IBP v. Zamora Et - Al G.R. No. 141284 CD

Arellano University – School of Law
TITLE OF THE CASE:
G.R. No. 141284 August 15, 2000

INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,
vs.
HON. RONALDO B. ZAMORA, GEN. PANFILO M. LACSON, GEN. EDGAR B. AGLIPAY, and GEN. ANGELO
REYES, respondents.
DOCTRINE OF THE CASE: Standing
FACTS:
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 02/20001 (the "LOI") which detailed the manner by which the joint visibility patrols,
called Task Force Tulungan, would be conducted.2 Task Force Tulunganwas 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.
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.
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner has legal standing;
RULING: NO.
THE COURT RULED THAT  "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. 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. 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."
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
Case Digest by:

Lester Fiel Panopio
Juris Doctor - Level 1
Arellano University – School of Law
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.
EXCEPTION TO THE RULE OF STANDING:

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 tothe 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.
Dispositive portion:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby DISMISSED.
Case Digest by:

Lester Fiel Panopio
Juris Doctor - Level 1

IBP v. Zamora Et - Al G.R. No. 141284 CD

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IBP v. Zamora Et - Al G.R. No. 141284 CD

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

IBP v. Zamora Et - Al G.R. No. 141284 CD

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Arellano University – School of Law

TITLE OF THE CASE:

G.R. No. 141284 August 15, 2000

DOCTRINE OF THE CASE: Standing

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner has legal standing;

Case Digest by:

EXCEPTION TO THE RULE OF STANDING:

Case Digest by:

You might also like