When he judges that it is necessary to impose martial

This preview shows page 35 - 38 out of 78 pages.

When he judges that it is necessary to impose martial law or suspend the privilege of the writ of habeascorpus, his judgment is subject to review. We are making it subject to review by the Supreme Court andsubject to concurrence by the National Assembly. But when he exercises this lesser power of calling onthe Armed Forces, when he says it is necessary, it is my opinion that his judgment cannot be reviewed byanybody.x x xFR. BERNAS. Let me just add that when we only have imminent danger, the matter can be handled by thefirst sentence: “The President . . . may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawlessviolence, invasion or rebellion.” So we feel that that is sufficient for handling imminent danger.MR. DE LOS REYES. So actually, if a President feels that there is imminent danger, the matter can behandled by the First Sentence: “The President . . . . may call out such Armed Forces to prevent or
suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion.” So we feel that that is sufficient for handling imminentdanger, of invasion or rebellion, instead of imposing martial law or suspending the writ of habeas corpus,he must necessarily have to call the Armed Forces of the Philippines as their Commander-in-Chief. Is thatthe idea?_______________33 Sarmiento v. Mison, 156 SCRA 549 (1987).110110SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDIntegrated Bar of the Philippines vs. ZamoraMR. REGALADO. That does not require any concurrence by the legislature nor is it subject to judicialreview.34The reason for the difference in the treatment of the aforementioned powers highlights the intent togrant the President the widest leeway and broadest discretion in using the power to call out because it isconsidered as the lesser and more benign power compared to the power to suspend the privilege of thewrit of habeas corpus and the power to impose martial law, both of which involve the curtailment andsuppression of certain basic civil rights and individual freedoms, and thus necessitating safeguards byCongress and review by this Court.Moreover, under Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution, in the exercise of the power to suspend theprivilege of the writ of habeas corpus or to impose martial law, two conditions must concur: (1) theremust be an actual invasion or rebellion and, (2) public safety must require it. These conditions are notrequired in the case of the power to call out the armed forces. The only criterion is that “whenever itbecomes necessary,” the President may call the armed forces “to prevent or suppress lawless violence,invasion or rebellion.” The implication is that the President is given full discretion and wide latitude inthe exercise of the power to call as compared to the two other powers.
If the petitioner fails, by way of proof, to support the assertion that the President acted without factualbasis, then this Court cannot undertake an independent investigation beyond the pleadings. The factualnecessity of calling out the armed forces is not easily quantifiable and cannot be objectively established

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

End of preview. Want to read all 78 pages?

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Term
Fall
Professor
Atty. Zamora
Tags
Law, Supreme Court of the United States, Baker v Carr,

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture