8_sanlakas vs Exec Sec

8/20/2019 8_sanlakas vs Exec Sec

1/31

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 159085 February 3, 2004

SANA!AS, re"re#e$%e& by REP. '.(. )au%*#%a, a$& PART+O NG MANGGAGA-A,re"re#e$%e& by REP. RENATO MAGTU)O petitioners,vsEECUT+(E SECRETAR/ SECRETAR/ ANGEO RE/ES, GENERA NARC+SO A)A/A, +R.GEN. ERMOGENES E)ANE, respondents.

G.R. No. 159103 February 3, 2004

SOC+A 'UST+CE SOC+ET/ S'S OFF+CERSMEM)ERS $a6e7y, SAMSON S. ACANTARA,E (+NCENT S. A)ANO, RENE ). GOROSPE, E-+N R. SANO(A a$& ROOFO .MAP+E, petitioners,vsON. EECUT+(E SECRETAR/ A)ERTO G. ROMUO, ON. SECRETAR/ OF 'UST+CES+MEON ATUMANONG, ON. SECRETAR/ OF NAT+ONA EFENSE ANGEO RE/ES, a$&ON. SECRETAR/ 'OSE +NA, 'R., respondents.

G.R. No. 159185 February 3, 2004

REP. ROE T. SUP+CO, REP. CAROS M. PA+A, REP. CESO . O)REGAT, REP.USS+N U. AM+N, REP. A)RAAM !A+ ). M+TRA, REP. EMM/OU '. TA+NOSANTOS,a$& REP. GEORG+U R. /UMUERM+A, petitioners,vsPRES+ENT GOR+A MACAPAGAARRO/O a$& EECUT+(E SECRETAR/ A)ERTO G.ROMUO,respondents.

G.R. No. 15919 February 3, 2004

A:U++NO :. P+MENTE, 'R. a# a Me6ber o; %


2/31

!he" ca#e in the #iddle of the ni$ht. Ar#ed %ith hi$h&po%ered a##unitions and e'plosives, so#ethree hundred (unior officers and enlisted #en of the Ar#ed )orces of the Philippines *A)P+ stor#edinto the a%ood Pre#iere apart#ents in Maati Cit" in the %ee hours of -ul" /, 001. Be%ailin$the corruption in the A)P, the soldiers de#anded, a#on$ other thin$s, the resi$nation of thePresident, the Secretar" of Defense and the Chief of the Philippine National Police *PNP+.2

In the %ae of the a%ood occupation, the President issued later in the da" Procla#ation No. 3/and 4eneral rder No. 3, both declarin$ 5a state of rebellion5 and callin$ out the Ar#ed )orces tosuppress the rebellion. Procla#ation No. 3/ reads in full6

PRC7AMA!IN N. 3/

DEC7ARIN4 A S!A!E ) REBE77IN

89EREAS, certain ele#ents of the Ar#ed )orces of the Philippines, ar#ed %ith hi$h&po%eredfirear#s and e'plosives, actin$ upon the insti$ation and co##and and direction of no%n andunno%n leaders, have sei:ed a buildin$ in Maati Cit", put bo#bs in the area, publicl" declared%ithdra%al of support for, and too ar#s a$ainst the dul" constituted 4overn#ent, and continue to

rise publicl" and sho% open hostilit", for the purpose of re#ovin$ alle$iance to the 4overn#entcertain bodies of the Ar#ed )orces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police, anddeprivin$ the President of the Republic of the Philippines, %holl" or partiall", of her po%ers andprero$atives %hich constitute the cri#e of rebellion punishable under Article 213 of the RevisedPenal Code, as a#ended;

89EREAS, these #is$uided ele#ents of the Ar#ed )orces of the Philippines are bein$ supported,abetted and aided b" no%n and unno%n leaders, conspirators and plotters in the $overn#entservice and outside the $overn#ent;

89EREAS, under Section 2, b" virtue of the po%ers vested in #e b"la%, hereb" confir# the e'istence of an actual and on&$oin$ rebellion, co#pellin$ #e to declare astate of rebellion.

