Commander-in-Chief Powers | Powers of the President | EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

Commander-in-Chief Powers of the President (Philippines)

Under the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, the President holds the position as Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines. This power is enshrined under Article VII, Section 18 of the Constitution. Below is a detailed analysis of the President’s Commander-in-Chief powers, including its scope, limitations, jurisprudence, and implications.

I. Constitutional Basis

Article VII, Section 18 of the 1987 Constitution provides:

“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. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the President. Upon the initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the same manner, extend such proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it.”

This constitutional provision sets the foundation of the President’s Commander-in-Chief powers. It bestows upon the President a three-tiered prerogative to:

1. Call out the armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion, or rebellion.
2. Declare martial law.
3. Suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

Each of these powers is distinct, with varying levels of intervention and limitations.

II. Three-Tiered Powers of the Commander-in-Chief

1. Calling Out the Armed Forces

   • The first and least extreme power under the Commander-in-Chief clause is the ability of the President to call out the armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion, or rebellion. This is the most flexible of the Commander-in-Chief powers.
   • Key Features:
     • This power can be exercised at the President’s discretion without the need for any precondition.
     • It does not require Congressional approval.
     • There is no specified duration limit, but it is subject to judicial review to ensure that there is no abuse of discretion.
   • Jurisprudence:
     • In Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Zamora (2000), the Supreme Court upheld the President’s calling out power, ruling that it is a discretionary power that need not be exercised only when actual invasion, rebellion, or lawless violence is occurring, but also when there is a threat thereof.
   • Limitations:
     • The power is broad but can be questioned if there is an abuse of discretion (e.g., where there is no basis for the President’s belief that lawless violence, invasion, or rebellion exists).

2. Martial Law Declaration

   • The President has the power to proclaim martial law in the Philippines or any part thereof in cases of invasion or rebellion when public safety requires it.
   • Key Features:
     • Martial law imposes extraordinary governmental authority over civil functions and may lead to military control in affected areas.
     • Martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution nor supplant the functioning of civilian courts.
     • The President must submit a report to Congress within 48 hours from the proclamation of martial law.
     • Congress may review, revoke, or extend martial law by majority vote.
     • Martial law shall last no more than 60 days unless extended by Congress.
     • Any Filipino citizen may challenge the declaration of martial law before the Supreme Court, which must decide the case within 30 days.
   • Jurisprudence:
     • In Lacson v. Perez (2001), the Supreme Court clarified that martial law is only intended to address rebellion or invasion when public safety is at risk. The case reinforced the separation of powers, particularly the need for judicial and legislative review of the President’s exercise of martial law powers.
     • Lagman v. Medialdea (2017) upheld the President's martial law declaration in Mindanao, reiterating the role of the judiciary in assessing factual bases for the imposition of martial law.
   • Limitations:
     • Martial law cannot abrogate the Bill of Rights.
     • Courts and Congress continue to function during martial law.
     • The Supreme Court has the power to review the factual basis of the martial law proclamation.

3. Suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus

   • The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is the most restrictive power and can only be invoked in cases of invasion or rebellion when public safety requires it.
   • Key Features:
     • When suspended, individuals can be detained without being brought before a court.
     • The suspension must follow the same process as martial law in terms of Congressional reporting, approval, and review by the courts.
     • Suspension cannot exceed 60 days unless extended by Congress.
     • Any citizen can question the suspension before the Supreme Court.
     • Persons arrested or detained during the suspension must be charged within three days or be released.
   • Jurisprudence:
     • In Fortun v. Macapagal-Arroyo (2012), the Court emphasized that suspension of the writ is a tool to address threats to public safety and should not be misused to curtail individual freedoms unnecessarily.
   • Limitations:
     • The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus may only be suspended in cases of invasion or rebellion.
     • The suspension does not apply to ordinary crimes unrelated to invasion or rebellion.

III. Judicial and Congressional Oversight

The 1987 Constitution provides significant checks on the exercise of the Commander-in-Chief powers. These checks are embedded within both the judiciary and the legislature:

• Congressional Review:

  • Congress has the power to revoke or extend a martial law declaration or the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus.
  • Any revocation by Congress cannot be overturned by the President.
  • If martial law or the suspension of habeas corpus is to continue beyond 60 days, the President must seek Congressional approval.

