The calling out power is a high-yield topic in Political Law for the 2026 Bar. It is the most benign of the President’s extraordinary powers under Article VII, Section 18 of the 1987 Constitution and is frequently tested through fact patterns involving deployment of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) to address crime waves, terrorism, insurgency, or civil unrest. Examinees must master its constitutional parameters, its distinction from martial law and suspension of the writ, the deferential standard of judicial review, and its application to concrete scenarios to craft precise, well-structured essay answers.
Core Legal Basis and Definition
The calling out power is expressly granted by the first sentence of Article VII, Section 18 of the 1987 Constitution:
“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.”
It authorizes the President to mobilize the AFP (and often coordinate with the Philippine National Police) for the limited purpose of preventing or suppressing lawless violence, invasion, or rebellion. “Lawless violence” is broader than rebellion or invasion and includes serious criminality or threats that endanger public order (e.g., kidnappings, bombings, armed robberies, or terrorist acts). Unlike the powers to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or declare martial law (which appear in the same section but impose stricter conditions), the calling out power stands alone as the least intrusive measure.
Essential Requisites / Elements
Two conditions must concur:
- It becomes necessary — The President determines necessity based on his assessment of facts, intelligence, and exigencies. This determination carries great weight.
- Purpose — The deployment must be to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion, or rebellion.
These parameters are justiciable, but the President enjoys wide latitude. The power is exclusive to the President as the sole repository of executive power and Commander-in-Chief. It cannot be exercised by local chief executives or other officials.
Landmark Supreme Court Doctrines
Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Zamora (G.R. No. 141284, August 15, 2000): The Constitution vests the President with full discretionary power to call out the armed forces when, in his judgment, it is necessary. Judicial review is limited to determining whether the President committed grave abuse of discretion (capricious, whimsical, or arbitrary action amounting to evasion of a positive duty). Courts will not substitute their judgment for that of the President on the factual necessity of the call-out. Deployment of Marines to augment the PNP in visibility patrols against rising violent crime in Metro Manila was upheld as a valid exercise.
Kulayan v. Tan (G.R. No. 187298, July 3, 2012): The calling out power belongs exclusively to the President. A provincial governor’s attempt to call out the AFP is ultra vires and unconstitutional. There is only one Commander-in-Chief.
David v. Macapagal-Arroyo (G.R. No. 171396, May 3, 2006): Presidential Proclamation No. 1017 was a valid exercise of the calling out power to command the AFP and PNP to prevent or suppress lawless violence, insurrection, or rebellion. It was not a declaration of martial law. Provisions granting the President authority to issue decrees or impose prior restraint on the press were struck down as ultra vires because they exceeded the scope of calling out power.
Lagman v. Medialdea (G.R. No. 231658, July 4, 2017): The three extraordinary powers under Article VII, Section 18 are graduated according to scope and effect — calling out (most benign, ordinary police action), suspension of the writ, and martial law (most severe). The President has discretion to choose which power to exercise; there is no mandatory sequence requiring the calling out power to be exhausted first. Prior use of calling out (e.g., Proclamation No. 55) before declaring martial law does not affect the validity analysis of either measure.
Key Exceptions, Qualifications, and Distinctions
The calling out power is distinct from and less intrusive than martial law or suspension of the writ:
| Aspect | Calling Out Power | Suspension of Writ / Martial Law |
|---|---|---|
| Trigger | Lawless violence, invasion, or rebellion; “whenever it becomes necessary” | Actual invasion or rebellion and public safety requires it |
| Duration | No fixed constitutional limit (continues while necessary) | Maximum 60 days (extendable by Congress) |
| Congressional role | None required by the Constitution | Report within 48 hours; Congress may revoke by majority vote (joint session) |
| Judicial review | Grave abuse of discretion (highly deferential) | Sufficiency of factual basis (explicit constitutional standard) |
| Effects on rights/government | AFP assists in law enforcement; no automatic suspension of rights or civilian functions | Broader curtailment possible; military may exercise certain police powers in affected areas |
| Intrusiveness | Least (most benign) | Most severe |
Important qualifications:
- The power may be exercised even when conditions for martial law are not yet present.
- It does not authorize warrantless arrests beyond normal rules, prior restraint on speech/press, legislative decree-making, or takeover of private enterprises without separate legal basis.
- The actual tactical use of forces once called out is generally not subject to judicial review.
- It must be exercised consistently with civilian supremacy over the military.
How This Topic Appears in Bar Essay Questions
Examiners commonly present facts showing rising crime, terrorist attacks, insurgency, or large-scale unrest in a specific area or nationwide. The President issues a directive or proclamation calling out the AFP to support the PNP or conduct security operations. Typical questions ask:
- Is the calling out valid?
- What powers may the AFP lawfully exercise?
- How does this differ from a proclamation of martial law?
- Can a local official or Congress initiate or revoke the call-out?
Best answer structure:
- State the constitutional basis (Art. VII, §18) and nature (most benign extraordinary power).
- Enumerate the two requisites and cite the controlling doctrine (IBP v. Zamora).
- Apply the facts to “necessity” and the purpose of preventing/suppressing lawless violence.
- Distinguish from martial law using the comparison table or graduated-powers doctrine.
- Address limits (what the AFP cannot do) and conclude on validity or partial invalidity.
Common pitfalls to avoid: Treating calling out as equivalent to martial law (wrong requisites and effects); assuming local officials may exercise it; claiming it is non-justiciable; or ignoring that extraneous powers beyond calling out are ultra vires.
Practical Application Tips or Memory Aids
- Mnemonic: “LVIR” — Lawless Violence, Invasion, or Rebellion. The President alone decides when it is necessary.
- Graduated Powers Reminder: Call out (benign police augmentation) → Suspend writ → Martial law (most restrictive). President chooses; no mandatory escalation order.
- Review Standard: “To doubt is to sustain” the President’s call-out (IBP v. Zamora). Courts check only for grave abuse, not wisdom or accuracy of facts.
- In drafting answers, always begin with the exact codal text, then apply the deferential standard before reaching conclusions on the facts given.
Key Takeaways
- The calling out power is exclusive to the President and cannot be exercised by governors or other local officials (Kulayan v. Tan).
- It requires only that it “becomes necessary” to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion, or rebellion — a broader and less stringent trigger than martial law.
- The President’s determination of necessity enjoys great deference; judicial review is limited to grave abuse of discretion (IBP v. Zamora).
- It is the most benign of the three extraordinary powers and involves ordinary police action augmented by the military (Lagman v. Medialdea; David v. Arroyo).
- It has no 60-day limit, requires no immediate congressional report or revocation mechanism, and does not suspend the writ or broadly curtail civil liberties.
- Extraneous powers (e.g., decree-making or media regulation) attached to a calling-out directive are unconstitutional.
- In every essay, cite Article VII, Section 18, apply the two requisites to the facts, distinguish from martial law, and note the deferential standard of review to maximize points.