INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES, 

petitioner, vs. HON.
RONALDO B. ZAMORA, GEN. PANFILO M. LACSON, GEN.
EDGAR B. AGLIPAY, and GEN. ANGELO REYES, respondents.

DECISION
KAPUNAN, J.:

At bar is 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 Joseph Ejercito Estrada commanding the
deployment of the Philippine Marines (the Marines) to join the Philippine
National Police (the PNP) in visibility patrols around the metropolis.
In view of the alarming increase in violent crimes in Metro Manila, like
robberies, kidnappings and carnappings, 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. The Secretary of National
Defense, the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (the AFP),
the Chief of the PNP and the Secretary of the Interior and Local Government
were tasked to execute and implement the said order.In compliance with the
presidential mandate, the PNP Chief, through Police Chief Superintendent
Edgar B. Aglipay, formulated Letter of Instruction 02/2000[1] (the LOI) which
detailed the manner by which the joint visibility patrols, called Task
Force Tulungan, would be conducted.[2] Task Force Tulungan was placed
under the leadership of the Police Chief of Metro Manila.
Subsequently, the President confirmed his previous directive on the
deployment of the Marines in a Memorandum, dated 24 January 2000,
addressed to the Chief of Staff of the AFP and the PNP Chief. [3] In the
Memorandum, the President expressed his desire to improve the peace and
order situation in Metro Manila through a more effective crime prevention
program including increased police patrols.[4] The President further stated that
to heighten police visibility in the metropolis, augmentation from the AFP is
necessary.[5] 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.[6] Finally, the President 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.[7]
 The LOI explains the concept of the PNP-Philippine Marines joint visibility
patrols as follows:
xxx

2. PURPOSE:

The Joint Implementing Police Visibility Patrols between the PNP NCRPO and
the Philippine Marines partnership in the conduct of visibility patrols in Metro
Manila for the suppression of crime prevention and other serious threats to
national security.

3. SITUATION:

Criminal incidents in Metro Manila have been perpetrated not only by ordinary
criminals but also by organized syndicates whose members include active
and former police/military personnel whose training, skill, discipline and
firepower prove well-above the present capability of the local police alone to
handle. The deployment of a joint PNP NCRPO-Philippine Marines in the
conduct of police visibility patrol in urban areas will reduce the incidence of
crimes specially those perpetrated by active or former police/military
personnel.

4. MISSION:

The PNP NCRPO will organize a provisional Task Force to conduct joint
NCRPO-PM visibility patrols to keep Metro Manila streets crime-free, through
a sustained street patrolling to minimize or eradicate all forms of high-profile
crimes especially those perpetrated by organized crime syndicates whose
members include those that are well-trained, disciplined and well-armed
active or former PNP/Military personnel.

5. CONCEPT IN JOINT VISIBILITY PATROL OPERATIONS:

a. The visibility patrols shall be conducted jointly by the NCRPO [National

Capital Regional Police Office] and the Philippine Marines to curb criminality
in Metro Manila and to preserve the internal security of the state against
insurgents and other serious threat to national security, although the primary
responsibility over Internal Security Operations still rests upon the AFP.

b. The principle of integration of efforts shall be applied to eradicate all forms

of high-profile crimes perpetrated by organized crime syndicates operating in
Metro Manila. This concept requires the military and police to work cohesively
and unify efforts to ensure a focused, effective and holistic approach in
addressing crime prevention. Along this line, the role of the military and police
aside from neutralizing crime syndicates is to bring a wholesome atmosphere
wherein delivery of basic services to the people and development is achieved.
Hand-in-hand with this joint NCRPO-Philippine Marines visibility patrols, local
Police Units are responsible for the maintenance of peace and order in their
locality.

c. To ensure the effective implementation of this project, a provisional Task

Force TULUNGAN shall be organized to provide the mechanism, structure,
and procedures for the integrated planning, coordinating, monitoring and
assessing the security situation.

xxx.[8]
The selected areas of deployment under the LOI are: Monumento Circle,
North Edsa (SM City), Araneta Shopping Center, Greenhills, SM Megamall,
Makati Commercial Center, LRT/MRT Stations and the NAIA and Domestic
Airport.[9]
On 17 January 2000, 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:
I

