Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 76 views

    Ibp VS Zamora

    Uploaded by

    Christiane Marie Bajada
    1. The IBP questioned the validity of President Estrada's verbal directive deploying the Marines to assist the PNP in law enforcement. 2. The Supreme Court ruled that the President's determination to call the armed forces is subject to judicial review if certain requisites are met. 3. The Court also ruled that the deployment of Marines to assist the PNP in joint visibility patrols did not violate the civilian supremacy clause or amount to military authority becoming supreme over civilian authority.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved

    Ibp VS Zamora

    Uploaded by

    Christiane Marie Bajada
    76 views2 pages
    1. The IBP questioned the validity of President Estrada's verbal directive deploying the Marines to assist the PNP in law enforcement. 2. The Supreme Court ruled that the President's determination to call the armed forces is subject to judicial review if certain requisites are met. 3. The Court also ruled that the deployment of Marines to assist the PNP in joint visibility patrols did not violate the civilian supremacy clause or amount to military authority becoming supreme over civilian authority.

    Original Title

    IBP VS ZAMORA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. The IBP questioned the validity of President Estrada's verbal directive deploying the Marines to assist the PNP in law enforcement. 2. The Supreme Court ruled that the President's determination to call the armed forces is subject to judicial review if certain requisites are met. 3. The Court also ruled that the deployment of Marines to assist the PNP in joint visibility patrols did not violate the civilian supremacy clause or amount to military authority becoming supreme over civilian authority.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    76 views2 pages

    Ibp VS Zamora

    Uploaded by

    Christiane Marie Bajada
    1. The IBP questioned the validity of President Estrada's verbal directive deploying the Marines to assist the PNP in law enforcement. 2. The Supreme Court ruled that the President's determination to call the armed forces is subject to judicial review if certain requisites are met. 3. The Court also ruled that the deployment of Marines to assist the PNP in joint visibility patrols did not violate the civilian supremacy clause or amount to military authority becoming supreme over civilian authority.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    of 2

    IBP VS ZAMORA

    G.R. No. 141284 August 15 2000 [Judicial Review; Civilian supremacy clause]

    FACTS:
    Invoking his powers as Commander-in-Chief under Sec 18, Art. VII of the
    Constitution, President Estrada, in verbal directive,  directed the AFP Chief of
    Staff and PNP Chief to coordinate with each other for the proper deployment and
    campaign for a temporary period only. The IBP questioned the validity of the
    deployment and utilization of the Marines to assist the PNP in law enforcement.

    ISSUE:
    1. WoN the President's factual determination of the necessity of calling the armed
    forces is subject to judicial review.
    2. WoN the calling of AFP to assist the PNP in joint visibility patrols violate the
    constitutional provisions on civilian supremacy over the military.

    RULING:
    1. The power of judicial review is set forth in Section 1, Article VIII of the
    Constitution, to wit:
    Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such
    lower courts as may be established by law.
    Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual
    controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and
    to determine whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to
    lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the
    Government.
    When questions of constitutional significance are raised, the Court can exercise its
    power of judicial review only if the following requisites are complied with,
    namely: (1)  the existence of an actual and appropriate case; (2) a personal and
    substantial interest of the party raising the constitutional question; (3) the exercise
    of judicial review is pleaded at the earliest opportunity; and (4) the constitutional
    question  is the lis mota of the case.

    2. The deployment of the Marines does not constitute a breach of the civilian
    supremacy clause.  The calling of the Marines in this case constitutes permissible
    use of military assets for civilian law enforcement.  The participation of the
    Marines in the conduct of joint visibility patrols is appropriately circumscribed. It
    is their responsibility to direct and manage the deployment of the Marines. It is,
    likewise, their duty to provide the necessary equipment to the Marines and render
    logistical support to these soldiers. In view of the foregoing, it cannot be properly
    argued that military authority is supreme over civilian authority.  Moreover, the
    deployment of the Marines to assist the PNP does not unmake the civilian
    character of the police force.  Neither does it amount to an “insidious incursion” of
    the military in the task of law enforcement in violation of Section 5(4), Article XVI
    of the Constitution.

    You might also like