Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 3K views

    Gudani V Senga (GR No 170165) Digest

    Uploaded by

    Jose Ramon Ampil
    The Supreme Court denied the petition of retired General Francisco Gudani and Lt. Col. Alexander Balutan challenging their order to appear before a military investigation. While the President has authority as Commander-in-Chief over the military, this does not allow a blanket prohibition on members of the military testifying before Congress. As proceedings were initiated against Gudani and Balutan before Gudani's retirement, they remained subject to military jurisdiction. The Court may compel military officers to testify before Congress if needed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved

    Gudani V Senga (GR No 170165) Digest

    Uploaded by

    Jose Ramon Ampil
    3K views2 pages
    The Supreme Court denied the petition of retired General Francisco Gudani and Lt. Col. Alexander Balutan challenging their order to appear before a military investigation. While the President has authority as Commander-in-Chief over the military, this does not allow a blanket prohibition on members of the military testifying before Congress. As proceedings were initiated against Gudani and Balutan before Gudani's retirement, they remained subject to military jurisdiction. The Court may compel military officers to testify before Congress if needed.

    Original Description:

    Case Digest

    Original Title

    Gudani v Senga (Gr No 170165) Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court denied the petition of retired General Francisco Gudani and Lt. Col. Alexander Balutan challenging their order to appear before a military investigation. While the President has authority as Commander-in-Chief over the military, this does not allow a blanket prohibition on members of the military testifying before Congress. As proceedings were initiated against Gudani and Balutan before Gudani's retirement, they remained subject to military jurisdiction. The Court may compel military officers to testify before Congress if needed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    3K views2 pages

    Gudani V Senga (GR No 170165) Digest

    Uploaded by

    Jose Ramon Ampil
    The Supreme Court denied the petition of retired General Francisco Gudani and Lt. Col. Alexander Balutan challenging their order to appear before a military investigation. While the President has authority as Commander-in-Chief over the military, this does not allow a blanket prohibition on members of the military testifying before Congress. As proceedings were initiated against Gudani and Balutan before Gudani's retirement, they remained subject to military jurisdiction. The Court may compel military officers to testify before Congress if needed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    of 2

    GUDANI v.

    SENGA
    G.R. No. 170165

    Date of Promulgation: August 15, 2006


    Ponente: Tinga, J.
    Petition: Certiorari and prohibition
    Petitioners: B/Gen (Ret.) Francisco Gudani and Lt. Col. Alexander Balutan
    Respondents: Lt./Gen. Generoso Senga et 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 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 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 Office of the Provost Marshal General (OPMG) on October 3, 2005
    for investigation. On October 4, Gen. Gudani reached the age of 56 and was compulsorily retired
    from military service. On the other hand, on October 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
    2. WON Gen. Gudani is no longer subject to military jurisdiction due to his compulsory
    retirement – NO
    3. WON the Court may be empowered to compel AFP officers to appear before Congress –
    YES

    Ratio:
    1. Under Sec. 18, Art. VII of the 1987 Constitution, the President is the Commander-in-
    Chief 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 v. 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 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 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.

    You might also like