Anda di halaman 1dari 2

ADMIN LAW – ATTY.

ARRIOLA
UNDERGROUND CASE DIGESTS
Gudani v. Senga President Arroyo coursed through Gen. Senga preventing
petitioners from testifying before Congress without her prior
approval be declared unconstitutional
FACTS
• Gudani and Balutan are high ranking officials of the Philippine Marines who, ISSUE: WON the President may prevent a member of the armed forces from
at the time of the incidents in this case, were assigned at the Philippine testifying before legislative inquiry?
Military Academy in Baguio.
• Senator Biazon invited several junior officers of the AFP including Chief of HELD:
Staff Senga to appear before the Senate Committee on National Defense
and Security on Sept. 28, 2005, in light of the electoral fraud in the 2004 The President has constitutional authority to do so, by virtue of her power as
elections. (Gudani and Balutan were assigned to maintain peace and order commander-in-chief, and that as a consequence a military officer who defies such
in Lanao del Norte and Sur during the 04 elections). injunction is liable under military justice. At the same time, any chamber of
Congress which seeks the appearance before it of a military officer against the
• Gen. Senga informed Senator Biazon that he could not attend due to prior
consent of the President has adequate remedies under law to compel such
commitments but he would ask the other officers to attend so the PMA
attendance. Any military official whom Congress summons to testify before it may
superintendent was informed that Gudani and Senga were invited to
be compelled to do so by the President. If the President is not so inclined, the
appear before the Senate hearing.
President may be commanded by judicial order to compel the attendance of the
• On the evening of Sept. 27, a message was transmitted to the PMA military officer. Final judicial orders have the force of the law of the land which the
superintendent that as per instruction of Pres. Arroyo, no AFP personnel President has the duty to faithfully execute.
shall appear before any congressional hearing without the approval of the
Pres. HOWEVER, by that time Gudani and Senga already left Baguio for The ability of the President to prevent military officers from testifying
Manila. before Congress does not turn on executive privilege, but on the Chief
• The following day, Gen. Senga informed Sen. Biazon that “no approval has Executive’s power as commander-in-chief to control the actions and
been granted by the President to any AFP officer to appear” before the speech of members of the armed forces. The President’s prerogatives as
hearing scheduled on that day. Nonetheless, both Gen. Gudani and Col. commander-in-chief are not hampered by the same limitations as in
Balutan were present as the hearing started, and they both testified as to executive privilege.
the conduct of the 2004 elections
The President could, as a general rule, require military officers to seek presidential
Note: EO 464 was also issued on Sept 28. approval before appearing before Congress is based foremost on the notion that a
contrary rule unduly diminishes the prerogatives of the President as commander-in-
chief. Congress holds significant control over the armed forces in matters such as
• The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) manifests that shortly before the
budget appropriations and the approval of higher-rank promotions, yet it is on the
start of the hearing, a copy of Gen. Senga’s letter to Sen. Biazon sent
President that the Constitution vests the title as commander-in-chief and all the
earlier that day was handed at the Senate by Commodore Tolentino to Gen.
prerogatives and functions appertaining to the position. Again, the exigencies of
Gudani, who replied that he already had a copy. Further, Gen. Senga called
military discipline and the chain of command mandate that the President’s ability to
Commodore Tolentino on the latter’s cell phone and asked to talk to Gen.
control the individual members of the armed forces be accorded the utmost respect.
Gudani, but Gen. Gudani refused. In response, Gen. Senga instructed
Where a military officer is torn between obeying the President and obeying the
Commodore Tolentino to inform Gen. Gudani that “it was an order,” yet
Senate, the Court will without hesitation affirm that the officer has to choose the
Gen. Gudani still refused to take Gen. Senga’s call.
President. After all, the Constitution prescribes that it is the President, and not the
• A few hours after Gen. Gudani and Col. Balutan had concluded their Senate, who is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces.
testimony, the office of Gen. Senga issued a statement which noted that
the two officers “disobeyed a legal order, in violation of Artcles of War 65
(Willfully Disobeying Superior Officer), hence they will be subjected to
General Court Martial proceedings. Both Gen. Gudani and Col. Balutan were
likewise relieved of their assignments then.
• Petitioners were separately served with Orders directing them to appear in
person at the Pre-Trial Investigation of the Charges for violation of Articles
66 and 97 of Commonwealth Act No. 408 and to submit their counter-
affidavits and affidavits of witnesses at the Office of the Judge Advocate
General. The Orders were accompanied by respective charge sheets
against petitioners, accusing them of violating Articles of War 65 and 97.
• It was from these premises that the present petition for certiorari and
prohibition was filed, particularly seeking that (1) the order of
Page 1 of 2 | ALBERTO ANBOCHI ATILLO AVILA CHUA GUERRERO DELA ROSA MIRANDA REVOTE REYES SALVADOR SUAREZ SULIT TAYAG
ADMIN LAW – ATTY. ARRIOLA
UNDERGROUND CASE DIGESTS

Page 2 of 2 | ALBERTO ANBOCHI ATILLO AVILA CHUA GUERRERO DELA ROSA MIRANDA REVOTE REYES SALVADOR SUAREZ SULIT TAYAG