Gudani V Senga (GR No 170165) Digest

 

GUDANI v. SENGA G.R. No. 170165

 August 15, 2006   Date of Promulgation: August J.  Ponente: Tinga, J.  Petition: Certiorari and prohibition  prohibition  Petitioners: B/Gen  B/Gen (Ret.) Francisco Gudani and Lt. Col. Alexander Balutan  Balutan  Respondents: Lt./Gen.  Lt./Gen. Generoso Senga et al.  al.  Facts: On September 22, 2005, Sen. Rodolfo Biazon invited several senior AFP officers to appear at a Senate hearing on the Hello Garci scandal scheduled for September 28, 2005. Thus, on September 26, 2005, the Office of the Chief of Staff of the AFP issued a Memorandum to PMA Supt. Gen. Crisolito Baloing directing petitioners B/Gen (Ret.) Francisco Gudani and Lt. Col. Alexander Balutan to attend the hearing. However, on September 27 at around 10:10 pm, a message was transmitted to the PMA Superintendent stating that under und er a directive from Pres. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, no AFP personnel shall appear before a congressional or Senate hearing without her approval. Despite this, petitioners were present at a t the hearing. Meanwhile, on the day of the hearing, September 28, 2005, Pres. Arroyo issued E.O. 464, which enjoined officials of the executive department, including the military, from appearing in any legislative inquiry without her consent.

On September 30, 2005, petitioners were directed by AFP Chief of Staff Lt./Gen. Generoso Senga to appear before the th e Office of the Provost Marshal General (OPMG) on October 3, 3 , 2005 for investigation. On October 4, Gen. Gudani Gud ani reached the age of 56 and was compulsorily retired from military service. On the other hand, on October Octobe r 24, 2005, petitioners were served with Orders directing them to appear at the Pre-Trial Investigation for violating Articles 65 and 97 of C.A. No. 408. Issues/Held: 1.  WON Pres. Arroyo’s directive violates the Constitution –  NO  NO 2.  WON Gen. Gudani is no longer subject to military jurisdiction due to his compulsory

retirement retirement –   NO may be empowered to compel AFP officers to appear before Co  NO 3.  WON the  –  Court Congress ngress –   –   YES Ratio: 1.  Under Sec. 18, Art. VII of the 1987 198 7 Constitution, the President is the Commander-inChief of the armed forces of the Philippines. Outside the limitations of provisions such as Sec. 5, Art. XVI, the President has absolute authority over members of the armed forces, and can restrict their mobility and speech. Both restrictions are necessary to insulate the military from partisan politics and to ensure that they are ready to be called in times of emergency. The military must follow the President’s authority pursuant to the principles of discipline and obedience to the chain of command, with violation of the latter  punishable under Art. 65 of the Articles of War.

 

2.  In Abadilla In Abadilla v. Ramos, Ramos, the Court cited Col. Winthrop’s treatise on Military Law and concluded that an officer cannot be outside the jurisdiction of military authorities if  proceedings were initiated against him before the termination of his service. 3.  Unlike the executive and legislative branches of government, the constitutional principle of judicial review empowers the judiciary to compel obedience o bedience to its rulings by the former two. The Court ruled in Senate v. Ermita that the President could not impose a  blanket prohibition barring executive officials from testifying testifying before Congress, despite invoking executive privilege. Therefore, the legislature may seek judicial relief to compel the attendance of AFP officers in hearings. Decision: Petition is denied.