• Judicial Review:

  • The Supreme Court has the authority to review the sufficiency of the factual basis of the martial law declaration or the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus.
  • The Court must decide on any challenge within 30 days from its filing.

IV. Limitations of Commander-in-Chief Powers

1. Constitutional Boundaries:

   • The President cannot suspend the Constitution or the Bill of Rights even under martial law or the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus.
   • Civil courts and legislative bodies must remain operational during martial law.

2. Abuse of Discretion:

   • The Supreme Court is empowered to nullify any act of the President if there is a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
   • The President’s decisions to declare martial law, suspend habeas corpus, or call out the armed forces are subject to review and may be challenged in court if there is an allegation of abuse of discretion.

3. International Law Limitations:

   • The Philippines, as a signatory to various international treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), is obligated to protect fundamental human rights even during times of war or rebellion. The suspension of certain rights (such as the writ of habeas corpus) must still comply with international obligations regarding the treatment of individuals and respect for human dignity.

V. Conclusion

The Commander-in-Chief powers of the President are vast but balanced by constitutional safeguards, judicial oversight, and legislative checks. The Constitution ensures that while the President can exercise necessary force to maintain law and order, these powers are not absolute. They are constrained by legal processes designed to protect individual freedoms and prevent the abuse of executive authority. The combined roles of Congress and the judiciary act as essential checks to ensure the proper exercise of the Commander-in-Chief powers in accordance with the Constitution and the principles of democracy.

Declaration of Martial Law and Suspension of the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus; Extension and Revocation | Commander-in-Chief Powers | Powers of the President | EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

POLITICAL LAW AND PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW > X. EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT > C. Powers of the President > 5. Commander-in-Chief Powers > b. Declaration of Martial Law and Suspension of the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus; Extension and Revocation

Constitutional Basis

The Commander-in-Chief powers of the President of the Philippines are provided under Article VII, Section 18 of the 1987 Constitution. This section grants the President broad powers to ensure the security of the state, including the power to declare Martial Law and to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus under specific conditions.

The relevant portion of the Constitution states:

• "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. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law."

Conditions for Declaration of Martial Law or Suspension of the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus

The President may declare Martial Law or suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus only under two specific grounds:

1. Invasion, or
2. Rebellion, and only when public safety requires it.

Thus, the declaration of Martial Law and the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus are not discretionary powers of the President; they require the existence of actual conditions of invasion or rebellion and the additional requirement that public safety is at risk.

Invasion

Invasion refers to a situation where the sovereignty of the Philippines is under external attack by foreign forces, endangering the integrity of the nation.

Rebellion

Rebellion is defined under the Revised Penal Code (Article 134) as an act involving raising arms against the government for the purpose of removing its allegiance to the State or undermining the government’s authority.

Public Safety

The element of public safety refers to the necessity of protecting the general public from a real and imminent threat to life, property, or public order. It must be a condition present in addition to either invasion or rebellion.

Effect and Scope of Martial Law and the Suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus

Effect of Martial Law

1. Military Supremacy in Affected Areas: Martial Law imposes a regime of military authority over civilian areas. The military may take control of civil governance in areas declared under Martial Law.
2. Suspension of Certain Civil Rights: Certain civil liberties, including freedom of movement, may be restricted. However, Martial Law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution.

It is crucial to emphasize that under Article VII, Section 18, Martial Law does not suspend the Constitution, nor does it supplant civil courts with military tribunals where the civil courts are open and functioning. The rights of civilians, especially those not involved in the rebellion or invasion, remain protected.

Suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus

The writ of habeas corpus is a legal remedy against arbitrary detention, and its suspension allows authorities to detain individuals without immediately charging them with a crime.

• The suspension of the writ does not apply to all arrests. It applies only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected to invasion.
• Those arrested without a judicial charge must be released after three days, even if the privilege of the writ is suspended.

Duration

1. Initial Period: Martial Law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can only last for 60 days from the date of the declaration.
2. Extension: The period may be extended only upon the initiative of the President and with the concurrence of Congress. The President must submit a report to Congress within 48 hours from the declaration, either in person or in writing.
3. Congressional Review: Congress, voting jointly, by a majority vote of all its Members in regular or special session, may either extend or revoke the declaration.
4. Revocation: Congress may revoke the proclamation or suspension, and the President cannot set aside this revocation.
5. Supreme Court Review: Any citizen may question the sufficiency of the factual basis for Martial Law or the suspension of the writ before the Supreme Court, which must rule on the matter within 30 days from the filing of a petition.

Congressional Powers

1. Automatic Convening: Upon the declaration of Martial Law or the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, Congress must automatically convene within 24 hours to consider the proclamation or suspension, even if Congress is not in session.
2. Authority to Revoke or Extend: Congress, through a majority vote of all its Members voting jointly, may either revoke or extend the proclamation or suspension. If revoked, the President cannot override this decision. If extended, Congress determines the period of extension.

Judicial Review

1. Review by the Supreme Court: The Supreme Court has the authority to review the sufficiency of the factual basis of the declaration of Martial Law or the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus.
2. Filing a Petition: Any citizen can file a petition questioning the sufficiency of the factual basis for Martial Law or suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. The Supreme Court is mandated to decide the matter within 30 days from the filing of the petition.

Extension and Revocation

• Extension: As noted earlier, Congress may extend Martial Law or the suspension of the writ upon the President's initiative. There is no limit to how long an extension may last, provided that Congress deems it necessary and votes to approve it.

• Revocation: Congress may revoke Martial Law or the suspension of the writ at any time by a majority vote of all its members voting jointly. Once revoked, the President cannot override this revocation. Moreover, if the Supreme Court finds the factual basis insufficient, it may also nullify the proclamation.

Restrictions

• No Indefinite Martial Law: Martial Law cannot last indefinitely. While the initial declaration is limited to 60 days, it can only be extended upon approval of Congress.
• Civilian Supremacy: Civilian authority must remain supreme even during Martial Law, and the Constitution’s provisions remain in effect, especially those protecting basic rights.
• No Suspension of Judicial Processes: Even under Martial Law, the judicial processes of the country continue to function, except in places where military rule is necessary due to the breakdown of law and order. Civil courts that are operational should not be supplanted by military courts.

Historical Precedents

1. Proclamation No. 1081 (1972): Former President Ferdinand Marcos placed the Philippines under Martial Law, citing threats of communist rebellion and lawlessness. This period was marked by widespread human rights violations, emphasizing the potential dangers of unchecked Martial Law powers.

2. 2017 Mindanao Martial Law: President Rodrigo Duterte declared Martial Law in Mindanao in response to the Marawi siege by the Maute group, citing rebellion. This was extended multiple times by Congress, but remained limited to the Mindanao region and did not encompass the entire Philippines.

Conclusion

The Commander-in-Chief powers of the President, particularly the declaration of Martial Law and the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, are extraordinary measures that are constitutionally confined to specific circumstances—namely invasion or rebellion when public safety requires it. The 1987 Constitution provides safeguards such as judicial and legislative checks to prevent abuse of these powers. The Philippine legal framework ensures that even in times of crisis, the rule of law prevails, and civil liberties are not unduly trampled.

Calling Out Powers | Commander-in-Chief Powers | Powers of the President | EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

Commander-in-Chief Powers: Calling Out Powers of the President

The President of the Philippines, as Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines, is granted various powers under Article VII, Section 18 of the 1987 Constitution, one of which is the calling out power. This is the first in a series of Commander-in-Chief powers, progressively increasing in gravity, which also include the power to declare martial law and to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. The calling out power is the most benign of these powers but nonetheless critical in ensuring peace, security, and public order.

I. Constitutional Basis

Article VII, Section 18 of the 1987 Constitution states:

"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."

II. Nature and Scope of the Calling Out Power

The calling out power allows the President to mobilize the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) to address specific situations of lawless violence, invasion, or rebellion. It is the most flexible of the Commander-in-Chief powers because it does not require a formal declaration or approval from other branches of government. Thus, its use lies within the executive discretion of the President and is intended as a swift and immediate response to emergent situations that threaten public order and national security.

