IBP vs.

Zamora
G.R. No.141284, August 15, 2000

Facts: Invoking his powers as Commander-in-Chief under Sec. 18, Art. 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. 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.

Issue: Whether or not the determination by the President of the factual basis of the exercise of the calling out power
subject to judicial review?

Ruling: 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. Under Sec. 18, Art. VII of the Constitution,
Congress may revoke such proclamation of martial law or suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and the
Court may review the sufficiency of the factual basis thereof. However, there is no such equivalent provision dealing with
the revocation or review of the President’s action to call out the armed forces. The distinction places the calling out power
in a different category from the power to declare martial law and power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus, otherwise, the framers of the Constitution would have simply lumped together the 3 powers and provided for
their revocation and review without any qualification.

The reason for the difference in the treatment of the said powers highlights the intent to grant the President the widest
leeway and broadest discretion in using the power to call out because it is considered as the lesser and more benign
power compared to the power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and the power to impose martial law,
both of which involve the curtailment and suppression of certain basic civil rights and individual freedoms, and thus
necessitating safeguards by Congress and review by the Court.

In view of the constitutional intent to give the President full discretionary power to determine the necessity of calling out
the armed forces, it is incumbent upon the petitioner to show that the President’s decision is totally bereft of factual basis.
The present petition fails to discharge such heavy burden, as there is no evidence to support the assertion that there
exists no justification for calling out the armed forces

The 1987 Constitution expands the concept of judicial review by providing that "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 a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any
branch or instrumentality of the Government." Under this definition, the Court cannot agree with the Solicitor General
that the issue involved is a political question beyond the jurisdiction of this Court to review. When the grant of power is
qualified, conditional or subject to limitations, the issue of whether the prescribed qualifications or conditions have been
met or the limitations respected, is justiciable - the problem being one of legality or validity, not its wisdom. Moreover, the
jurisdiction to delimit constitutional boundaries has been given to this Court. When political questions are involved, the
Constitution limits the determination as to whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction on the part of the official whose action is being questioned.