THE DEPLOYMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE MARINES IN METRO MANILA IS

VIOLATIVE OF THE CONSTITUTION, IN THAT:

A) NO EMERGENCY SITUATION OBTAINS IN METRO MANILA AS WOULD

JUSTIFY, EVEN ONLY REMOTELY, THE DEPLOYMENT OF SOLDIERS
FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT WORK; HENCE, SAID DEPLOYMENT IS IN
DEROGATION OF ARTICLE II, SECTION 3 OF THE CONSTITUTION;

B) SAID DEPLOYMENT CONSTITUTES AN INSIDIOUS INCURSION BY

THE MILITARY IN A CIVILIAN FUNCTION OF GOVERNMENT (LAW
ENFORCEMENT) IN DEROGATION OF ARTICLE XVI, SECTION 5 (4), OF
THE CONSTITUTION;

C) SAID DEPLOYMENT CREATES A DANGEROUS TENDENCY TO RELY

ON THE MILITARY TO PERFORM THE CIVILIAN FUNCTIONS OF THE
GOVERNMENT.
II
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.[10]

Asserting itself as the official organization of Filipino lawyers tasked with

the bounden duty to uphold the rule of law and the Constitution, the IBP
questions the validity of the deployment and utilization of the Marines to assist
the PNP in law enforcement.
Without granting due course to the petition, the Court in a Resolution,
 dated 25 January 2000, required the Solicitor General to file his Comment
[11]

on the petition.On 8 February 2000, the Solicitor General submitted his

Comment.
The Solicitor General vigorously defends the constitutionality of the act of
the President in deploying the Marines, contending, among others, that
petitioner has no legal standing; that the question of deployment of the
Marines is not proper for judicial scrutiny since the same involves a political
question; that the organization and conduct of police visibility patrols, which
feature the team-up of one police officer and one Philippine Marine soldier,
does not violate the civilian supremacy clause in the Constitution.
The issues raised in the present petition are: (1) Whether or not petitioner
has legal standing; (2) Whether or not the Presidents factual determination of
the necessity of calling the armed forces is subject to judicial review; and, (3)
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.
The petition has no merit.
First, petitioner failed to sufficiently show that it is in possession of the
requisites of standing to raise the issues in the petition. Second, the President
did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction nor did he commit a violation of the civilian supremacy clause of
the Constitution.
The power of judicial review is set forth in Section 1, Article VIII of the
Constitution, to wit:

Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in
such lower courts as may be established by law.
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual
controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable,
and to determine whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government.

When questions of constitutional significance are raised, the Court can

exercise its power of judicial review only if the following requisites are
complied with, namely: (1) the existence of an actual and appropriate case;
(2) a personal and substantial interest of the party raising the constitutional
question; (3) the exercise of judicial review is pleaded at the earliest
opportunity; and (4) the constitutional question is the lis mota of the case.[12]

The IBP has not sufficiently complied with the requisites of standing in
this case.

