THERE IS NO OTHER PLAIN, SPEEDY AND ADEQUATE REMEDY OTHER THAN A RECOURSE TO THIS HONORABLE COURT
The Respondents have stated that they will stay in Metro Manila. The Chief Executive continues to distance herself from the deployment issue and leaves it to the Respondents to decide when to pull out. The Commission on Election has not decided on the issue even as election day is drawing near. The troops are still in the capital and Petitioners have no other recourse but to this Honorable Court.
The Commission on Human Rights, in a letter dated March 16, 2007 and signed by Chairperson Purificacion Valera Quisumbing, informed Gen. Hermogenes Esperon that the deployment and presence of the military in urban areas particularly depressed communities within Metropolitan Manila raise human rights serious curtailment of the free exercise of constitutionally guaranteed freedom of persons. Militarization of civilian communities, therefore, would be tantamount to violation of certain civil and political rights of the residents in said communities. The CHR then called upon the Government, particularly the top officials of the Armed Forces of the Philippines to recall all military personnel deployed in and patrolling certain urban residential areas in Metro Manila x x x. [Attached as Annex Q is a copy of the letter of the CHR to Gen. Hermogenes Esperon]
Instead of heeding the call of the CHR, the respondents did the exact opposite by adding an additional function to the troops garrisoned in the capital. On April 22, 2007 Respondent Dolorfino publicly declared that troops deployed in Metro Manila will conduct voters education.
Petitioners contend that this is the last part of the respondents campaign for the defeat of Bayan Muna and other opposition candidates in the party list system. Any further delay in the resolution of the issue will be decisively detrimental to the campaign and electoral chances of Petitioners. And a continuing, blatant violation of the Constitution. The executive, the Comelec and the CHR have not been effective forums for resolving the issue. Petitioners thus decided to file this petition before the Supreme Court with the hope that a remedy can be found before it is too late.
ARGUMENTS
1. The ORDER of Respondent Gen. Esperon together with the other respondents, to deploy soldiers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines in residential barangays in urban Metro Manila violates the principle of civilian supremacy over the military as enunciated in Sec. 3, Art. II, Constitution.
2. The ORDER of Respondents to deploy the soldiers was not pursuant to an order of the Commander-in-Chief through her calling out powers, and said Order and the actual deployment violated Sec. 18 Art. VII of the Constitution. The Respondents do not have the power or the discretion to unilaterally deploy their troops in Metro Manila. In the alternative, even if the deployment was implemented under that provision, upon the orders of Pres. Arroyo as commander-in-chief, such Order constitutes a grave abuse of discretion on the part of Pres. Arroyo since there is no lawless violence, invasion or rebellion in Metro Manila or a threat thereof, that should form the constitutional basis for the said Order.
3. The DEPLOYMENT of soldiers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines in residential barangays in urban Metro Manila to essentially engaging in partisan political activity by setting forth criteria to be used by voters in choosing their candidates for elective offices in the guise of voters education, or by out rightly campaigning against herein petitioners, or by intimidating, harassing or physically assaulting petitioners members, supporters and sympathizers and is therefore a gross violation of Sec. 5 (3), Art. XVI, Constitution, the Omnibus Election Code and various election rules.
DISCUSSION
I. The ORDER of Respondent Gen. Esperon together with the other respondents, to deploy soldiers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines in residential barangays in urban Metro Manila violates the principle of civilian supremacy over the military as enunciated in Sec. 3, Art. II, Constitution.
The military belongs to a world far distant from civilian life. Moreover, it cannot reign supreme over civilian authority and processes. Hence its encampment in the middle of a civilian community is not only a cause for serious alarm but is also anathema to democracy. The Constitution states in Sec. 3, Article II that Civilian authority is, at all times, supreme over the military.
Clearly the civilian supremacy clause is a constitutional precept that is enforceable against all acts that are perceived to derogate from it. Otherwise, if this clause were not self-executing it becomes a useless principle in the Constitution. Thus in Abadia et al. v. Court of Appeals et al.2 this Honorable Court held:
The 1987 Constitution reflects both the recognition by the Constitutional Commission of the necessity of a military force and the widespread concern, after two decades of authoritarian rule, over its role in a democratic society. Thus, while the Constitution recognizes the need for a military force to protect its citizens, it emphatically ordains the supremacy, at all times of civilian authority over the military. Through numerous provisions scattered all over the fundamental law, the constitutional injunction mandating the principle of civilian supremacy over the military has been given substantive detail. This detail has been further elaborated by the Rules of Court and our jurisprudence. Petitioners thesis, however, would deny the intent and spirit of these provisions.
No doubt, therefore, a governmental act or program may be nullified once it runs counter to this constitutional edict.
The civilian supremacy clause is breached where there is an insidious incursion of the military in the task of governing communities in the country.3 On the other hand there may be instances of permissible use of military assets for civilian law enforcement.4 These are when the militarys participation is limited and appropriately circumscribed.5 The militarys authority must be sufficiently defined and the actual decisions are made by the civilian authorities, that is, they must have the power to direct and manage the deployment of the soldiers.6 Where the deployment of soldiers for civilian functions subjected the citizens to the exercise of military power which is regulatory, proscriptive, or compulsory in nature, either presently or prospectively that is, the soldiers control or direct the operation; the soldiers have the power to prohibit or condemn; the soldiers apply coercive force the civilian supremacy clause is necessarily breached.7
Furthermore, civilian supervision and control of the deployment is impossible when the civilian government, President Arroyo in particular, is ignorant, or at least claims that she is ignorant, of the purpose of the deployment.
2007 Elections
