Atty. Manuel J. Laserna Jr.: April 2023

Sunday, April 30, 2023

Calling out power; commander-in-chief powers

"It is true that for the purpose of exercising the calling out power the Constitution does not require the President to make a declaration of a state of rebellion. Section 18, Article VII provides:

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. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the President. Upon the initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the same manner, extend such proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it.

The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four hours following such proclamation or suspension, convene in accordance with its rules without need of a call.

The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis for the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing.

A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies, nor authorize the conferment of the jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians where civil courts are able to function, nor automatically suspend the privilege of the writ.

The suspension of the privilege of the writ shall apply only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected with invasion.

During the suspension of the privilege of the writ, any person thus arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within three days, otherwise he shall be released. [Emphasis supplied.]

The above provision grants the President, as Commander-in-Chief, a "sequence" of "graduated power[s]."30 From the most to the least benign, these are: the calling out power, the power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, and the power to declare martial law. In the exercise of the latter two powers, the Constitution requires the concurrence of two conditions, namely, an actual invasion or rebellion, and that public safety requires the exercise of such power.31 However, as we observed in Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Zamora,32 "[t]hese conditions are not required in the exercise of the calling out power. The only criterion is that 'whenever it becomes necessary,' the President may call the armed forces 'to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion.'"

Nevertheless, it is equally true that Section 18, Article VII does not expressly prohibit the President from declaring a state of rebellion. Note that the Constitution vests the President not only with Commander-in-Chief powers but, first and foremost, with Executive powers.

Section 1, Article VII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution states: "The executive power shall be vested in the President…." As if by exposition, Section 17 of the same Article provides: "He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed." The provisions trace their history to the Constitution of the United States."

EN BANC

G.R. No. 159085, February 3, 2004

SANLAKAS, represented by REP. J.V. Bautista, and PARTIDO NG MANGGAGAWA, represented by REP. RENATO MAGTUBO petitioners,

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY SECRETARY ANGELO REYES, GENERAL NARCISO ABAYA, DIR. GEN. HERMOGENES EBDANE, respondents.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

G.R. No. 159103 February 3, 2004

SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY (SJS) OFFICERS/MEMBERS namely, SAMSON S. ALCANTARA, ED VINCENT S. ALBANO, RENE B. GOROSPE, EDWIN R. SANDOVAL and RODOLFO D. MAPILE, petitioners,

HON. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY ALBERTO G. ROMULO, HON. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE SIMEON DATUMANONG, HON. SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE ANGELO REYES, and HON. SECRETARY JOSE LINA, JR., respondents.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

G.R. No. 159185 February 3, 2004

REP. ROLEX T. SUPLICO, REP. CARLOS M. PADILLA, REP. CELSO L. LOBREGAT, REP. HUSSIN U. AMIN, REP. ABRAHAM KAHLIL B. MITRA, REP. EMMYLOU J. TALINO-SANTOS, and REP. GEORGILU R. YUMUL-HERMIDA, petitioners,

PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO; and EXECUTIVE SECRETARY ALBERTO G. ROMULO, respondents.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

G.R. No. 159196, February 3, 2004

AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, JR. as a Member of the Senate, petitioner,

SECRETARY ALBERTO ROMULO, AS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY; SECRETARY ANGELO REYES, AS SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; GENERAL NARCISO ABAYA, AS CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE ARMED FORCES; SECRETARY JOSE LINA, et al., respondents.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/feb2004/gr_159085_2004.html

Legal standing in relation to judicial power and cases involving constitutional questions

"Only petitioners Rep. Suplico et al. and Sen. Pimentel, as Members of Congress, have standing to challenge the subject issuances. In Philippine Constitution Association v. Enriquez,22 this Court recognized that:

To the extent the powers of Congress are impaired, so is the power of each member thereof, since his office confers a right to participate in the exercise of the powers of that institution.

An act of the Executive which injures the institution of Congress causes a derivative but nonetheless substantial injury, which can be questioned by a member of Congress. In such a case, any member of Congress can have a resort to the courts.

Petitioner Members of Congress claim that the declaration of a state of rebellion by the President is tantamount to an exercise of Congress' emergency powers, thus impairing the lawmakers' legislative powers. Petitioners also maintain that the declaration is a subterfuge to avoid congressional scrutiny into the President's exercise of martial law powers.

Petitioners Sanlakas and PM, and SJS Officers/Members, have no legal standing or locus standi to bring suit. "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…. 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."23

Petitioners Sanlakas and PM assert that:

2. As a basic principle of the organizations and as an important plank in their programs, petitioners are committed to assert, defend, protect, uphold, and promote the rights, interests, and welfare of the people, especially the poor and marginalized classes and sectors of Philippine society. Petitioners are committed to defend and assert human rights, including political and civil rights, of the citizens.