Legal standing or locus standi has been defined as a personal and

substantial interest in the case such that the party has sustained or will
sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act that is being
challenged.[13] The term interest means a material interest, an interest in issue
affected by the decree, as distinguished from mere interest in the question
involved, or a mere incidental interest.[14] The gist of the question of standing is
whether a party alleges such personal stake in the outcome of the controversy
as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of
issues upon which the court depends for illumination of difficult constitutional
questions.[15]
In the case at bar, the IBP primarily anchors its standing on its alleged
responsibility to uphold the rule of law and the Constitution. Apart from this
declaration, however, the IBP asserts no other basis in support of its locus
standi. The mere invocation by the IBP of its duty to preserve the rule of law
and nothing more, while undoubtedly true, is not sufficient to clothe it with
standing in this case. This is too general an interest which is shared by other
groups and the whole citizenry. Based on the standards above-stated, the IBP
has failed to present a specific and substantial interest in the resolution of the
case. Its fundamental purpose which, under Section 2, Rule 139-A of the
Rules of Court, is to elevate the standards of the law profession and to
improve the administration of justice is alien to, and cannot be affected by the
deployment of the Marines. It should also be noted that the interest of the
National President of the IBP who signed the petition, is his alone, absent a
formal board resolution authorizing him to file the present action. To be sure,
members of the BAR, those in the judiciary included, have varying opinions on
the issue. Moreover, the IBP, assuming that it has duly authorized the
National President to file the petition, has not shown any specific injury which
it has suffered or may suffer by virtue of the questioned governmental
act. Indeed, none of its members, whom the IBP purportedly represents, has
sustained any form of injury as a result of the operation of the joint visibility
patrols. Neither is it alleged that any of its members has been arrested or that
their civil liberties have been violated by the deployment of the Marines. What
the IBP projects as injurious is the supposed militarization of law enforcement
which might threaten Philippine democratic institutions and may cause more
harm than good in the long run. Not only is the presumed injury not personal
in character, it is likewise too vague, highly speculative and uncertain to
satisfy the requirement of standing.Since petitioner has not successfully
established a direct and personal injury as a consequence of the questioned
act, it does not possess the personality to assail the validity of the deployment
of the Marines. This Court, however, does not categorically rule that the IBP
has absolutely no standing to raise constitutional issues now or in the
future. The IBP must, by way of allegations and proof, satisfy this Court that it
has sufficient stake to obtain judicial resolution of the controversy.
Having stated the foregoing, it must be emphasized that this Court has the
discretion to take cognizance of a suit which does not satisfy the requirement
of legal standing when paramount interest is involved.[16] In not a few cases,
the Court has adopted a liberal attitude on the locus standi of a petitioner
where the petitioner is able to craft an issue of transcendental significance to
the people.[17] Thus, when the issues raised are of paramount importance to
the public, the Court may brush aside technicalities of procedure. [18] In this
case, a reading of the petition shows that the IBP has advanced constitutional
issues which deserve the attention of this Court in view of their seriousness,
novelty and weight as precedents. Moreover, because peace and order are
under constant threat and lawless violence occurs in increasing tempo,
undoubtedly aggravated by the Mindanao insurgency problem, the legal
controversy raised in the petition almost certainly will not go away. It will stare
us in the face again. It, therefore, behooves the Court to relax the rules on
standing and to resolve the issue now, rather than later.

The President did not commit grave abuse of discretion in calling out the Marines.

In the case at bar, the bone of contention concerns the factual

determination of the President of the necessity of calling the armed forces,
particularly the Marines, to aid the PNP in visibility patrols. In this regard, the
IBP admits that the deployment of the military personnel falls under the
Commander-in-Chief powers of the President as stated in Section 18, Article
VII of the Constitution, specifically, the power to call out the armed forces to
prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion.What the IBP
questions, however, is the basis for the calling of the Marines under the
aforestated provision. According to the IBP, no emergency exists that would
justify the need for the calling of the military to assist the police force. It
contends that no lawless violence, invasion or rebellion exist to warrant the
calling of the Marines. Thus, the IBP prays that this Court review the
sufficiency of the factual basis for said troop [Marine] deployment.[19]
The Solicitor General, on the other hand, contends that the issue
pertaining to the necessity of calling the armed forces is not proper for judicial
scrutiny since it involves a political question and the resolution of factual
issues which are beyond the review powers of this Court.
As framed by the parties, the underlying issues are the scope of
presidential powers and limits, and the extent of judicial review. But, while this
Court gives considerable weight to the parties formulation of the issues, the
resolution of the controversy may warrant a creative approach that goes
beyond the narrow confines of the issues raised. Thus, while the parties are in
agreement that the power exercised by the President is the power to call out
the armed forces, the Court is of the view that the power involved may be no
more than the maintenance of peace and order and promotion of the general
welfare.[20] For one, the realities on the ground do not show that there exist a
state of warfare, widespread civil unrest or anarchy. Secondly, the full brunt of
the military is not brought upon the citizenry, a point discussed in the latter
part of this decision. In the words of the late Justice Irene Cortes in Marcos v.
Manglapus:

