Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
IBP v Zamora Digest

IBP v Zamora Digest

Ratings: (0)|Views: 6,201|Likes:
Published by cmcsayson

More info:

Published by: cmcsayson on Jul 05, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See More
See less





Locus Standi
– A personal and substantial interest in the case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a resul
 Judicial review requires that:
 There is an actual case at bar The party raising the constitutional question has a personal and substantial interest in the case The exercise of judicial review is pleaded at the earliest opportunity The constitutional question is the
lis mota
of the case
Lis Mota
– The reason why the suit was filed in the first place; the "commencement of the controversy and the beginning of the suit"
IBP v. Zamora
Aug. 15 2000Background 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 PoliceChief of Metro Manila.-In compliance with presidential mandate, PNP Chief of Staff formulated Letter of Instructions 02/2000 (LOI)
 The joint visibility patrols was meant to suppress crime and other threats to national security and willbe applied to eradicate high-profile crimes perpetrated by organized crime syndicates
Visibility patrols are to be under the authority of the PNP, not the militaryCase at bar: Special Civil Action in the Supreme Court. Certiorari and Prohibition The IBP prays for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order to
the President’s order of deploying theMarines to help the PNP. The IBP argue that the deployment is null and void because it’s unconstitutional because:
 There is no Emergency Situation
In derogation of Art 2, Sec. 3 of the Constitution
 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
 The deployment creates a dangerous tendency to rely on the military for civilian government functionsIBP says that it has standing because it is the official organization of Filipino lawyers tasked with the “bounden duty touphold the rule of law and the Constitution” The Solicitor General says:
Petitioner has no legal standing
 The question of the Marines’ deployment is a political question and not proper for judicial scrutiny
 The organization of Task Force Tulungan does not violate the civilian supremacy clause of theConstitutionISSUES: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 provisionson civilian supremacy?DECISION: Petition is DISMISSED as being without meritWhy?1.
No, the petitioner does NOT have legal standing.
Its only basis for legal standing is its “bounden duty,”which is insufficient.
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
IBP’s fundamental purpose is to “elevate the standards of the law profession and to improve theadministration of justice. That has NOTHING to do with the deployment of Marines.
Despite the fact that the petitioner has no legal standing though, the Court has decided to takecognizance 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’vebeen resolved.2.The President has full discretion to call out the military
 The question is a JUSTICIABLE question, and not a political one; it involves a question of legality andnot wisdom
 The Court cannot overrule the President’s wisdom; it can only
determine whether or not he hascommitted any abuse of discretion
(a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment that is patentand gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined bylaw)
Petitioner has failed to show that the exercise of that discretion was gravely abused3.The deployment of the Marines is not a breach of the civilian supremacy clause
 The provisions of the LOI outline how the Marines will participate in the visibility patrols and what theirlimits are
 The overall authority here will always belong to the PNP; the Metro Manila Police Chief is the overallleader of the PNP-Philippine Marines joint visibility patrols
 Just because the Marines help the PNP doesn’t mean that the PNP will no longer be a civilian institutionSEPARATE OPINIONS: Justice Puno-The government’s attempt to use the “political question” doctrine to keep the act from judicial scrutiny couldhave 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 thesuspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and the declaration of martial law means that thecourt 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 thelaw 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

Activity (45)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
roansalanga liked this
Black Phoenix liked this
Aiana Galeno liked this
Dindo Palgan liked this
Pauline liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->