Ampatuan Vs Puno

9/5/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 651
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.
Administrative Law; State of Emergency; The Department of Interior

and Local Government (DILG) Secretary did not take over the
administration or operations of the Autonomous Region of Muslim
Mindanao (ARMM).—The DILG Secretary did not take over control of the
powers of the ARMM. After law enforcement agents took respondent
Governor of ARMM into custody for alleged complicity in the
Maguindanao massacre, the ARMM Vice-Governor, petitioner Ansaruddin
Adiong, assumed the vacated post on December 10, 2009 pursuant to the
rule on succession found in Article VII, Section 12, of RA 9054. In turn,
Acting Governor Adiong named the then Speaker of the ARMM Regional
Assembly, petitioner Sahali-Generale, Acting ARMM Vice-Governor. In
short, the DILG Secretary did not take over the administration or operations
of the ARMM.
Same; Same; The President did not proclaim a national emergency,
only a state of emergency in the three places mentioned; the calling out of
the armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence in such places is a
power that the Constitution directly vests in the President; she did not need
a congressional authority to exercise the same.—The President did not
proclaim a national emergency, only a state of emergency in the three places
mentioned. And she did not act pursuant to any law enacted by Congress
that authorized her to
_______________
* EN BANC.
229
VOL. 651, JUNE 7, 2011 229
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cfdb4f6ef45bd1d25003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/10
Ampatuan vs. Puno
exercise extraordinary powers. The calling out of the armed forces to

prevent or suppress lawless violence in such places is a power that the
Constitution directly vests in the President. She did not need a congressional
authority to exercise the same.
Same; Same; It is clearly to the President that the Constitution entrusts
the determination of the need for calling out the armed forces to prevent and
suppress lawless violence; Unless it is shown that such determination was
attended by grave abuse of discretion, the court will accord respect to the
President’s judgment.—While it is true that the Court may inquire into the
factual bases for the President’s exercise of the above power, it would
generally defer to her judgment on the matter. As the Court acknowledged
in Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Hon. Zamora, 338 SCRA 81 (2000),
it is clearly to the President that the Constitution entrusts the determination
of the need for calling out the armed forces to prevent and suppress lawless
violence. Unless it is shown that such determination was attended by grave
abuse of discretion, the Court will accord respect to the President’s
judgment.
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Prohibition.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Fortun, Narvasa & Salazar for petitioners.
The Solicitor General for respondents.
ABAD, J.:
On November 24, 2009, the day after the gruesome massacre of
57 men and women, including some news reporters, then President
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued Proclamation 1946,1 placing “the
Provinces of Maguindanao and Sultan Kudarat and the City of
Cotabato under a state of emergency.” She directed the Armed
Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the Philippine National Police
(PNP) “to undertake
_______________
1 Rollo, p. 34.
230
230 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ampatuan vs. Puno
such measures as may be allowed by the Constitution and by law to

prevent and suppress all incidents of lawless violence” in the named
places.
Three days later or on November 27, President Arroyo also
issued Administrative Order 273 (AO 273)2 “transferring”
supervision of the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao
(ARMM) from the Office of the President to the Department of

Interior and Local Government (DILG). But, due to issues raised
over the terminology used in AO 273, the President issued
Administrative Order 273-A (AO 273-A) amending the former, by
“delegating” instead of “transferring” supervision of the ARMM to
the DILG.3
Claiming that the President’s issuances encroached on the
ARMM’s autonomy, petitioners Datu Zaldy Uy Ampatuan,
Ansaruddin Adiong, and Regie Sahali-Generale, all ARMM
officials,4 filed this petition for prohibition under Rule 65. They
alleged that the proclamation and the orders empowered the DILG
Secretary to take over ARMM’s operations and seize the regional
government’s powers, in violation of the principle of local autonomy
under Republic Act 9054 (also known as the Expanded ARMM Act)
and the Constitution. The President gave the DILG Secretary the
power to exercise, not merely administrative supervision, but control
over the ARMM since the latter could suspend ARMM officials and
replace them.5
Petitioner ARMM officials claimed that the President had no
factual basis for declaring a state of emergency, especially in the
Province of Sultan Kudarat and the City of Cotabato, where no
critical violent incidents occurred. The deployment
_______________
2 Id., at p. 36.
3 Id., at p. 80.
4 Ampatuan, Adiong and Sahali-Generale were, respectively, the Governor, Vice-
Governor and Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of the ARMM at that time.
5 Rollo, pp. 14-17.
231
VOL. 651, JUNE 7, 2011 231

