EN BANC

[G.R. No. 141284. August 15, 2000.]

KAPUNAN, J.:

At bar is a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for issuance of a temporary
restraining order seeking to nullity on constitutional grounds the order of President Joseph Ejercito Estrada
commanding the deployment of the Philippine Marines (the Marines) to join the Philippine National Police
(the "PNP") in visibility patrols around the metropolis.
chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

In view of the alarming increase in violent crimes in Metro Manila, like robberies, kidnappings and
carnappings, the President, in a verbal directive, ordered the PNP and the Marines to conduct joint visibility
patrols for the purpose of crime prevention and suppression. The Secretary of National Defense, the Chief of
Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (the "AFP"), the Chief of the PNP and the Secretary of the
Interior and Local Government were tasked to execute and implement the said order. In compliance with the
presidential mandate, the PNP Chief, through Police Chief Superintendent Edgar B. Aglipay, formulated Letter
of Instruction 02/2000 1 (the "LOI") which detailed the manner by which the joint visibility patrols, called
Task Force Tulungan, would be conducted. 2 Task Force Tulungan was placed under the leadership of the
Police Chief of Metro Manila.
Subsequently, the President confirmed his previous directive on the deployment of the Marines in a
Memorandum, dated 24 January 2000, addressed to the Chief of Staff of the AFP and the PNP Chief. 3 In the
Memorandum, the President expressed his desire to improve the peace and order situation in Metro Manila
through a more effective crime prevention program including increased police patrols. 4 The President
further stated that to heighten police visibility in the metropolis, augmentation from the AFP is necessary. 5
Invoking his powers as Commander-in-Chief under Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution, the President
directed the AFP Chief of Staff and PNP Chief to coordinate with each other for the proper deployment and
utilization of the Marines to assist the PNP in preventing or suppressing criminal or lawless violence. 6
Finally, 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. 7
The LOI explains the concept of the PNP-Philippine Marines joint visibility patrols as follows:
x
2. PURPOSE:

chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

The Joint Implementing Police Visibility Patrols between the PNP NCRPO and the Philippine Marines
partnership in the conduct of visibility patrols in Metro Manila for the suppression of crime prevention and
other serious threats to national security
3. SITUATION:

chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Criminal incidents in Metro Manila have been perpetrated not only by ordinary criminals but also by
organized syndicates whose members include active and former police/military personnel whose training,
skill, discipline and firepower prove well-above the present capability of the local police alone to handle. The
deployment of a joint PNP NCRPO-Philippine Marines in the conduct of police visibility patrol in urban areas
will reduce the incidence of crimes specially those perpetrated by active or former police/military
personnel.
chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

4. MISSION:

chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

The PNP NCRPO will organize a provisional Task Force to conduct joint NCRPO-PM visibility patrols to keep
Metro Manila streets crime-free, through a sustained street patrolling to minimize or eradicate all forms of
high-profile crimes especially those perpetrated by organized crime syndicates whose members include
those that are well-trained, disciplined and well-armed active or former PNP/Military personnel.
5. CONCEPT IN JOINT VISIBILITY PATROL OPERATIONS:

chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

a. The visibility patrols shall be conducted jointly by the NCRPO [National Capital Regional Police Office] and
the Philippine Marines to curb criminality in Metro Manila and to preserve the internal security of the state
against insurgents and other serious threat to national -security, although the primary responsibility over
Internal Security Operations still rests upon the AFP.
b. The principle of integration of efforts shall be applied to eradicate all forms of high-profile crimes
perpetrated by organized crime syndicates operating in Metro Manila. This concept requires the military and
police to work cohesively and unify efforts to ensure a focused, effective and holistic approach in addressing
crime prevention. Along this line, the role of the military and police aside from neutralizing crime syndicates
is to bring a wholesome atmosphere wherein delivery of basic services to the people and development is
achieved Hand-in-hand with this joint NCRPO-Philippine Marines visibility patrols, local Police Units are
responsible for the maintenance of peace and order in their locality.
c. To ensure the effective implementation of this project, a provisional Task Force "TULUNGAN" shall be
organized to provide the mechanism, structure, and procedures for the integrated planning, coordinating,
monitoring and assessing the security situation.
x

x8

The selected areas of deployment under the LOI are: Monumento Circle, North Edsa (SM City), Araneta
Shopping Center, Greenhills, SM Megamall, Makati Commercial Center, LRT/MRT Stations and the NAIA and
Domestic Airport. 9
On 17 January 2000, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (the "IBP") filed the instant petition to annul LOI
02/2000 and to declare the deployment of the Philippine Marines, null and void and unconstitutional, arguing
that:
chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I
THE DEPLOYMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE MARINES IN METRO MANILA IS VIOLATIVE OF THE CONSTITUTION,
IN THAT:
chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

A) NO EMERGENCY SITUATION OBTAINS IN METRO MANILA AS WOULD JUSTIFY, EVEN ONLY REMOTELY,
THE DEPLOYMENT OF SOLDIERS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT WORK; HENCE, SAID DEPLOYMENT IS IN
DEROGATION OF ARTICLE II, SECTION 3 OF THE CONSTITUTION;
chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

B) SAID DEPLOYMENT CONSTITUTES AN INSIDIOUS INCURSION BY THE MILITARY IN A CIVILIAN

IN MILITARIZING LAW ENFORCEMENT IN METRO MANILA, THE ADMINISTRATION IS UNWITTINGLY MAKING

Without granting due course to the petition, the Court in a Resolution, 11 dated 25 January 2000, required
the Solicitor General to file his Comment on the petition. On 8 February 2000, the Solicitor General
submitted his Comment.
chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

The Solicitor General vigorously defends the constitutionality of the act of the President in deploying the
Marines, contending, among others, that petitioner has no legal standing; 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 issues raised in the present petition are: (1) Whether or not petitioner has legal standing; (2) Whether
or not the Presidents factual determination of the necessity of calling the armed forces is subject to judicial
review, and, (3) Whether or not the calling of the armed forces to assist the PNP in joint visibility patrols
violates the constitutional provisions on civilian supremacy over the military and the civilian character of the
PNP.
The petition has no merit.
First, petitioner failed to sufficiently show that it is in possession of the requisites of standing to raise the
issues in the petition. Second, the President did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction nor did he commit a violation of the civilian supremacy clause of the Constitution.
The power of judicial review is set forth in Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution, to wit:

chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

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: (1J 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. 12
The IBP has not sufficiently complied with the requisites of standing in this case.
"Legal standing" or locus standi has been defined as a personal and substantial interest in the case such that
the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act that is being
challenged. 13 The term "interest" means a material interest, an interest in issue affected by the decree, as
distinguished from mere interest in the question involved, or a mere incidental interest. 14 The gist of the
question of standing is whether a party alleges such personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to
assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court depends
for illumination of difficult constitutional questions. 15
In the case at bar, the IBP primarily anchors its standing on its alleged responsibility to uphold the rule of
law and the Constitution. Apart from this declaration, however, the IBP asserts no other basis in support of
its locus standi The mere invocation by the IBP of its duty to preserve the rule of law and nothing more,
while undoubtedly true, is not sufficient to clothe it with standing in this case. This is too general an interest

which is shared by other groups and the whole citizenry. Based on the standards above-stated, the IBP has
failed to present a specific and substantial