IBP vs Zamora Facts Presdident Estrada ordered the deployment of the Philippine Marines to join in visibility patrols aound

the metropolis because of the alarming increase of violence and crimes in Metro Manila. 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. The IBP filed a petition seeking to declare the deployment of the Philippine Marines null and void and unconstitutional.

Issues: Whether or not the President action is subject of judicial review Whether or not the calling of armed forces violates the constitutional provision of civilian supremacy.

Held: The Supreme Courth held 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 President did not commit grave abuse of discretion in calling out the Marines.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. 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. 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. 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. Republic vs Cuison-melgar GR No 139676 Facts:

Norma and Eulogio were married for a year when she filed for a declaration of nullity of their marriage on the ground of Eulogios psychological incapacity. The manifestations of Eulogios psychological incapacity are his immaturity, habitual alcoholism, unbearable jealousy, maltreatment, constitutional laziness, and abandonment of his family. The RTC rendered its decision nullifying the marriage of Norma and Eulogio. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision when Eulogio filed for an appeal represented by the Office of the Solicitor General. The CA reasoned that it has been adequately established that the decree of annulment is proper not simply because of defendants habitual alcoholism but likewise because of other causes amounting to psychological incapacity as a result of which defendant has failed to perform his obligations under Articles 68-72, 220, 221 and 225 of the Family Code. Hence, this present petition for review on certiorari. Issue: WHETHER OR NOT THE ALLEGED PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY OF RESPONDENT IS IN THE NATURE CONTEMPLATED BY ARTICLE 36 OF THE FAMILY CODE. Ruling: The Supreme Court stressed that it is the policy of our Constitution to protect and strengthen the family as the basic autonomous social institution and marriage as the foundation of the family. Our family law is based on the policy that marriage is not a mere contract, but a social institution in which the state is vitally interested. The State can find no stronger anchor than on good, solid and happy families. The break-up of families weakens our social and moral fabric and, hence, their preservation is not the concern alone of the family members. Further, the totality of evidence presented by Norma is completely insufficient to sustain a finding that Eulogio is psychologically incapacitated. The Court cannot presume psychological defect from the mere fact of Eulogios immaturity, habitual alcoholism, unbearable jealousy, maltreatment, constitutional laziness, and abandonment of his family. These circumstances by themselves cannot be equated with psychological incapacity within the contemplation of the Family Code. The present petition is GRANTED.