DATU ZALDY UY AMPATUAN V. HON.

RONALDO PUNO
June 7, 2011 | Abad, J.
Commander-in-chief|
AKGL

DOCTRINE: 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. The Constitution entrusts the determination of the need for calling out the armed forces to
prevent and suppress lawless violence.
CASE SUMMARY: In November 2009, PGMA issued Proc. 1946, which put certain places in Mindanao under the state of
emergency, in response to the gruesome massacre that occurred involving the Ampatuans. PGMA likewise issued AO 273-A
delegating her power of supervision over ARMM to the DILG Secretary. Petitioners assail these issuances as they are alleged to
violate the local autonomy and that these were invalid exercise of her power. But, SC upheld the actions of the president.

FACTS:
In November 2009, the day after the gruesome massacre, PGMA issued Proclamation 1946, which placed Maguindanao,
Sultan Kudarat and Cotabato City under the state of emergency (i.e., calling out the AFP and PNP). This was to prevent and
suppress all incidents of lawless violence in the mentioned places.
Similarly, PGMA issued AO 273-A, which delegated the Presidents supervision over ARMM to DILG Secretary.
Petitioners assailed the said presidential issuances on the ground that it encroached on the ARMMs autonomy pursuant to the
Expanded ARMM Act and CONST., art. 10, sec. 16 and that there was no factual basis on the declaration of the state of
emergency.

ISSUE 1: WON the said presidential issuances violate the principle of local autonomy? NO
RULING:
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 ViceGovernor, petitioner
Ansaruddin Adiong, assumed the vacated post. The DILG Secretary did not take over the administration or operations of the
ARMM.

ISSUE 2: WON PGMA invalidly exercised the emergency powers stated in CONST. art. 7, sec. 18? NO
RULING:
The President did not proclaim a national emergency as contemplated in CONST. art. 6, sec. 23(2), 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 as stated in CONST. art. 7, sec. 18.

ISSUE 3: WON PGMA had factual basis for her actions? YES
RULING:
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. In IBP v. Zamora, SC held that 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 burden of proof is with the petitioner asserting the lack of basis on the part of the president.
Both the military and police had to prepare for and prevent reported retaliatory actions from the Mangudadatus, as they have
~1,800 personnel with ~200 firearms. On the other hand, the Ampatuans have ~2,400 personnel with ~2,000 firearms.
Likewise, intelligence reports showed the potential involvement of rebel armed groups (RAGs) both the Ampatuans and
Mangudadatus are supported by different RAGs.
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.
PNoy even, has not withdrawn the declaration of state of emergency.

DISPOSITION: The petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

NOTES:
CONST, art. 7, sec. 18. The President shall be the Commander inChief 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