More particularly, this case calls for the exercise of the Presidents powers as
protector of the peace. [Rossiter, The American Presidency]. The power of the
President to keep the peace is not limited merely to exercising the
commander-in-chief powers in times of emergency or to leading the State
against external and internal threats to its existence. The President is not only
clothed with extraordinary powers in times of emergency, but is also tasked
with attending to the day-to-day problems of maintaining peace and order and
ensuring domestic tranquility in times when no foreign foe appears on the
horizon. Wide discretion, within the bounds of law, in fulfilling presidential
duties in times of peace is not in any way diminished by the relative want of an
emergency specified in the commander-in-chief provision. For in making the
President commander-in-chief the enumeration of powers that follow cannot
be said to exclude the Presidents exercising as Commander-in-Chief powers
short of the calling of the armed forces, or suspending the privilege of the writ
of habeas corpus or declaring martial law, in order to keep the peace, and
maintain public order and security.

xxx[21]
Nonetheless, even if it is conceded that the power involved is the
Presidents power to call out the armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless
violence, invasion or rebellion, the resolution of the controversy will reach a
similar result.
We now address the Solicitor Generals argument that the issue involved is
not susceptible to review by the judiciary because it involves a political
question, and thus, not justiciable.
As a general proposition, a controversy is justiciable if it refers to a matter
which is appropriate for court review.[22] It pertains to issues which are
inherently susceptible of being decided on grounds recognized by law.
Nevertheless, the Court does not automatically assume jurisdiction over
actual constitutional cases brought before it even in instances that are ripe for
resolution. One class of cases wherein the Court hesitates to rule on are
political questions. The reason is that political questions are concerned with
issues dependent upon the wisdom, not the legality, of a particular act or
measure being assailed. Moreover, the political question being a function of
the separation of powers, the courts will not normally interfere with the
workings of another co-equal branch unless the case shows a clear need for
the courts to step in to uphold the law and the Constitution.
As Taada v. Cuenco[23] puts it, political questions refer to those questions
which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their
sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been
delegated to the legislative or executive branch of government. Thus, if an
issue is clearly identified by the text of the Constitution as matters for
discretionary action by a particular branch of government or to the people
themselves then it is held to be a political question. In the classic formulation
of Justice Brennan in Baker v. Carr,[24] [p]rominent on the surface of any case
held to involve a political question is found a textually demonstrable
constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department; or
a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it; or
the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind
clearly for nonjudicial discretion; or the impossibility of a courts undertaking
independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate
branches of government; or an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to
a political decision already made; or the potentiality of embarassment from
multifarious pronouncements by various departments on the one question.
The 1987 Constitution expands the concept of judicial review by providing
that (T)he Judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such
lower courts as may be established by law. Judicial power includes the duty of
the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are
legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there
has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.
[25]
 Under this definition, the Court cannot agree with the Solicitor General that
the issue involved is a political question beyond the jurisdiction of this Court to
review. 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. [26] Moreover, the jurisdiction to delimit
constitutional boundaries has been given to this Court.[27] When political
questions are involved, the Constitution limits the determination as to whether
or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction on the part of the official whose action is being questioned.[28]
By grave abuse of discretion is meant simply 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, or to act at
all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and
despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility.[29] Under this definition, a
court is without power to directly decide matters over which full discretionary
authority has been delegated. But while this Court has no power to substitute
its judgment for that of Congress or of the President, it may look into the
question of whether such exercise has been made in grave abuse of
discretion.[30] A showing that plenary power is granted either department of
government, may not be an obstacle to judicial inquiry, for the improvident
exercise or abuse thereof may give rise to justiciable controversy.[31]
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, thus, cannot be called upon
to overrule the Presidents 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. In view of the constitutional intent to
give the President full discretionary power to determine the necessity of
calling out the armed forces, it is incumbent upon the petitioner to show that
the Presidents decision is totally bereft of factual basis. The present petition
fails 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. 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. In the performance of this Courts duty of purposeful
hesitation[32] before declaring an act of another branch as unconstitutional, only
where such grave abuse of discretion is clearly shown shall the Court interfere
with the Presidents judgment. To doubt is to sustain.
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. Section 18, Article VII
of the Constitution, which embodies the powers of the President as
Commander-in-Chief, provides in part:

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. In case
of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he may, for a period
not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus,
or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law.

xxx
The full discretionary power of the President to determine the factual basis
for the exercise of the calling out power is also implied and further reinforced
in the rest of Section 18, Article VII which reads, thus:
xxx

Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension
of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a
report in person or in writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by
a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session,
may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be
set aside by the President. Upon the initiative of the President, the Congress
may, in the same manner, extend such proclamation or suspension for a
period to be determined by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall
persist and public safety requires it.

The Congress, if not in session, shall within twenty-four hours following such
proclamation or suspension, convene in accordance with its rules without
need of a call.

The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any

citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or
the suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension thereof, and must
promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing.

A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor
supplant the functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies, nor
authorize the conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over
civilians where civil courts are able to function, nor automatically suspend the
privilege of the writ.

The suspension of the privilege of the writ shall apply only to persons judicially
charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected with
invasion.

During the suspension of the privilege of the writ, any person thus arrested or
detained shall be judicially charged within three days, otherwise he shall be
released.

Under the foregoing provisions, Congress may revoke such proclamation

or suspension and the Court may review the sufficiency of the factual basis
thereof.However, there is no such equivalent provision dealing with the
revocation or review of the Presidents action to call out the armed forces. The
distinction places the calling out power in a different category from the power
to declare martial law and the power to suspend the privilege of the writ
of habeas corpus, otherwise, the framers of the Constitution would have
simply lumped together the three powers and provided for their revocation and
review without any qualification. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. Where
the terms are expressly limited to certain matters, it may not, by interpretation
or construction, be extended to other matters. [33] That the intent of the
Constitution is exactly what its letter says, i.e., that the power to call is fully
discretionary to the President, is extant in the deliberation of the Constitutional
Commission, to wit:
FR. BERNAS. It will not make any difference. I may add that there is a
graduated power of the President as Commander-in-Chief. First, he can call
out such Armed Forces as may be necessary to suppress lawless violence;
then he can suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, then he can
impose martial law. This is a graduated sequence.

When he judges that it is necessary to impose martial law or suspend the

privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, his judgment is subject to review. We
are making it subject to review by the Supreme Court and subject to
concurrence by the National Assembly. But when he exercises this lesser
power of calling on the Armed Forces, when he says it is necessary, it is my
opinion that his judgment cannot be reviewed by anybody.

xxx

FR. BERNAS. Let me just add that when we only have imminent danger, the
matter can be handled by the first sentence: The President may call out such
armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion.
So we feel that that is sufficient for handling imminent danger.

MR. DE LOS REYES. So actually, if a President feels that there is imminent

danger, the matter can be handled by the First Sentence: The
President....may call out such Armed Forces to prevent or suppress lawless
violence, invasion or rebellion. So we feel that that is sufficient for handling
imminent danger, of invasion or rebellion, instead of imposing martial law or
suspending the writ of habeas corpus, he must necessarily have to call the
Armed Forces of the Philippines as their Commander-in-Chief. Is that the
idea?

MR. REGALADO. That does not require any concurrence by the legislature

nor is it subject to judicial review.[34]