In vie% of the fore$oin$, I a# issuin$ 4eneral rder No. 3 in accordance %ith Section 2


3/31

%ithdra%al of support for, and too ar#s a$ainst the dul" constituted 4overn#ent, and continue torise publicl" and sho% open hostilit", for the purpose of re#ovin$ alle$iance to the 4overn#entcertain bodies of the Ar#ed )orces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police, anddeprivin$ the President of the Republic of the Philippines, %holl" or partiall", of her po%ers andprero$atives %hich constitute the cri#e of rebellion punishable under Article 213 et seq. of theRevised Penal Code, as a#ended;

89EREAS, these #is$uided ele#ents of the Ar#ed )orces of the Philippines are bein$ supported,abetted and aided b" no%n and unno%n leaders, conspirators and plotters in the $overn#entservice and outside the $overn#ent;

89EREAS, under Section 2, b" virtue of the po%ers vested in #e b"the Constitution as President of the Republic of the Philippines and Co##ander&in&Chief of all thear#ed forces of the Philippines and pursuant to Procla#ation No. 3/ dated -ul" /, 001, do

hereb" call upon the Ar#ed )orces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police to suppressand ?uell the rebellion.

I hereb" direct the Chief of the Ar#ed )orces of the Philippines and the Chief of the PhilippineNational Police and the officers and #en of the Ar#ed )orces of the Philippines and the PhilippineNational Police to i##ediatel" carr" out the necessar" and appropriate actions and #easures tosuppress and ?uell the rebellion %ith due re$ard to constitutional ri$hts.

B" the evenin$ of -ul" /, 001, the a%ood occupation had ended. After hours&lon$ ne$otiations,the soldiers a$reed to return to barracs. !he President, ho%ever, did not i##ediatel" lift thedeclaration of a state of rebellion and did so onl" on Au$ust 2, 001, throu$h Procla#ation No. 316

DEC7ARIN4 !9A! !9E S!A!E ) REBE77IN 9AS CEASED ! EIS!

89EREAS, b" virtue of Procla#ation No. 3/ dated -ul" /, 001, a state of rebellion %asdeclared;

89EREAS, b" virtue of 4eneral rder No. 3 dated -ul" /, 001, %hich %as issued on the basis ofProcla#ation No. 3/ dated -ul" /, 001, and pursuant to Article =II, Section 2< of the Constitution,the Ar#ed )orces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police %ere directed to suppressand ?uell the rebellion;

89EREAS, the Ar#ed )orces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police have effectivel"suppressed and ?uelled the rebellion.

N8, !9ERE)RE, I, 47RIA MACAPA4A7&ARR>, President of the Philippines, b" virtue ofthe po%ers vested in #e b" la%, hereb" declare that the state of rebellion has ceased to e'ist.

In the interi#, several petitions %ere filed before this Court challen$in$ the validit" of Procla#ationNo. 3/ and 4eneral rder No. 3.

In 4.R. No. 20


4/31

does not re?uire the declaration of a state of rebellion to call out the ar#ed forces.1 !he" furthersub#it that, because of the cessation of the a%ood occupation, there e'ists no sufficient factualbasis for the procla#ation b" the President of a state of rebellion for an indefinite period.3

Petitioners in 4.R. No. 2201 *SJS Officers/Members v. Hon. Executive Secretary, et al .+ areofficers#e#bers of the Social -ustice Societ" *S-S+, 5)ilipino citi:ens, ta'pa"ers, la% professors

and bar revie%ers.5 7ie Sanlaas and PM, the" clai# that Section 2%ua7 controversies.52


5/31

nl" petitioners Rep. Suplico et al . and Sen. Pi#entel, as Me#bers of Con$ress, have standin$ tochallen$e the sub(ect issuances. In P%ili!!ine &onstitution $ssociation v. Enrique' , this Courtreco$ni:ed that6

!o the e'tent the po%ers of Con$ress are i#paired, so is the po%er of each #e#ber thereof,since his office confers a ri$ht to participate in the e'ercise of the po%ers of that institution.

An act of the E'ecutive %hich in(ures the institution of Con$ress causes a derivative butnonetheless substantial in(ur", %hich can be ?uestioned b" a #e#ber of Con$ress. In such acase, an" #e#ber of Con$ress can have a resort to the courts.