Ampatuan vs. Puno
of troops and the taking over of the ARMM constitutes an invalid

exercise of the President’s emergency powers.6 Petitioners asked
that Proclamation 1946 as well as AOs 273 and 273-A be declared
unconstitutional and that respondents DILG Secretary, the AFP, and
the PNP be enjoined from implementing them.
In its comment for the respondents,7 the Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG) insisted that the President issued Proclamation 1946,
not to deprive the ARMM of its autonomy, but to restore peace and
order in subject places.8 She issued the proclamation pursuant to her
“calling out” power9 as Commander-in-Chief under the first
sentence of Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution. The
determination of the need to exercise this power rests solely on her
wisdom.10 She must use her judgment based on intelligence reports
and such best information as are available to her to call out the
armed forces to suppress and prevent lawless violence wherever and

whenever these reared their ugly heads.
On the other hand, the President merely delegated through AOs
273 and 273-A her supervisory powers over the ARMM to the
DILG Secretary who was her alter ego any way. These orders did
not authorize a take over of the ARMM. They did not give him
blanket authority to suspend or replace ARMM officials.11 The
delegation was necessary to facilitate the investigation of the mass
killings.12 Further, the assailed proclamation and administrative
orders did not provide for the exercise of emergency powers.13
_______________
6 Id., at pp. 20-22.

7 Id., at p. 63.
8 Id., at pp. 85, 87, 95.
9 Id., at p. 98.
10 Id., at p. 76.
11 Id., at p. 95.
12 Id., at p. 78.
13 Id., at p. 110.
232

Ampatuan vs. Puno
Although normalcy has in the meantime returned to the places

subject of this petition, it might be relevant to rule on the issues
raised in this petition since some acts done pursuant to Proclamation
1946 and AOs 273 and 273-A could impact on the administrative
and criminal cases that the government subsequently filed against
those believed affected by such proclamation and orders.
The Issues Presented
The issues presented in this case are:
1. Whether or not Proclamation 1946 and AOs 273 and 273-A violate
the principle of local autonomy under Section 16, Article X of the
Constitution, and Section 1, Article V of the Expanded ARMM Organic
Act;
2. Whether or not President Arroyo invalidly exercised emergency
powers when she called out the AFP and the PNP to prevent and suppress
all incidents of lawless violence in Maguindanao, Sultan Kudarat, and
Cotabato City; and
3. Whether or not the President had factual bases for her actions.
The Rulings of the Court

We dismiss the petition.
One. The claim of petitioners that the subject proclamation and
administrative orders violate the principle of local autonomy is
anchored on the allegation that, through them, the President

authorized the DILG Secretary to take over the operations of the
ARMM and assume direct governmental powers over the region.
But, in the first place, the DILG Secretary did not take over
control of the powers of the ARMM. After law enforcement agents
took respondent Governor of ARMM into custody for alleged
complicity in the Maguindanao massacre, the
233
VOL. 651, JUNE 7, 2011 233

Ampatuan vs. Puno
ARMM Vice-Governor, petitioner Ansaruddin Adiong, assumed the

vacated post on December 10, 2009 pursuant to the rule on
succession found in Article VII, Section 12,14 of RA 9054. In turn,
Acting Governor Adiong named the then Speaker of the ARMM
Regional Assembly, petitioner Sahali-Generale, Acting ARMM
Vice-Governor.15 In short, the DILG Secretary did not take over the
administration or operations of the ARMM.
Two. Petitioners contend that the President unlawfully
exercised emergency powers when she ordered the deployment of
AFP and PNP personnel in the places mentioned in the
proclamation.16 But such deployment is not by itself an exercise of
emergency powers as understood under Section 23 (2), Article VI of
the Constitution, which provides:
“SECTION 23. x x x (2) In times of war or other national

emergency, the Congress may, by law, authorize the President, for a
limited period and subject to such restrictions as it may prescribe, to
exercise powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national
policy. Unless sooner withdrawn by resolution of the Congress, such
powers shall cease upon the next adjournment thereof.”
_______________
14 SEC. 12. Succession to Regional Governorship in Cases of Temporary

Incapacity.—In case of temporary incapacity of the regional Governor to perform his
duties on account of physical or legal causes, or when he is on official leave of
absence or on travel outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Republic of the
Philippines, the Regional Vice-Governor, or if there be none or in case of his
permanent or temporary incapacity or refusal to assume office, the Speaker of the
Regional Assembly shall exercise the powers, duties and functions of the Regional
Governor as prescribed by law enacted by the Regional Assembly or in the absence
thereof, by the pertinent provisions of Republic Act 7160 or the Local Government
Code of 1991.
15 http://services.inquirer.net/print/print.php?article_id=20100707-279759.
16 Rollo, p. 22.
234