The reason for the difference in the treatment of the aforementioned

powers highlights the intent to grant the President the widest leeway and
broadest discretion in using the power to call out because it is considered as
the lesser and more benign power compared to the power to suspend the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and the power to impose martial law,
both of which involve the curtailment and suppression of certain basic civil
rights and individual freedoms, and thus necessitating safeguards by
Congress and review by this Court.
 Moreover, under Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution, in the exercise
of the power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or to
impose martial law, two conditions must concur: (1) there must be an actual
invasion or rebellion and, (2) public safety must require it. These conditions
are not required in the case of the power to call out the armed forces. The
only criterion is that whenever it becomes necessary, the President may call
the armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or
rebellion." The implication is that the President is given full discretion and wide
latitude in the exercise of the power to call as compared to the two other
powers.
If the petitioner fails, by way of proof, to support the assertion that the
President acted without factual basis, then this Court cannot undertake an
independent investigation beyond the pleadings. The factual necessity of
calling out the armed forces is not easily quantifiable and cannot be
objectively established since matters considered for satisfying the same is a
combination of several factors which are not always accessible to the courts.
Besides the absence of textual standards that the court may use to judge
necessity, information necessary to arrive at such judgment might also prove
unmanageable for the courts. Certain pertinent information might be difficult to
verify, or wholly unavailable to the courts. In many instances, the evidence
upon which the President might decide that there is a need to call out the
armed forces may be of a nature not constituting technical proof.
On the other hand, the President as Commander-in-Chief has a vast
intelligence network to gather information, some of which may be classified as
highly confidential or affecting the security of the state. In the exercise of the
power to call, on-the-spot decisions may be imperatively necessary in
emergency situations to avert great loss of human lives and mass destruction
of property. Indeed, the decision to call out the military to prevent or suppress
lawless violence must be done swiftly and decisively if it were to have any
effect at all. Such a scenario is not farfetched when we consider the present
situation in Mindanao, where the insurgency problem could spill over the other
parts of the country. The determination of the necessity for the calling out
power if subjected to unfettered judicial scrutiny could be a veritable
prescription for disaster, as such power may be unduly straitjacketed by an
injunction or a temporary restraining order every time it is exercised.
Thus, it is the unclouded intent of the Constitution to vest upon the
President, as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, full discretion to call
forth the military when in his judgment it is necessary to do so in order to
prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. Unless the
petitioner can show that the exercise of such discretion was gravely abused,
the Presidents exercise of judgment deserves to be accorded respect from
this Court.
The President has already determined the necessity and factual basis for
calling the armed forces. In his Memorandum, he categorically asserted that,
[V]iolent crimes like bank/store robberies, holdups, kidnappings and
carnappings continue to occur in Metro Manila...[35] We do not doubt the
veracity of the Presidents assessment of the situation, especially in the light of
present developments. The Court takes judicial notice of the recent bombings
perpetrated by lawless elements in the shopping malls, public utilities, and
other public places. These are among the areas of deployment described in
the LOI 2000. Considering all these facts, we hold that the President has
sufficient factual basis to call for military aid in law enforcement and in the
exercise of this constitutional power.

The deployment of the Marines does not violate the civilian supremacy
clause nor does it infringe the civilian character of the police force.

Prescinding from its argument that no emergency situation exists to justify

the calling of the Marines, the IBP asserts that by the deployment of the
Marines, the civilian task of law enforcement is militarized in violation of
Section 3, Article II[36] of the Constitution.
We disagree. The deployment of the Marines does not constitute a breach
of the civilian supremacy clause. 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. 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. [37] Under the LOI,
the police forces are tasked to brief or orient the soldiers on police patrol
procedures.[38] It is their responsibility to direct and manage the deployment of
the Marines.[39] It is, likewise, their duty to provide the necessary equipment to
the Marines and render logistical support to these soldiers.[40] 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.[41]
In this regard, it is not correct to say that General Angelo Reyes, Chief of
Staff of the AFP, by his alleged involvement in civilian law enforcement, has
been virtually appointed to a civilian post in derogation of the aforecited
provision. The real authority in these operations, as stated in the LOI, is
lodged with the head of a civilian institution, the PNP, and not with the
military. Such being the case, it does not matter whether the AFP Chief
actually participates in the Task Force Tulungan since he does not exercise
any authority or control over the same. Since none of the Marines was
incorporated or enlisted as members of the PNP, there can be no
appointmentto 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.
Considering the above circumstances, the Marines render nothing more
than assistance required in conducting the patrols. As such, 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.
It is worth mentioning that military assistance to civilian authorities in
various forms persists in Philippine jurisdiction. The Philippine experience
reveals that it is not averse to requesting the assistance of the military in the
implementation and execution of certain traditionally civil functions. As
correctly pointed out by the Solicitor General, some of the multifarious
activities wherein military aid has been rendered, exemplifying the activities
that bring both the civilian and the military together in a relationship of
cooperation, are:
1. Elections;[42]
2. Administration of the Philippine National Red Cross;[43]
3. Relief and rescue operations during calamities and disasters;[44]
4. Amateur sports promotion and development;[45]
5. Development of the culture and the arts;[46]
6. Conservation of natural resources;[47]
7. Implementation of the agrarian reform program;[48]
8. Enforcement of customs laws;[49]
9. Composite civilian-military law enforcement activities;[50]
10. Conduct of licensure examinations;[51]
11. Conduct of nationwide tests for elementary and high school students;[52]
 12. Anti-drug enforcement activities;[53]
13. Sanitary inspections;[54]
14. Conduct of census work;[55]
15. Administration of the Civil Aeronautics Board;[56]
16. Assistance in installation of weather forecasting devices;[57]
17. Peace and order policy formulation in local government units.[58]

