Ampatuan

 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.