1. Lawless Violence

This refers to instances where the public order is endangered by acts of violence that cannot be controlled by ordinary law enforcement agencies. For instance, widespread rioting, acts of terrorism, or serious civil disturbances may justify the calling out of the AFP to augment the police and other civilian authorities.

2. Invasion

The calling out power can also be invoked in the event of actual or imminent foreign aggression, wherein the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Philippines are at risk.

3. Rebellion

Rebellion involves an organized and armed resistance against the authority of the state, and the President can call out the AFP to quash such uprisings to maintain public order and the rule of law.

III. Judicial Review and Limitations

While the calling out power is a discretionary power of the President, it is not immune to judicial review, although the scope of review is extremely limited. The Supreme Court can only inquire into the factual basis of the President's decision, particularly to determine whether there exists sufficient factual justification for the calling out of the armed forces. However, courts will generally defer to the executive's decision on the matter, as it involves national security concerns.

The leading case on this is "David v. Arroyo" (G.R. No. 171396, May 3, 2006), where the Supreme Court ruled that the President’s calling out power is not subject to the same constraints as the imposition of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. The Court held that the calling out power is within the executive's discretionary authority and is generally considered a preventive measure against greater threats to public safety and security.

In the case of "Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary" (G.R. No. 159085, February 3, 2004), the Supreme Court also affirmed that the judiciary has limited power to review the calling out of the military by the President unless there is a showing of grave abuse of discretion.

IV. Procedural Distinctions from Martial Law and Suspension of Habeas Corpus

The calling out power is distinct from the powers to declare martial law or suspend the writ of habeas corpus. Notably, the latter two require the presence of actual invasion or rebellion, and in such cases, public safety must also require the declaration. Additionally, martial law and the suspension of the writ are subject to constitutional safeguards, such as a limited period, the requirement of a report to Congress, and the possibility of judicial review. In contrast, the calling out power does not have these procedural constraints. It is viewed as an initial, preventive measure designed to manage less severe disturbances that do not yet necessitate the more extreme measures of martial law or suspension of habeas corpus.

V. Executive Discretion

The calling out power provides the President considerable discretion, as it does not involve the formalities and checks associated with martial law or the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. However, this also means that it is designed to be a more measured response, appropriate for situations that require immediate but not draconian intervention. The Supreme Court, in David v. Arroyo, emphasized that the President's judgment in calling out the armed forces is accorded great respect unless it is shown to have been exercised arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion.

VI. Limitations on the Use of Military Force

While the President can call out the armed forces, the use of military power is limited by civilian supremacy and must adhere to constitutional principles. The President cannot use the military for purposes beyond the suppression of lawless violence, invasion, or rebellion. Furthermore, Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution enshrines the principle of civilian authority over the military. The military must always act in support of civilian authorities, such as the police, and cannot supplant civilian functions.

The military may only act as an auxiliary force to assist civil authorities when civilian powers are insufficient to restore order or security. Thus, the AFP cannot take over ordinary law enforcement functions except in extreme circumstances where the safety of the public is gravely threatened.

VII. Notable Applications

Historically, the calling out power has been invoked by Presidents in situations involving serious threats to national security or public order:

• President Fidel V. Ramos invoked the calling out power during the coup attempts in the early 1990s.
• President Joseph Estrada called out the AFP in response to the 2000 Mindanao crisis involving the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF).
• President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo declared a “State of National Emergency” in 2006, invoking the calling out power to quell widespread lawless violence following an alleged coup attempt.
• President Rodrigo Duterte used the calling out power several times, notably in responding to the Marawi Siege in 2017 and declaring a state of lawlessness in the aftermath of the Davao City bombing in 2016.

VIII. Conclusion

The calling out power of the President is an essential component of the Commander-in-Chief powers, providing the executive with a flexible tool to address threats to public order without the need for more extreme measures like martial law. It is subject to minimal judicial scrutiny and is primarily within the President's discretion. However, the use of this power is still constrained by constitutional principles of civilian supremacy, proportionality, and respect for fundamental rights. The calling out power is intended to preserve the balance between maintaining order and protecting the freedoms enshrined in the Constitution, ensuring that military intervention remains a last resort in maintaining peace and security.