SANLAKAS v EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

G.R. No. 159085. February 3, 2004

Petitioner: Sanlakas represented by REP. J.V. Bautista and Partido ng Manggagawa

NATURE: Petition to declare Proclamation No. 427 and General Order No. 4 unconstitutional
DECISION: Petitions dismissed

TERMS:
Locus Standi – personal and substantial interest in the case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the
governmental act being challenged
FACTS:
Oakwood Mutiny (July 23, 2003)
- 300 junior officers and enlisted men of the AFP stormed Oakwood Premiere apartments, Makati City with high-powered ammunition and
explosives
- Why? Bewailing AFP corruption and demanded the resignation of the President, Sec. of Defense, and the Chief of the PNP
- Result: President issued Proc. No. 427 and Gen. Order No. 4 both declaring a state of rebellion, calling for AFP to suppress rebellion.
- Ended on evening of July 27, 2003 – after negotiations, soldiers agreed to returned to barracks
- The declaration of a state of rebellion was only lifted on August 1, 2003 through Proclamation No. 435
Laws
PROCLAMATION NO. 427 GENERAL ORDER NO. 4
DECLARING A STATE OF REBELLION DIRECTING THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES AND THE PHILIPPINE
NATIONAL POLICE TO SUPRESS REBELLION
WHEREAS, certain elements of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, armed with WHEREAS, certain elements of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, armed with
high-powered firearms and explosives, acting upon the instigation and command and high-powered firearms and explosives, acting upon the instigation and command and
direction of known and unknown leaders, have seized a building in Makati City, put direction of known and unknown leaders, have seized a building in Makati City, put
bombs in the area, publicly declared withdrawal of support for, and took arms against bombs in the area, publicly declared withdrawal of support for, and took arms against
the duly constituted Government, and continue to rise publicly and show open the duly constituted Government, and continue to rise publicly and show open
hostility, for the purpose of removing allegiance to the Government certain bodies of hostility, for the purpose of removing allegiance to the Government certain bodies of
the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police, and depriving the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police, and depriving
the President of the Republic of the Philippines, wholly or partially, of her powers and the President of the Republic of the Philippines, wholly or partially, of her powers and
prerogatives which constitute the crime of rebellion punishable under Article 134 of prerogatives which constitute the crime of rebellion punishable under Article 134 et
the Revised Penal Code, as amended; seq. of the Revised Penal Code, as amended;
WHEREAS, these misguided elements of the Armed Forces of the Philippines are WHEREAS, these misguided elements of the Armed Forces of the Philippines are
being supported, abetted and aided by known and unknown leaders, conspirators and being supported, abetted and aided by known and unknown leaders, conspirators and
plotters in the government service and outside the government; plotters in the government service and outside the government;
 WHEREAS, under Section 18, Article VII of the present Constitution, whenever it WHEREAS, under Section 18, Article VII of the present Constitution, whenever it
becomes necessary, the President, as the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of becomes necessary, the President, as the Commander-in-Chief of all Armed Forces of
the Philippines, may call out such Armed Forces to suppress the rebellion; the Philippines, may call out such Armed Forces to suppress the rebellion;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, by virtue of the powers NOW, THEREFORE, I, GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, by virtue of the powers
vested in me by law, hereby confirm the existence of an actual and on-going rebellion, vested in me by the Constitution as President of the Republic of the Philippines and
compelling me to declare a state of rebellion. Commander-in-Chief of all the armed forces of the Philippines and pursuant to
In view of the foregoing, I am issuing General Order No. 4 in accordance with Section Proclamation No. 427 dated July 27, 2003, do hereby call upon the Armed Forces of
18, Article VII of the Constitution, calling out the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippines and the Philippine National Police to suppress and quell the rebellion.
the Philippine National Police to immediately carry out the necessary actions and I hereby direct the Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Chief of the
measures to suppress and quell the rebellion with due regard to constitutional rights. Philippine National Police and the officers and men of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines and the Philippine National Police to immediately carry out the necessary
and appropriate actions and measures to suppress and quell the rebellion with due
regard to constitutional rights.