Petitioner Me#bers of Con$ress clai# that the declaration of a state of rebellion b" thePresident is tanta#ount to an e'ercise of Con$ressH e#er$enc" po%ers, thus i#pairin$ thela%#aersH le$islative po%ers. Petitioners also #aintain that the declaration is a subterfu$eto avoid con$ressional scrutin" into the PresidentHs e'ercise of #artial la% po%ers.

Petitioners Sanlaas and PM, and S-S fficersMe#bers, have no le$al standin$ or locusstandi to brin$ suit. 57e$al standin$5 or locus standi has been defined as a personal and

substantial interest in the case such that the part" has sustained or %ill sustain direct in(ur"as a result of the $overn#ental act that is bein$ challen$edJ. !he $ist of the ?uestion ofstandin$ is %hether a part" alle$es 5such personal stae in the outco#e of the controvers"as to assure that concrete adverseness %hich sharpens the presentation of issues upon%hich the court depends for illu#ination of difficult constitutional ?uestions.51

Petitioners Sanlaas and PM assert that6

. As a basic principle of the or$ani:ations and as an i#portant plan in their pro$ra#s,petitioners are co##itted to assert, defend, protect, uphold, and pro#ote the ri$hts,interests, and %elfare of the people, especiall" the poor and #ar$inali:ed classes andsectors of Philippine societ". Petitioners are co##itted to defend and assert hu#an ri$hts,

includin$ political and civil ri$hts, of the citi:ens.

1. Me#bers of the petitioner or$ani:ations resort to #ass actions and #obili:ations in thee'ercise of their Constitutional ri$hts to peaceabl" asse#ble and their freedo# of speechand of e'pression under Section 4, Article III of the 198? Co$#%*%u%*o$, as a vehicle topublicl" ventilate their $rievances and le$iti#ate de#ands and to #obili:e public opinion tosupport the sa#e.3 FE#phasis in the ori$inal.G

Petitioner part"&list or$ani:ations clai# no better ri$ht than the 7aban n$ De#oration$ Pilipino,%hose standin$ this Court re(ected in (acson v. Pere' 6

J petitioner has not de#onstrated an" in(ur" to itself %hich %ould (ustif" the resort to theCourt. Petitioner is a (uridical person not sub(ect to arrest. !hus, it cannot clai# to bethreatened b" a %arrantless arrest. Nor is it alle$ed that its leaders, #e#bers, andsupporters are bein$ threatened %ith %arrantless arrest and detention for the cri#e ofrebellion. Ever" action #ust be brou$ht in the na#e of the part" %hose le$al ri$hts has beeninvaded or infrin$ed, or %hose le$al ri$ht is under i##inent threat of invasion orinfrin$e#ent.

At best, the instant petition #a" be considered as an action for declarator" relief, petitionerclai#in$ that itFHGs ri$ht to freedo# of e'pression and freedo# of asse#bl" is affected b" the


6/31

declaration of a 5state of rebellion5 and that said procla#ation is invalid for bein$ contrar" tothe Constitution.

9o%ever, to consider the petition as one for declarator" relief affords little co#fort topetitioner, this Court not havin$ (urisdiction in the first instance over such a petition. Section F2G, Article =III of the Constitution li#its the ori$inal (urisdiction of the court to cases affectin$

a#bassadors, other public #inisters and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari, !ro%ibition, mandamus, quo )arranto, and %abeas cor!us.

Even assu#in$ that petitioners are 5peopleHs or$ani:ations,5 this status %ould not vest the# %ith there?uisite personalit" to ?uestion the validit" of the presidential issuances, as this Court #ade clearin *ilosbayan v. Morato6

!he Constitution provides that 5the State shall respect the role of independent peopleHsor$ani:ations to enable the people to pursue and protect, %ithin the de#ocratic fra#e%or,their le$iti#ate and collective interests and aspirations throu$h peaceful and la%ful #eans,5that their ri$ht to 5effective and reasonable participation at all levels of social, political, andecono#ic decisionain$ shall not be abrid$ed.5 *Art. III, KK2&2+