3. Members of the petitioner organizations resort to mass actions and mobilizations in the exercise of their Constitutional rights to peaceably assemble and their freedom of speech and of expression under Section 4, Article III of the 1987 Constitution, as a vehicle to publicly ventilate their grievances and legitimate demands and to mobilize public opinion to support the same.24 [Emphasis in the original.]

Petitioner party-list organizations claim no better right than the Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino, whose standing this Court rejected in Lacson v. Perez:

… petitioner has not demonstrated any injury to itself which would justify the resort to the Court. Petitioner is a juridical person not subject to arrest. Thus, it cannot claim to be threatened by a warrantless arrest. Nor is it alleged that its leaders, members, and supporters are being threatened with warrantless arrest and detention for the crime of rebellion. Every action must be brought in the name of the party whose legal rights has been invaded or infringed, or whose legal right is under imminent threat of invasion or infringement.

At best, the instant petition may be considered as an action for declaratory relief, petitioner claiming that it[']s right to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly is affected by the declaration of a "state of rebellion" and that said proclamation is invalid for being contrary to the Constitution.

However, to consider the petition as one for declaratory relief affords little comfort to petitioner, this Court not having jurisdiction in the first instance over such a petition. Section 5 [1], Article VIII of the Constitution limits the original jurisdiction of the court to cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus.25

Even assuming that petitioners are "people's organizations," this status would not vest them with the requisite personality to question the validity of the presidential issuances, as this Court made clear in Kilosbayan v. Morato:26

The Constitution provides that "the State shall respect the role of independent people's organizations to enable the people to pursue and protect, within the democratic framework, their legitimate and collective interests and aspirations through peaceful and lawful means," that their right to "effective and reasonable participation at all levels of social, political, and economic decision-making shall not be abridged." (Art. XIII, §§15-16)

These provisions have not changed the traditional rule that only real parties in interest or those with standing, as the case may be, may invoke the judicial power. The jurisdiction of this Court, even in cases involving constitutional questions, is limited by the "case and controversy" requirement of Art. VIII, §5. This requirement lies at the very heart of the judicial function. It is what differentiates decisionmaking in the courts from decisionmaking in the political departments of the government and bars the bringing of suits by just any party.27

That petitioner SJS officers/members are taxpayers and citizens does not necessarily endow them with standing. A taxpayer may bring suit where the act complained of directly involves the illegal disbursement of public funds derived from taxation.28 No such illegal disbursement is alleged.

On the other hand, a citizen will be allowed to raise a constitutional question only when he can show that he has personally suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of the allegedly illegal conduct of the government; the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action; and the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable action.29 Again, no such injury is alleged in this case.

Even granting these petitioners have standing on the ground that the issues they raise are of transcendental importance, the petitions must fail."

EN BANC

G.R. No. 159085, February 3, 2004

SANLAKAS, represented by REP. J.V. Bautista, and PARTIDO NG MANGGAGAWA, represented by REP. RENATO MAGTUBO petitioners,

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY SECRETARY ANGELO REYES, GENERAL NARCISO ABAYA, DIR. GEN. HERMOGENES EBDANE, respondents.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

G.R. No. 159103 February 3, 2004

SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY (SJS) OFFICERS/MEMBERS namely, SAMSON S. ALCANTARA, ED VINCENT S. ALBANO, RENE B. GOROSPE, EDWIN R. SANDOVAL and RODOLFO D. MAPILE, petitioners,

HON. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY ALBERTO G. ROMULO, HON. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE SIMEON DATUMANONG, HON. SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE ANGELO REYES, and HON. SECRETARY JOSE LINA, JR., respondents.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

G.R. No. 159185 February 3, 2004

PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO; and EXECUTIVE SECRETARY ALBERTO G. ROMULO, respondents.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

G.R. No. 159196, February 3, 2004

AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, JR. as a Member of the Senate, petitioner,

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/feb2004/gr_159085_2004.html

Moot cases but capable of repetition yet evading review

"Required to comment, the Solicitor General argues that the petitions have been rendered moot by the lifting of the declaration.16 In addition, the Solicitor General questions the standing of the petitioners to bring suit.17

The Court agrees with the Solicitor General that the issuance of Proclamation No. 435, declaring that the state of rebellion has ceased to exist, has rendered the case moot. As a rule, courts do not adjudicate moot cases, judicial power being limited to the determination of "actual controversies."18 Nevertheless, courts will decide a question, otherwise moot, if it is "capable of repetition yet evading review."19 The case at bar is one such case.