Ampatuan vs. Puno
The President did not proclaim a national emergency, only a state

of emergency in the three places mentioned. And she did not act
pursuant to any law enacted by Congress that authorized her to
exercise extraordinary powers. The calling out of the armed forces
to prevent or suppress lawless violence in such places is a power that
the Constitution directly vests in the President. She did not need a
congressional authority to exercise the same.
Three. The President’s call on the armed forces to prevent or
suppress lawless violence springs from the power vested in her
under Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution, which provides.17
“SECTION 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. x x x”
While it is true that the Court may inquire into the factual bases
for the President’s exercise of the above power,18 it would generally
defer to her judgment on the matter. As the Court acknowledged in
Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Hon. Zamora,19it is clearly to the
President that the Constitution entrusts the determination of the need
for calling out the armed forces to prevent and suppress lawless
violence. Unless it is shown that such determination was attended by
grave abuse of discretion, the Court will accord respect to the
President’s judgment. Thus, the Court said:
_______________
17 See SANLAKAS v. Executive Secretary Reyes, 466 Phil. 482, 509-510; 421
SCRA 656, 668 (2004).
18 Lacson v. Sec. Perez, 410 Phil. 78, 93; 357 SCRA 756, 772 (2001).
19 392 Phil. 618, 635; 338 SCRA 81, 102-103 (2000).
235
VOL. 651, JUNE 7, 2011 235

Ampatuan vs. Puno
“If the petitioner fails, by way of proof, to support the assertion that
the President acted without factual basis, then this Court cannot
undertake an independent investigation beyond the pleadings. The
factual necessity of calling out the armed forces is not easily
quantifiable and cannot be objectively established since matters
considered for satisfying the same is a combination of several factors
which are not always accessible to the courts. Besides the absence of
textual standards that the court may use to judge necessity, information
necessary to arrive at such judgment might also prove unmanageable
for the courts. Certain pertinent information might be difficult to
verify, or wholly unavailable to the courts. In many instances, the
evidence upon which the President might decide that there is a need to
call out the armed forces may be of a nature not constituting technical
proof.
On the other hand, the President, as Commander-in-Chief has a vast
intelligence network to gather information, some of which may be
classified as highly confidential or affecting the security of the state. In
the exercise of the power to call, on-the-spot decisions may be
imperatively necessary in emergency situations to avert great loss of
human lives and mass destruction of property. Indeed, the decision to
call out the military to prevent or suppress lawless violence must be
done swiftly and decisively if it were to have any effect at all. x x x.”20
Here, petitioners failed to show that the declaration of a state of

emergency in the Provinces of Maguindanao, Sultan Kudarat and
Cotabato City, as well as the President’s exercise of the “calling out”
power had no factual basis. They simply alleged that, since not all
areas under the ARMM were placed under a state of emergency, it
follows that the take over of the entire ARMM by the DILG
Secretary had no basis too.21
_______________
20 Id., at pp. 643-644; pp. 110-111.

21 Rollo, pp. 20-21.
236

Ampatuan vs. Puno
But, apart from the fact that there was no such take over to begin
with, the OSG also clearly explained the factual bases for the
President’s decision to call out the armed forces, as follows:
“The Ampatuan and Mangudadatu clans are prominent families

engaged in the political control of Maguindanao. It is also a known fact
that both families have an arsenal of armed followers who hold elective
positions in various parts of the ARMM and the rest of Mindanao.
Considering the fact that the principal victims of the brutal
bloodshed are members of the Mangudadatu family and the main
perpetrators of the brutal killings are members and followers of the
Ampatuan family, both the military and police had to prepare for and
prevent reported retaliatory actions from the Mangudadatu clan and
additional offensive measures from the Ampatuan clan.
x x x x
The Ampatuan forces are estimated to be approximately two

thousand four hundred (2,400) persons, equipped with about two
thousand (2,000) firearms, about four hundred (400) of which have been
accounted for. x x x
As for the Mangudadatus, they have an estimated one thousand
eight hundred (1,800) personnel, with about two hundred (200)
firearms. x x x
Apart from their own personal forces, both clans have Special
Civilian Auxiliary Army (SCAA) personnel who support them: about
five hundred (500) for the Ampatuans and three hundred (300) for the
Mangudadatus.
What could be worse than the armed clash of two warring clans and
their armed supporters, especially in light of intelligence reports on the
potential involvement of rebel armed groups (RAGs).
One RAG was reported to have planned an attack on the forces of
Datu Andal Ampatuan, Sr. to show support and sympathy for the
victims. The said attack shall worsen the
237
VOL. 651, JUNE 7, 2011 237