Petitions filed during Interim challenging validity of Proc. No. 427 and Gen. Order No. 4
1. Sanlakas (as party list orgs) and Partido ng Manggagawa (PM)
o Sec. 28, Art VII of Consti doesn’t require the declaration of a state of rebellion to call out the armed forces
o Because of the cessation of Oakwood occupation, state of rebellion has no factual basis to continue indefinitely
2. SJS Officers/ Members (as citizens, tax payers, law professors, and bar reviewers):
o Same contention as former (Sanlakas)
o Declaration is a constitutional anomaly that misleads because overzealous public officers are liable to violate the consti right of private
citizens
o Proc. Is a circumvention of report requirement under Sec 18, Art VII – President must submit report to Congress within 28 hourss from
the proclamation of martial law
o Presidential issuances cannot be construed as an exercise of emergency powers – Congress did not delegate any such power to President
3. Rep. Suplico, etc (as citizens and as Members of the House of Reps)
o Filed petition cause their rights, powers, and functions were allegedly affected by state of rebellion
o Do not challenge power of President to call out Armed Forces
o Argue that declaration is superfluous and an exercise of emergency powers = usurping power of Congress granted by Sec 23(2), Art VI
of Consti
4. Sen. Pimentel
o Presidential issuances are unwarranted, illegal, and abusive exercise of martial law power with no basis under Consti
o He fears that declaration opens the door to unconstitutional implementation of warrantless arrests for the crime of rebellion
- Solicitor General: petitions have been rendered moot by the lifting of declaration and questions petitioners standing to bring suit
Ruling
1. Moot
- Court agrees with SG that Proc. No. 435 has ceased to exist = moot
o Rule: courts don’t adjudicate moot cases because judicial power is limited to “actual controversies”
o If moot case is capable of repetition, courts will decide a question
- May 1, 2001
 ▪ Declared state of rebellion and called AFP and PNP to suppres through Proc. No. 28 and Gen. Order No. 1
▪ Armed mob attempted to break in Malacanang
▪ Issue: validity of the president declaration
▪ Lifted 5 days later
▪ Petitions filed were considered moot (Lacson v Perez)
- Court takes up case to prevent future petitions
2. Locus Standi (legal standing)
- Only Rep. Suplico and Sen. Pimentel (members of Congress) have standing to challenge subject issuances
o Declaration is an exercise of Congress emergency powers
o Impairs lawmakers legislative powers
- Petitioners Sanlakas, PM, SJS have no locus standi to bring suit
o Sanlakas and PM
▪ they’re committed to defend and assert human rights, including political and civil rights of citizens
▪ they resort to mass actions and mobilizations in the exercise of their consti rights to peaceably assemble and their freedom of
speech and expression (Sexc. 4, Article III, 1987 Consti) to voice grievances and mobilize public opinion to support
▪ (Lacson v Perez) – as a juridical person, cannot claim to be threatened by warrantless arrest
▪ (Kilosbayan v Morato) – only real aprties in interest or those with standing may evoke the judicial power
o SJS officers
▪ Taxpayers can file suit where act directly involves illegal disbursement of public funds derived from taxes but that is not alleged
▪ Citizens can only raise consti questions when he has personally suffered an actual/ threatened injury but that is not alleged
o Standing on grounds of transcendental importance must fall
3. Question on Constitutional Standing
Sec. 18 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.
In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any
part thereof under martial law. Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in person or in
writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which
revocation shall not be set aside by the President. Upon the initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the same manner, extend such proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined
by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it.
The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four hours following such proclamation or suspension, convene in accordance with its rules without need of a call.
The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis for the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing.
A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies, nor authorize the conferment of the jurisdiction
on military courts and agencies over civilians where civil courts are able to function, nor automatically suspend the privilege of the writ.
The suspension of the privilege of the writ shall apply only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected with invasion.
During the suspension of the privilege of the writ, any person thus arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within three days, otherwise he shall be released.

- Sec. 18, Art VII does not prohibit president from declaring a state of rebellion as the Consti vests in him not only with Commander-in-Chief
 powers but first and foremost, Executive powers 

- Lesson from US Consti history: Commander-in-Chief powers are broad enough as it is and become more so when taken together with
Executive powers and the presidential oath of office 

- Presidential powers equip the occupant with means to address threats which undermine the very existence of government or the integrity of
the State 

- Late Justice Irene Cortes: PHL president vested with residual power that is greater than that of US president because of the “unitary and
highly centralized” nature of PHL gov’t 

- (Marcos v. Manglapus) Although there was a limitation of specific powers of the president, particularly those relating to the
commander-in-chief clause in the 1986 Constitution, brought in as a reaction to the abuses under the Marcos regime, there was no diminution
of the general grant of executive power. 

- President’s authority to declare a state of rebellion springs in the main from chief executive powers and draws strength from
commander-in-chief powers, acc to Sec 4, Chapter 2 (Ordinance Power), Book III of the Revised Administrative Code of 1987:

Proclamations.- Acts of the President fixing a date or declaring a status or condition of public moment or interest, upon the existence of
which the operation of a specific law or regulation is made to depend, shall be promulgated in proclamations which shall have the force of an
executive order. 

- Calling out armed forces in declaration of a state of rebellion = superfluity, devoid of any legal significance.
- The mere declaration of a state of rebellion cannot diminish or violate constitutionally protected rights.
- Petitioners did NOT cite specific instance where President attempted to or has exercised beyond her powers as Chief Ex or Commaander in
Chief. The declaration of a state of rebellion exercised purely executive powers vested on President (Sec 1 and 18, Art VII), as opposed to
delegated legislative powers (Sec 23 (2), Art VI)