8/20/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 651

G.R. No. 190259. June 7, 2011.*

DATU ZALDY UY AMPATUAN, ANSARUDDIN ADIONG,
REGIE SAHALI-GENERALE, petitioners, vs. HON.
RONALDO PUNO, in his capacity as Secretary of the
Department of Interior and Local Government and alter-
ego of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, and anyone
acting in his stead and on behalf of the President of the
Philippines, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES
(AFP), or any of their units operating in the Autonomous
Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), and PHILIPPINE
NATIONAL POLICE, or any of their units operating in
ARMM, respondents.

Administrative Law; State of Emergency; The Department of

Interior and Local Government (DILG) Secretary did not take over
the administration or operations of the Autonomous Region of
Muslim Mindanao (ARMM).—The DILG Secretary did not take
over control of the powers of the ARMM. After law enforcement
agents took respondent Governor of ARMM into custody for
alleged complicity in the Maguindanao massacre, the ARMM
Vice-Governor, petitioner Ansaruddin Adiong, assumed the
vacated post on December 10, 2009 pursuant to the rule on
succession found in Article VII, Section 12, of RA 9054. In turn,
Acting Governor Adiong named the then Speaker of the ARMM
Regional Assembly, petitioner Sahali-Generale, Acting ARMM
Vice-Governor. In short, the DILG Secretary did not take over the
administration or operations of the ARMM.
Same; Same; The President did not proclaim a national
emergency, only a state of emergency in the three places mentioned;
the calling out of the armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless
violence in such places is a power that the Constitution directly
vests in the President; she did not need a congressional authority
to exercise the same.—The President did not proclaim a national
emergency, only a state of emergency in the three places
mentioned. And she did not act pursuant to any law enacted by
Congress that authorized her to

_______________

* EN BANC.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016555af8438664512ce003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/11
8/20/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 651

229

VOL. 651, JUNE 7, 2011 229

Ampatuan vs. Puno

exercise extraordinary powers. The calling out of the armed forces

to prevent or suppress lawless violence in such places is a power
that the Constitution directly vests in the President. She did not
need a congressional authority to exercise the same.
Same; Same; It is clearly to the President that the
Constitution entrusts the determination of the need for calling out
the armed forces to prevent and suppress lawless violence; Unless
it is shown that such determination was attended by grave abuse
of discretion, the court will accord respect to the President’s
judgment.—While it is true that the Court may inquire into the
factual bases for the President’s exercise of the above power, it
would generally defer to her judgment on the matter. As the
Court acknowledged in Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Hon.
Zamora, 338 SCRA 81 (2000), it is clearly to the President that
the Constitution entrusts the determination of the need for calling
out the armed forces to prevent and suppress lawless violence.
Unless it is shown that such determination was attended by grave
abuse of discretion, the Court will accord respect to the
President’s judgment.

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court.

Prohibition.
   The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
  Fortun, Narvasa & Salazar for petitioners.
  The Solicitor General for respondents.

ABAD, J.:
On November 24, 2009, the day after the gruesome
massacre of 57 men and women, including some news
reporters, then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued
Proclamation 1946,1 placing “the Provinces of
Maguindanao and Sultan Kudarat and the City of Cotabato
under a state of emergency.” She directed the Armed
Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the Philippine
National Police (PNP) “to undertake

_______________

1 Rollo, p. 34.

230

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016555af8438664512ce003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/11
8/20/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 651

230 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ampatuan vs. Puno

such measures as may be allowed by the Constitution and

by law to prevent and suppress all incidents of lawless
violence” in the named places.
Three days later or on November 27, President Arroyo
also issued Administrative Order 273 (AO 273)2
“transferring” supervision of the Autonomous Region of
Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) from the Office of the President
to the Department of Interior and Local Government
(DILG). But, due to issues raised over the terminology used
in AO 273, the President issued Administrative Order 273-
A (AO 273-A) amending the former, by “delegating” instead
of “transferring” supervision of the ARMM to the DILG.3
Claiming that the President’s issuances encroached on
the ARMM’s autonomy, petitioners Datu Zaldy Uy
Ampatuan, Ansaruddin Adiong, and Regie Sahali-
Generale, all ARMM officials,4 filed this petition for
prohibition under Rule 65. They alleged that the
proclamation and the orders empowered the DILG
Secretary to take over ARMM’s operations and seize the
regional government’s powers, in violation of the principle
of local autonomy under Republic Act 9054 (also known as
the Expanded ARMM Act) and the Constitution. The
President gave the DILG Secretary the power to exercise,
not merely administrative supervision, but control over the
ARMM since the latter could suspend ARMM officials and
replace them.5
Petitioner ARMM officials claimed that the President
had no factual basis for declaring a state of emergency,
especially in the Province of Sultan Kudarat and the City
of Cotabato, where no critical violent incidents occurred.
The deployment

_______________

2 Id., at p. 36.
3 Id., at p. 80.
4  Ampatuan, Adiong and Sahali-Generale were, respectively, the
Governor, Vice-Governor and Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of the
ARMM at that time.
5  Rollo, pp. 14-17.

231

VOL. 651, JUNE 7, 2011 231

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016555af8438664512ce003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/11
8/20/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 651

Ampatuan vs. Puno

of troops and the taking over of the ARMM constitutes an

invalid exercise of the President’s emergency powers.6
Petitioners asked that Proclamation 1946 as well as AOs
273 and 273-A be declared unconstitutional and that
respondents DILG Secretary, the AFP, and the PNP be
enjoined from implementing them.
In its comment for the respondents,7 the Office of the
Solicitor General (OSG) insisted that the President issued
Proclamation 1946, not to deprive the ARMM of its
autonomy, but to restore peace and order in subject places.8
She issued the proclamation pursuant to her “calling out”
power9 as Commander-in-Chief under the first sentence of
Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution. The
determination of the need to exercise this power rests
solely on her wisdom.10 She must use her judgment based
on intelligence reports and such best information as are
available to her to call out the armed forces to suppress and
prevent lawless violence wherever and whenever these
reared their ugly heads.
On the other hand, the President merely delegated
through AOs 273 and 273-A her supervisory powers over
the ARMM to the DILG Secretary who was her alter ego
any way. These orders did not authorize a take over of the
ARMM. They did not give him blanket authority to
suspend or replace ARMM officials.11 The delegation was
necessary to facilitate the investigation of the mass
killings.12 Further, the assailed proclamation and
administrative orders did not provide for the exercise of
emergency powers.13

_______________

6  Id., at pp. 20-22.

7  Id., at p. 63.
8  Id., at pp. 85, 87, 95.
9  Id., at p. 98.
10 Id., at p. 76.
11 Id., at p. 95.
12 Id., at p. 78.
13 Id., at p. 110.

232

232 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ampatuan vs. Puno

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016555af8438664512ce003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/11
8/20/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 651

Although normalcy has in the meantime returned to the

places subject of this petition, it might be relevant to rule
on the issues raised in this petition since some acts done
pursuant to Proclamation 1946 and AOs 273 and 273-A
could impact on the administrative and criminal cases that
the government subsequently filed against those believed
affected by such proclamation and orders.
The Issues Presented
The issues presented in this case are:

1. Whether or not Proclamation 1946 and AOs 273 and 273-A

violate the principle of local autonomy under Section 16, Article X
of the Constitution, and Section 1, Article V of the Expanded
ARMM Organic Act;
2. Whether or not President Arroyo invalidly exercised
emergency powers when she called out the AFP and the PNP to
prevent and suppress all incidents of lawless violence in
Maguindanao, Sultan Kudarat, and Cotabato City; and
3. Whether or not the President had factual bases for her
actions.

The Rulings of the Court

We dismiss the petition.
One. The claim of petitioners that the subject
proclamation and administrative orders violate the
principle of local autonomy is anchored on the allegation
that, through them, the President authorized the DILG
Secretary to take over the operations of the ARMM and
assume direct governmental powers over the region.
But, in the first place, the DILG Secretary did not take
over control of the powers of the ARMM. After law
enforcement agents took respondent Governor of ARMM
into custody for alleged complicity in the Maguindanao
massacre, the

233

VOL. 651, JUNE 7, 2011 233

Ampatuan vs. Puno

ARMM Vice-Governor, petitioner Ansaruddin Adiong,

assumed the vacated post on December 10, 2009 pursuant
to the rule on succession found in Article VII, Section 12,14
of RA 9054. In turn, Acting Governor Adiong named the
then Speaker of the ARMM Regional Assembly, petitioner
Sahali-Generale, Acting ARMM Vice-Governor.15 In short,
the DILG Secretary did not take over the administration or
operations of the ARMM.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016555af8438664512ce003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/11
8/20/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 651

Two. Petitioners contend that the President

unlawfully exercised emergency powers when she ordered
the deployment of AFP and PNP personnel in the places
mentioned in the proclamation.16 But such deployment is
not by itself an exercise of emergency powers as understood
under Section 23 (2), Article VI of the Constitution, which
provides:

“SECTION 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.”

_______________

14  SEC. 12. Succession to Regional Governorship in Cases of

Temporary Incapacity.—In case of temporary incapacity of the regional
Governor to perform his duties on account of physical or legal causes, or
when he is on official leave of absence or on travel outside the territorial
jurisdiction of the Republic of the Philippines, the Regional Vice-Governor,
or if there be none or in case of his permanent or temporary incapacity or
refusal to assume office, the Speaker of the Regional Assembly shall
exercise the powers, duties and functions of the Regional Governor as
prescribed by law enacted by the Regional Assembly or in the absence
thereof, by the pertinent provisions of Republic Act 7160 or the Local
Government Code of 1991.
15  http://services.inquirer.net/print/print.php?article_id=20100707-
279759.
16 Rollo, p. 22.

234

234 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ampatuan vs. Puno

The President did not proclaim a national emergency,

only a state of emergency in the three places mentioned.
And she did not act pursuant to any law enacted by
Congress that authorized her to exercise extraordinary
powers. The calling out of the armed forces to prevent or
suppress lawless violence in such places is a power that the

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016555af8438664512ce003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/11
8/20/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 651

Constitution directly vests in the President. She did not

need a congressional authority to exercise the same.
Three. The President’s call on the armed forces to
prevent or suppress lawless violence springs from the
power vested in her under Section 18, Article VII of the
Constitution, which provides.17

“SECTION 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. x x x”

While it is true that the Court may inquire into the

factual bases for the President’s exercise of the above
power,18 it would generally defer to her judgment on the
matter. As the Court acknowledged in Integrated Bar of the
Philippines v. Hon. Zamora,19it is clearly to the President
that the Constitution entrusts the determination of the
need for calling out the armed forces to prevent and
suppress lawless violence. Unless it is shown that such
determination was attended by grave abuse of discretion,
the Court will accord respect to the President’s judgment.
Thus, the Court said:

_______________

17  See SANLAKAS v. Executive Secretary Reyes, 466 Phil. 482, 509-
510; 421 SCRA 656, 668 (2004).
18 Lacson v. Sec. Perez, 410 Phil. 78, 93; 357 SCRA 756, 772 (2001).
19 392 Phil. 618, 635; 338 SCRA 81, 102-103 (2000).

235

VOL. 651, JUNE 7, 2011 235

Ampatuan vs. Puno

“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

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016555af8438664512ce003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/11
8/20/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 651

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. x x x.”20

Here, petitioners failed to show that the declaration of a

state of emergency in the Provinces of Maguindanao,
Sultan Kudarat and Cotabato City, as well as the
President’s exercise of the “calling out” power had no
factual basis. They simply alleged that, since not all areas
under the ARMM were placed under a state of emergency,
it follows that the take over of the entire ARMM by the
DILG Secretary had no basis too.21

_______________

20 Id., at pp. 643-644; pp. 110-111.

21 Rollo, pp. 20-21.

236

236 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ampatuan vs. Puno

But, apart from the fact that there was no such take
over to begin with, the OSG also clearly explained the
factual bases for the President’s decision to call out the
armed forces, as follows:

“The Ampatuan and Mangudadatu clans are prominent

families engaged in the political control of Maguindanao.
It is also a known fact that both families have an arsenal of
armed followers who hold elective positions in various
parts of the ARMM and the rest of Mindanao.
Considering the fact that the principal victims of the
brutal bloodshed are members of the Mangudadatu family
and the main perpetrators of the brutal killings are