Once before, the President on May 1, 2001 declared a state of rebellion and called upon the AFP and the PNP to suppress the rebellion through Proclamation No. 38 and General Order No. 1. On that occasion, "'an angry and violent mob armed with explosives, firearms, bladed weapons, clubs, stones and other deadly weapons' assaulted and attempted to break into Malacañang."20 Petitions were filed before this Court assailing the validity of the President's declaration. Five days after such declaration, however, the President lifted the same. The mootness of the petitions in Lacson v. Perez and accompanying cases21 precluded this Court from addressing the constitutionality of the declaration.

To prevent similar questions from reemerging, we seize this opportunity to finally lay to rest the validity of the declaration of a state of rebellion in the exercise of the President's calling out power, the mootness of the petitions notwithstanding."

EN BANC

G.R. No. 159085, February 3, 2004

SANLAKAS, represented by REP. J.V. Bautista, and PARTIDO NG MANGGAGAWA, represented by REP. RENATO MAGTUBO petitioners,

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY SECRETARY ANGELO REYES, GENERAL NARCISO ABAYA, DIR. GEN. HERMOGENES EBDANE, respondents.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

G.R. No. 159103 February 3, 2004

SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY (SJS) OFFICERS/MEMBERS namely, SAMSON S. ALCANTARA, ED VINCENT S. ALBANO, RENE B. GOROSPE, EDWIN R. SANDOVAL and RODOLFO D. MAPILE, petitioners,

HON. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY ALBERTO G. ROMULO, HON. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE SIMEON DATUMANONG, HON. SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE ANGELO REYES, and HON. SECRETARY JOSE LINA, JR., respondents.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

G.R. No. 159185 February 3, 2004

PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO; and EXECUTIVE SECRETARY ALBERTO G. ROMULO, respondents.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

G.R. No. 159196, February 3, 2004

AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, JR. as a Member of the Senate, petitioner,

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/feb2004/gr_159085_2004.html

Commission on Human Rights

"Fortunately, after the historic February 1986 peaceful revolution which saw the ouster of the Marcos dictatorship and the restoration of freedom and democracy in our beloved land, President Corazon C. Aquino immediately moved to restore fundamental democratic structures and processes. One such step, among many, was the creation on March 18, 1986 of the Presidential Committee On Human Rights (PCHR) 21 with Diokno himself as chairman to affirm "the new governments commitment to "uphold and respect the people's civil liberties and human rights,'" and "the United Nations General Assembly's Resolution of 14 December 1984, encouraging all member states to take steps for the establishment or, where they already exist, the strengthening of national institutions for protection of human rights," 22 and was primarily charged with the investigation, among others, of "complaints it may receive, cases known to it or to its members, and such cases as the President may, from time to time assign to it, of unexplained or forced disappearances (extra-judicial killings, salvaging, massacres, torture, hamletting, food blockades) and other violations of human rights, past or present, committed by officers or agents of the national government or persons acting in their place or stead or under their orders, express or implied."

More, the 1987 Constitution which was overwhelmingly ratified on February 2,1987 expressly mandated the creation of the Commission on Human Rights as an independent office 23 in place of a mere Presidential Committee. The Constitution vested the Commission on Human Rights with broader powers than its predecessor committee, such as to investigate, on its own or on complaint by any party, all forms of human rights violations involving civil and political rights; to exercise visitorial powers over jails, prisons, or detention facilities; to establish a continuing program of research, education, and information to enhance respect for the primacy of human rights; to recommend to the Congress effective measures to promote human rights and to provide for compensation to victims of violations of human rights, on their families; to monitor the government's compliance with international treaty, obligations on human rights and grant immunity from prosecution to any person whose testimony or whose possession of documents or other evidence is necessary or convenient to determine the truth in any investigation conducted by it or under its authority. On May 5, 1987, President Corazon C. Aquino issued Executive Order No. 163 declaring the effectivity of the creation of the Commission On Human Rights as provided for in the 1987 Constitution. This case (as well as all other cases, past and present) may therefore be properly referred to said Commission for a full and thorough investigation and determination of the facts and circumstances surrounding the disappearance of Eduardo Dizon and Isabel Ramos and of the related grave charges of petitioners against the respondents and the other officers above-named.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to refer this case to the Commission on Human Rights for investigation and appropriate action as may be warranted by its findings, and to furnish the Court with a report of the outcome of its investigation and action taken thereon. This Resolution is immediately executory."

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-59118, March 3, 1988

JUAN DIZON AND SOLEDAD RAMOS, petitioners,

vs.

