Sanlakas v.

Executive Secretary
421 SCRA 656 Ponente: Tinga, J. (2004) FACTS On July 27, 2003, some 300 junior officers and enlisted men of AFP, armed with ammunitions and explosives, stormed into Oakwood apartments in Makati, demanding the resignation of the President, the Defense Secretary, and the PNP Chief. Later that day, the President issued Proclamation No. 427 and General Order No. 4 both declaring a state of rebellion and calling out the AFP to suppress the rebellion. The Oakwood occupation ended in the evening after negotiations. The President, however, did not immediately lift the declaration of a state of rebellion and did so only on August 1, 2003. During that time, several search and recovery operations were conducted. PARTIES Sanlakas and Partido ng Manggagawa. Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution does not require the declaration of a state of rebellion to call out the armed forces. There is no sufficient factual basis for the proclamation by the President of a state of rebellion for an indefinite period. Social Justice Society. The declaration is a constitutional anomaly that may confuse overzealous public officers to violate the constitutional rights of citizens. The President circumvented the report requirement in Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution. Presidential issuances cannot be construed as an exercise of emergency powers as Congress has not delegated any such power to the President. Rep. Rolex Suplico. Prerogatives of the legislature were affected. The declaration is a superfluity and is actually an exercise of emergency powers and therefore usurpation of the power of Congress in Section 23 (2) Article 6 of the Constitution. Sen. Aquilino Pimentel. The issuances are unwarranted, illegal, and abusive exercise of martial law powers that has no constitutional basis. Solicitor-General. The controversy has been rendered moot by the lifting of the declaration. The petitioners have no legal standing. ISSUE/RULING/RATIO WON the issue is justiciable given the mootness of the issue. Yes. Although the question has been rendered moot, the Court may exercise judicial review if it is capable of repetition yet evading review. WON the petitioners have legal standing. Only the legislators have legal standing because the issuances allegedly injured (substantially) the institution of the Congress. Sanlakas, PM, and SJS were unable to fulfill the direct injury test. WON the issuances are constitutional. Yes. The President, in declaring a state of rebellion and in calling out the armed forces, was merely exercising chief executive and commander-in-chief powers provided by the Constitution. Besides, the proclamation is devoid of any legal significance as it only gives notice that such state exists. Further, a declaration of a state of rebellion does not amount to a declaration of martial law. Lastly, proof that the issuances are without factual bases is lacking. SEPARATE OPINIONS Vitug (concurs). Even with the issuances, constitution is still in force. Violation of rights is therefore not justified by the proclamation. Panganiban (concurs). The petitions may be dismissed on the basis of mootness alone. The petitioners have not shown the exemption to mootness (that the party raising it in a proper case has been and/or continue to be prejudiced or damaged as a direct result of their issuance). Ynares-Santiago (dissents). The rebellion ended in the evening. No warrantless arrest should have been allowed after that. The declaration, in its duration, gave legal cover to such warrantless arrests even when the rebellion had ceased. The issuances are null and void, so are the arrests made after the rebellion. Sandoval-Gutierrez (dissents). The power to declare a state of rebellion is nowhere to be found in the constitution, and therefore not subject to clear legal restraints. It is martial law without declaration to that effect and without observing proper procedure. If the goal is to call out the armed forces, it is unnecessary.