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016555af8438664512ce003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/11
8/20/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 651

members and followers of the Ampatuan family, both the

military and police had to prepare for and prevent
reported retaliatory actions from the Mangudadatu clan
and additional offensive measures from the Ampatuan
clan.
x x x x
The Ampatuan forces are estimated to be approximately
two thousand four hundred (2,400) persons, equipped with
about two thousand (2,000) firearms, about four hundred
(400) of which have been accounted for. x x x
As for the Mangudadatus, they have an estimated one
thousand eight hundred (1,800) personnel, with about two
hundred (200) firearms. x x x
Apart from their own personal forces, both clans have
Special Civilian Auxiliary Army (SCAA) personnel who
support them: about five hundred (500) for the Ampatuans
and three hundred (300) for the Mangudadatus.
What could be worse than the armed clash of two
warring clans and their armed supporters, especially in
light of intelligence reports on the potential involvement
of rebel armed groups (RAGs).
One RAG was reported to have planned an attack on the
forces of Datu Andal Ampatuan, Sr. to show support and
sympathy for the victims. The said attack shall worsen the

237

VOL. 651, JUNE 7, 2011 237

Ampatuan vs. Puno

age-old territorial dispute between the said RAG and the

Ampatuan family.
x x x x
On the other hand, RAG faction which is based in
Sultan Kudarat was reported to have received three
million pesos (P3,000,000.00) from Datu Andal Ampatuan,
Sr. for the procurement of ammunition. The said faction is
a force to reckon with because the group is well capable of
launching a series of violent activities to divert the
attention of the people and the authorities away from the
multiple murder case. x x x
In addition, two other factions of a RAG are likely to
support the Mangudadatu family. The Cotabato-based
faction has the strength of about five hundred (500)
persons and three hundred seventy-two (372) firearms
while the Sultan Kudarat-based faction has the strength of
about four hundred (400) persons and three hundred (300)
firearms and was reported to be moving towards

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016555af8438664512ce003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/11
8/20/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 651

Maguindanao to support the Mangudadatu clan in its

armed fight against the Ampatuans.”22

In other words, the imminence of violence and anarchy

at the time the President issued Proclamation 1946 was too
grave to ignore and she had to act to prevent further
bloodshed and hostilities in the places mentioned. Progress
reports also indicated that there was movement in these
places of both high-powered firearms and armed men
sympathetic to the two clans.23 Thus, to pacify the people’s
fears and stabilize the situation, the President had to take
preventive action. She called out the armed forces to
control the proliferation of loose firearms and dismantle
the armed groups that continuously threatened the peace
and security in the affected places.
Notably, the present administration of President
Benigno Aquino III has not withdrawn the declaration of a
state of

_______________

22 Id., at pp. 101-105.

23 Id., at p. 105.

238

238 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ampatuan vs. Puno

emergency under Proclamation 1946. It has been

reported24 that the declaration would not be lifted soon
because there is still a need to disband private armies and
confiscate loose firearms. Apparently, the presence of
troops in those places is still necessary to ease fear and
tension among the citizenry and prevent and suppress any
violence that may still erupt, despite the passage of more
than a year from the time of the Maguindanao massacre.
Since petitioners are not able to demonstrate that the
proclamation of state of emergency in the subject places
and the calling out of the armed forces to prevent or
suppress lawless violence there have clearly no factual
bases, the Court must respect the President’s actions.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of
merit.
SO ORDERED.

Corona (C.J.), Carpio, Carpio-Morales, Velasco, Jr.,

Nachura, Leonardo-De Castro, Brion, Peralta, Bersamin,

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016555af8438664512ce003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/11
8/20/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 651

Del Castillo, Villarama, Jr., Perez, Mendoza and Sereno,

JJ., concur.

Petition dismissed.

Note.—View that the Constitution does not expressly

grant executive privilege power to the President but courts
have long recognized implied Presidential powers if
“necessary and proper” in carrying out powers and
functions ex-
pressly granted to the Executive under the Constitution.
(Neri vs. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public
Officers and Investigations, 549 SCRA 77 [2008])
——o0o—— 

_______________

24  http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/video/nation/regions/11/23/10/state-
emergency-maguindanao-stays; http://www.sunstar.com.ph/manila//local-
news/aquino-state-emergency-maguindanao-stays;
http://www.bomboradyo.com/index.php/news/top-stories/29331-state-of-
emergency-sa-c-mindanao-mananatili;
http://www.zambotimes.com/archives/26011-State-of-emergency-in-
Maguindanao-remains.html.

© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016555af8438664512ce003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/11