and what their
limits are

o The overall authority here will always belong to the PNP; the Metro Manila Police Chief is the overall
leader of the PNP-Philippine Marines joint visibility patrols

o Just because the Marines help the PNP doesn’t mean that the PNP will no longer be a civilian institution

SEPARATE OPINIONS:

Justice Puno

- The government’s attempt to use the “political question” doctrine to keep the act from judicial scrutiny could
have weakened the Supreme Court’s checking authority (a tongue-in-cheek reminder of Javellana vs.
Executive Secretary)

- The Constitution derives its force from the PEOPLE

- The express grant of power to the Supreme Court to review the factual bases used by the President in the
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and the declaration of martial law means that the
court cannot say no to the exercise of its power because of the political question doctrine; the “calling out”
power may be a lesser power, but it shouldn’t be left to the President’s absolute discretion

- The judiciary is the department which is charged with the special duty of determining the limitations which the
law places upon all official actions.

Justice Vitug

- The President’s just asking the AFP to help the PNP; it’s not a grave abuse of discretion, and it’s not enough of
an issue to require the Supreme Court’s exercise of judicial power
Justice Mendoza

- For the Court to take cognizance of an issue, petitioners should have locus standi, and there should be an
ACTUAL CASE

- The petitioner does not have locus standi, even if it is an organization for the advancement of the rule of law –
if that’s the only reason, it’s not enough.

- The lack of a real, earnest, vital controversy can only impoverish the judicial process

- Injury in Fact test (the determine locus standi):

o Petitioner must have suffered or will suffer an “injury in fact”

o There must be a CAUSAL connection between the injury and the conduct complained of

o The injury can be redressed by the Court through a favorable action