This unquestionably constitutes a gloss on executive power resulting from

a systematic, unbroken, executive practice, long pursued to the knowledge of
Congress and, yet, never before questioned.[59] What we have here is mutual
support and cooperation between the military and civilian authorities, not
derogation of civilian supremacy.
In the United States, where a long tradition of suspicion and hostility
towards the use of military force for domestic purposes has persisted, [60] and
whose Constitution, unlike ours, does not expressly provide for the power to
call, the use of military personnel by civilian law enforcement officers is
allowed under circumstances similar to those surrounding the present
deployment of the Philippine Marines. Under the Posse Comitatus Act[61] of the
US, the use of the military in civilian law enforcement is generally prohibited,
except in certain allowable circumstances. A provision of the Act states:

1385. Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus

Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by

the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the
Air Force as posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined
not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.[62]

To determine whether there is a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act in

the use of military personnel, the US courts [63] apply the following standards, to
wit:

Were Army or Air Force personnel used by the civilian law enforcement
officers at Wounded Knee in such a manner that the military personnel
subjected the citizens to the exercise of military power which was regulatory,
proscriptive, or compulsory[64] George Washington Law Review, pp. 404-433 (1986), which
discusses the four divergent standards for assessing acceptable involvement of military personnel in civil
law enforcement. See likewise HONORED IN THE BREECH: PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO
EXECUTE THE LAWS WITH MILITARY FORCE, 83 Yale Law Journal, pp. 130-152, 1973. 64 in nature,
either presently or prospectively?

x x x
When this concept is transplanted into the present legal context, we take it to
mean that military involvement, even when not expressly authorized by the
Constitution or a statute, does not violate the Posse Comitatus Act unless it
actually regulates, forbids or compels some conduct on the part of those
claiming relief. A mere threat of some future injury would be
insufficient. (emphasis supplied)

Even if the Court were to apply the above rigid standards to the present
case to determine whether there is permissible use of the military in civilian
law enforcement, the conclusion is inevitable that no violation of the civilian
supremacy clause in the Constitution is committed. On this point, the Court
agrees with the observation of the Solicitor General:

3. The designation of tasks in Annex A[65] does not constitute the exercise of regulatory,
proscriptive, or compulsory military power. First, the soldiers do not control or direct the operation.
This is evident from Nos. 6,[66] 8(k)[67] and 9(a)[68] of Annex A. These soldiers, second, also have no
power to prohibit or condemn. In No. 9(d)[69] of Annex A, all arrested persons are brought to the
nearest police stations for proper disposition. And last, these soldiers apply no coercive force. The
materials or equipment issued to them, as shown in No. 8(c) [70] of Annex A, are all low impact and
defensive in character. The conclusion is that there being no exercise of regulatory, proscriptive or
compulsory military power, the deployment of a handful of Philippine Marines constitutes no
impermissible use of military power for civilian law enforcement. [71]

It appears that the present petition is anchored on fear that once the
armed forces are deployed, the military will gain ascendancy, and thus place
in peril our cherished liberties. Such apprehensions, however, are
unfounded. The power to call the armed forces is just that - calling out the
armed forces. Unless, petitioner IBP can show, which it has not, that in the
deployment of the Marines, the President has violated the fundamental law,
exceeded his authority or jeopardized the civil liberties of the people, this
Court is not inclined to overrule the Presidents determination of the factual
basis for the calling of the Marines to prevent or suppress lawless violence.
One last point. Since the institution of the joint visibility patrol in January,
2000, not a single citizen has complained that his political or civil rights have
been violated as a result of the deployment of the Marines. It was precisely to
safeguard peace, tranquility and the civil liberties of the people that the joint
visibility patrol was conceived. Freedom and democracy will be in full bloom
only when people feel secure in their homes and in the streets, not when the
shadows of violence and anarchy constantly lurk in their midst.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.