BRIG. GEN. VICENTE EDUARDO AND COL. TEDDY CARIAN, respondents.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1988/mar1988/gr_l_59118_1988.html

Prescription: threat, intimidation vs. fraud.

"On whether the complaint for reconveyance should be dismissed

We agree with the RTC’s and the CA’s rulings that petitioner’s argument on the failure of the complaint to state a cause of action is unavailing. When the ground for dismissal is that the complaint states no cause of action, such fact can be determined only from the facts alleged in the complaint and from no other, and the court cannot consider other matters aliunde.33 The test, therefore, is whether, assuming the allegations of fact in the complaint to be true, a valid judgment could be rendered in accordance with the prayer stated therein. Where the allegations are sufficient but the veracity of the facts is assailed, the motion to dismiss should be denied.34

In their complaint for reconveyance, respondents alleged that the transfer of the three parcels of land from TCAIC to ICCI was facilitated through threat, duress and intimidation employed by certain individuals. On its face, the complaint clearly states a cause of action and raises issues of fact that can be properly settled only after a full-blown trial. On this ground, petitioner’s motion to dismiss must, perforce, be denied.

We do not, however, subscribe to the RTC’s ruling that the action has already prescribed.

It is true that an action for reconveyance of real property resulting from fraud may be barred by the statute of limitations, which requires that the action shall be filed within four (4) years from the discovery of the fraud.35 The RTC, however, seemed to have overlooked the fact that the basis of respondents’ complaint for reconveyance is not fraud but threat, duress and intimidation, allegedly employed by Marcos’ cronies upon the relatives of the Montanos while the latter were on self-exile.36 In fact, fraud was neither specifically alleged nor remotely implied in the complaint.

Article 1391 of the Civil Code provides:

Art. 1391. An action for annulment shall be brought within four years.

This period shall begin: In case of intimidation, violence or undue influence, from the time the defect of the consent ceases.

In case of mistake or fraud, from the time of the discovery of the same.

And when the action refers to contracts entered into by minors or other incapacitated persons, from the time the guardianship ceases.

In the circumstances prevailing in this case, the threat or intimidation upon respondents is deemed to have ceased only upon the ouster of then President Marcos from power on February 21, 1986. The four-year prescriptive period must, therefore, be reckoned from the said date. Thus, when respondents filed their complaint for reconveyance on September 15, 1989, the period provided for by law had not yet prescribed. Therefore, petitioner’s motion to dismiss should be denied."

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 166383, October 16, 2009

ASSOCIATED BANK, Petitioner,

vs. SPOUSES JUSTINIANO S. MONTANO, SR., AND LIGAYA MONTANO and TRES CRUCES AGRO-INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, Respondents.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_166383_2009.html

Affirmative defenses

"On the propriety of the motion to dismiss

Section 6, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court provides:

SEC. 6. Pleading grounds as affirmative defenses. – If no motion to dismiss has been filed, any of the grounds for dismissal provided for in this Rule may be pleaded as an affirmative defense in the answer and, in the discretion of the court, a preliminary hearing may be had thereon as if a motion to dismiss had been filed.

The dismissal of the complaint under this section shall be without prejudice to the prosecution in the same or separate action of a counterclaim pleaded in the answer.

The rule is based on practicality. Both the parties and the court can conveniently save time and expenses necessarily involved in a case preparation and in a trial at large, when the issues involved in a particular case can otherwise be disposed of in a preliminary hearing.31

Since the rule provides that the "preliminary hearing may be had thereon as if a motion to dismiss had been filed," such hearing shall therefore be conducted in the manner provided in Section 2, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court,32 which reads:

SEC. 2. Hearing of motion. – At the hearing of the motion, the parties shall submit their arguments on the question of law and their evidence on the questions of fact involved except those not available at that time. Should the case go to trial, the evidence presented during the hearing shall automatically be part of the evidence of the party presenting the same.

It is, therefore, inconsequential that petitioner had already filed an answer to the complaint prior to its filing of a motion to dismiss. The option of whether to set the case for preliminary hearing after the filing of an answer which raises affirmative defenses, or to file a motion to dismiss raising any of the grounds set forth in Section 1, Rule 16 of the Rules are procedural options which are not mutually exclusive of each other.

Moreover, as petitioner correctly pointed out, respondents failed to oppose the motion to dismiss despite having been given the opportunity to do so by the RTC. Therefore, any right to contest the same was already waived by them."

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 166383, October 16, 2009

ASSOCIATED BANK, Petitioner,

vs. SPOUSES JUSTINIANO S. MONTANO, SR., AND LIGAYA MONTANO and TRES CRUCES AGRO-INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, Respondents.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_166383_2009.html