!hese provisions have not chan$ed the traditional rule that onl" real !arties in interest ort%ose )it% standin" , as the case #a" be, #a" invoe the (udicial po%er. !he (urisdiction ofthis Court, even in cases involvin$ constitutional ?uestions, is li#ited b" the 5case andcontrovers"5 re?uire#ent of Art. =III, K. !his re?uire#ent lies at the ver" heart of the (udicialfunction. It is %hat differentiates decision#ain$ in the courts fro# decision#ain$ in thepolitical depart#ents of the $overn#ent and bars the brin$in$ of suits b" (ust an" part"./

!hat petitioner S-S officers#e#bers are ta'pa"ers and citi:ens does not necessaril" endo% the#%ith standin$. A ta'pa"er #a" brin$ suit %here the act co#plained of directl" involves the ille$aldisburse#ent of public funds derived fro# ta'ation.e, *$a#*o$ or rebe77*o$. In case of invasion orrebellion, %hen the public safet" re?uires it, he #a", for a period not e'ceedin$ si't" da"s,suspend the privile$e of the %rit of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or an" part thereof under #artial la%. 8ithin fort"&ei$ht hours fro# the procla#ation of #artial la% or thesuspension of the %rit of habeas corpus, the President shall sub#it a report in person or in%ritin$ to the Con$ress. !he Con$ress, votin$ (ointl", b" a vote of at least a #a(orit" of all itsMe#bers in re$ular or special session, #a" revoe such procla#ation or suspension, %hichrevocation shall not be set aside b" the President. @pon the initiative of the President, theCon$ress #a", in the sa#e #anner, e'tend such procla#ation or suspension for a period to


7/31

be deter#ined b" the Con$ress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safet"re?uires it.

!he Con$ress, if not in session, shall, %ithin t%ent"&four hours follo%in$ such procla#ationor suspension, convene in accordance %ith its rules %ithout need of a call.

!he Supre#e Court #a" revie%, in an appropriate proceedin$ filed b" an" citi:en, thesufficienc" of the factual basis for the procla#ation of #artial la% or the suspension of theprivile$e of the %rit of habeas corpus or the e'tension thereof, and #ust pro#ul$ate itsdecision thereon %ithin thirt" da"s fro# its filin$.

A state of #artial la% does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor supplant thefunctionin$ of the civil courts or le$islative asse#blies, nor authori:e the confer#ent of the

(urisdiction on #ilitar" courts and a$encies over civilians %here civil courts are able tofunction, nor auto#aticall" suspend the privile$e of the %rit.

!he suspension of the privile$e of the %rit shall appl" onl" to persons (udiciall" char$ed forrebellion or offenses inherent in or directl" connected %ith invasion.

Durin$ the suspension of the privile$e of the %rit, an" person thus arrested or detained shallbe (udiciall" char$ed %ithin three da"s, other%ise he shall be released. FE#phasis supplied.G

!he above provision $rants the President, as Co##ander&in&Chief, a 5se?uence5 of 5$raduatedpo%erFsG.510)ro# the #ost to the least beni$n, these are6 the callin$ out po%er, the po%er to suspendthe privile$e of the %rit of %abeas cor!us, and the po%er to declare #artial la%. In the e'ercise of thelatter t%o po%ers, the Constitution re?uires the concurrence of t%o conditions, na#el", an actualinvasion or rebellion, and that public safet" re?uires the e'ercise of such po%er.12 9o%ever, as %eobserved in +nte"rated ar of t%e P%ili!!ines v. -amora,1 5FtGhese conditions are not re?uired in thee'ercise of the callin$ out po%er. !he onl" criterion is that H%henever it beco#es necessar",H thePresident #a" call the ar#ed forces Hto prevent or suppress la%less violence, invasion or rebellion.H5

Nevertheless, it is e?uall" true that Section 2


8/31

. . . .

Section 1. J he shall tae care that the la%s be faithfull" e'ecutedJ. FArticle II L E'ecutivePo%erG

Recallin$ in historical vi$nettes the use b" the @.S. President of the above&?uoted provisions, as

(u'taposed a$ainst the correspondin$ action of the @.S. Supre#e Court, is instructive. Clad %ith theprero$atives of the office and endo%ed %ith soverei$n po%ers, %hich are dra%n chiefl" fro# theE'ecutive Po%er and Co##ander&in&Chief provisions, as %ell as the presidential oath of office, thePresident serves as Chief of State or Chief of 4overn#ent, Co##ander&in&Chief, Chief of )orei$nRelations and Chief of Public pinion.11

