G.R. No. 190259 ; June 7, 2011
DATU ZALDY UY AMPATUAN, ANSARUDDIN ADIONG, REGIE SAHALI-GENERALE, Petitioners, vs. HON. RONALDO PUNO, in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Interior and Local Government and alter-ego of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, and anyone acting in his stead and on behalf of the President of the Philippines, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES (AFP), or any of their units operating in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), and PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, or any of their units operating in ARMM, Respondents.

FACTS

On November 24, 2009, following the Maguindanao massacre, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued Proclamation 1946, placing the Provinces of Maguindanao and Sultan Kudarat and the City of Cotabato under a state of emergency and directing the AFP and PNP to prevent and suppress lawless violence. Subsequently, she issued Administrative Order 273 (later amended by AO 273-A), which delegated the President’s supervisory powers over the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) to the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) Secretary. Petitioners, who were ARMM officials, filed a petition for prohibition, alleging that these issuances encroached on ARMM’s autonomy by effectively authorizing a takeover of the regional government’s operations and powers, in violation of the Constitution and the Expanded ARMM Act (RA 9054). They also contended that the President had no factual basis for declaring a state of emergency, especially in Sultan Kudarat and Cotabato City, and that she invalidly exercised emergency powers. The Office of the Solicitor General argued that the proclamation was issued pursuant to the President’s “calling out” power as Commander-in-Chief to restore peace and order, and that the administrative orders merely delegated supervisory powers to her alter ego without authorizing a takeover.

ISSUE

1. Whether Proclamation 1946 and Administrative Orders 273 and 273-A violate the principle of local autonomy under the Constitution and the Expanded ARMM Organic Act.
2. Whether President Arroyo invalidly exercised emergency powers when she called out the AFP and the PNP.
3. Whether the President had factual bases for her actions.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition.
1. On local autonomy: The Court ruled that the DILG Secretary did not take over control of the ARMM’s powers. After the ARMM Governor was taken into custody, the ARMM Vice-Governor, petitioner Ansaruddin Adiong, assumed the governorship pursuant to the succession rules in RA 9054, and he subsequently named the ARMM Assembly Speaker, petitioner Sahali-Generale, as Acting Vice-Governor. Thus, there was no takeover of the ARMM’s administration or operations by the national government.
2. On emergency powers: The Court held that the deployment of AFP and PNP personnel under the proclamation was not an exercise of the emergency powers referred to in Section 23(2), Article VI of the Constitution , which requires congressional authorization during times of war or national emergency. Instead, the President acted under her constitutional power as Commander-in-Chief under Section 18, Article VII, which allows her to call out the armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence. This power is directly vested in the President and does not require prior congressional approval.
3. On factual basis: The Court stated that while it may inquire into the factual basis for the President’s exercise of the “calling out” power, it generally defers to the President’s judgment unless grave abuse of discretion is shown. The President, as Commander-in-Chief, has access to intelligence and information necessary for such on-the-spot decisions. Petitioners failed to substantiate their claim that the declaration lacked factual basis. The Court cited Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Zamora, emphasizing that the determination of necessity is entrusted to the President, and absent proof of grave abuse, her judgment is respected.