Ampatuan vs. Puno
age-old territorial dispute between the said RAG and the Ampatuan
family.
x x x x
On the other hand, RAG faction which is based in Sultan Kudarat
was reported to have received three million pesos (P3,000,000.00) from
Datu Andal Ampatuan, Sr. for the procurement of ammunition. The
said faction is a force to reckon with because the group is well capable
of launching a series of violent activities to divert the attention of the
people and the authorities away from the multiple murder case. x x x
In addition, two other factions of a RAG are likely to support the
Mangudadatu family. The Cotabato-based faction has the strength of
about five hundred (500) persons and three hundred seventy-two (372)
firearms while the Sultan Kudarat-based faction has the strength of
about four hundred (400) persons and three hundred (300) firearms
and was reported to be moving towards Maguindanao to support the
Mangudadatu clan in its armed fight against the Ampatuans.”22
In other words, the imminence of violence and anarchy at the

time the President issued Proclamation 1946 was too grave to ignore
and she had to act to prevent further bloodshed and hostilities in the
places mentioned. Progress reports also indicated that there was
movement in these places of both high-powered firearms and armed
men sympathetic to the two clans.23 Thus, to pacify the people’s
fears and stabilize the situation, the President had to take preventive
action. She called out the armed forces to control the proliferation of
loose firearms and dismantle the armed groups that continuously
threatened the peace and security in the affected places.
Notably, the present administration of President Benigno Aquino

III has not withdrawn the declaration of a state of
_______________
22 Id., at pp. 101-105.

23 Id., at p. 105.
238

Ampatuan vs. Puno
emergency under Proclamation 1946. It has been reported24 that the

declaration would not be lifted soon because there is still a need to
disband private armies and confiscate loose firearms. Apparently, the
presence of troops in those places is still necessary to ease fear and
tension among the citizenry and prevent and suppress any violence
that may still erupt, despite the passage of more than a year from the
time of the Maguindanao massacre.
Since petitioners are not able to demonstrate that the
proclamation of state of emergency in the subject places and the
calling out of the armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless
violence there have clearly no factual bases, the Court must respect
the President’s actions.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Corona (C.J.), Carpio, Carpio-Morales, Velasco, Jr., Nachura,

Leonardo-De Castro, Brion, Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo,
Villarama, Jr., Perez, Mendoza and Sereno, JJ., concur.
Petition dismissed.
Note.—View that the Constitution does not expressly grant

executive privilege power to the President but courts have long
recognized implied Presidential powers if “necessary and proper” in
carrying out powers and functions ex-
pressly granted to the Executive under the Constitution. (Neri vs.
Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and
Investigations, 549 SCRA 77 [2008])
——o0o——
_______________
24 http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/video/nation/regions/11/23/10/state-emergency-
maguindanao-stays; http://www.sunstar.com.ph/manila//local-news/aquino-state-
emergency-maguindanao-stays; http://www.bomboradyo.com/index.php/news/top-
stories/29331-state-of-emergency-sa-c-mindanao-mananatili;
http://www.zambotimes.com/archives/26011-State-of-emergency-in-Maguindanao-
remains.html.
© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Ampatuan Vs Puno

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ampatuan Vs Puno

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

9/5/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 651

G.R. No. 190259. June 7, 2011.*

Administrative Law; State of Emergency; The Department of Interior

VOL. 651, JUNE 7, 2011 229

exercise extraordinary powers. The calling out of the armed forces to

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Prohibition.

230 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

such measures as may be allowed by the Constitution and by law to

(ARMM) from the Ofﬁce of the President to the Department of

VOL. 651, JUNE 7, 2011 231

of troops and the taking over of the ARMM constitutes an invalid

armed forces to suppress and prevent lawless violence wherever and

6 Id., at pp. 20-22.

232 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Although normalcy has in the meantime returned to the places

The Rulings of the Court

anchored on the allegation that, through them, the President

VOL. 651, JUNE 7, 2011 233

ARMM Vice-Governor, petitioner Ansaruddin Adiong, assumed the

“SECTION 23. x x x (2) In times of war or other national

14 SEC. 12. Succession to Regional Governorship in Cases of Temporary

234 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The President did not proclaim a national emergency, only a state

“SECTION 18. The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of

VOL. 651, JUNE 7, 2011 235

Here, petitioners failed to show that the declaration of a state of

20 Id., at pp. 643-644; pp. 110-111.

236 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

“The Ampatuan and Mangudadatu clans are prominent families

The Ampatuan forces are estimated to be approximately two

VOL. 651, JUNE 7, 2011 237

In other words, the imminence of violence and anarchy at the

Notably, the present administration of President Benigno Aquino

22 Id., at pp. 101-105.

238 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

emergency under Proclamation 1946. It has been reported24 that the

Corona (C.J.), Carpio, Carpio-Morales, Velasco, Jr., Nachura,

Note.—View that the Constitution does not expressly grant

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like