)irst to find definitive ne% piers for the authorit" of the Chief of State, as the protector of the people,%as President Andre% -acson. Co#in$ to office b" virtue of a political revolution, -acson, asPresident not onl" ept faith %ith the people b" drivin$ the patricians fro# po%er. ld 9icor", as he%as fondl" called, %as the first President to cha#pion the indissolubilit" of the @nion b" defeatin$South CarolinaHs nullification effort.13

!he )ederal !ariff Acts of 2


9/31

e'ecutive po%er provision and (oined the# as 5the %ar po%er5 %hich authori:ed hi# to do #an"thin$s be"ond the co#petence of Con$ress.1

7incoln e#braced the -acson concept of the PresidentHs independent po%er and dut" under hisoath directl" to represent and protect the people. In his Messa$e of -ul" 3, 2


10/31

!ain$ off fro# President Cleveland, President !heodore Roosevelt launched %hat political scientistsdub the 5ste%ardship theor".5 Callin$ hi#self 5the ste%ard of the people,5 he felt that the e'ecutivepo%er 5%as li#ited onl" b" the specific restrictions and prohibitions appearin$ in the Constitution, ori#pleaded b" Con$ress under its constitutional po%ers.50

!he #ost far&reachin$ e'tension of presidential po%er 5!.R.5 ever undertoo to e#plo" %as his plan

to occup" and operate Penns"lvaniaHs coal #ines under his authorit" as Co##ander&in&Chief. In theissue, he found #eans other than force to end the 20 hard&coal strie, but he had #ade detailedplans to use his po%er as Co##ander&in&Chief to %rest the #ines fro# the stubborn operators, sothat coal production %ould be$in a$ain.2

Eventuall", the po%er of the State to intervene in and even tae over the operation of vital utilities inthe public interest %as accepted. In the Philippines, this led to the incorporation of Section , ArticleIII of the 21 Constitution, %hich %as later carried over %ith #odifications in Section /, 1 ArticleI= of the 2/1 Constitution, and thereafter in Section 2


11/31

restricted the PresidentHs po%ers as Co##ander&in&Chief. !he sa#e, ho%ever, cannot be said of thePresidentHs po%ers as Chief E'ecutive.

In her ponencia in Marcos v. Man$lapus, -ustice Cortes put her thesis into (urisprudence. !here, theCourt, b" a sli#


12/31

It is not disputed that the President has full discretionar" po%er to call out the ar#ed forces and todeter#ine the necessit" for the e'ercise of such po%er. 8hile the Court #a" e'a#ine %hether thepo%er %as e'ercised %ithin constitutional li#its or in a #anner constitutin$ $rave abuse ofdiscretion, none of the petitioners here have, b" %a" of proof, supported their assertion that thePresident acted %ithout factual basis.

!he ar$u#ent that the declaration of a state of rebellion a#ounts to a declaration of #artial la% and,therefore, is a circu#vention of the report re?uire#ent, is a leap of lo$ic. !here is no indication that#ilitar" tribunals have replaced civil courts in the 5theater of %ar5 or that #ilitar" authorities havetaen over the functions of civil $overn#ent. !here is no alle$ation of curtail#ent of civil or politicalri$hts. !here is no indication that the President has e'ercised (udicial and le$islative po%ers. Inshort, there is no illustration that the President has atte#pted to e'ercise or has e'ercised #artialla% po%ers.

Nor b" an" stretch of the i#a$ination can the declaration constitute an indirect e'ercise ofe#er$enc" po%ers, %hich e'ercise depends upon a $rant of Con$ress pursuant to Section 1 *+,

Article =I of the Constitution6

Sec. 1. *2+ J.

*+ In ti#es of %ar or other national e#er$enc", the Con$ress #a", b" la%, authori:e thePresident, for a li#ited period and sub(ect to such restrictions as it #a" prescribe, to e'ercisepo%ers necessar" and proper to carr" out a declared national polic". @nless sooner%ithdra%n b" resolution of the Con$ress, such po%ers shall cease upon the ne'tad(ourn#ent thereof.

!he petitions do not cite a specific instance %here the President has atte#pted to or has e'ercisedpo%ers be"ond her po%ers as Chief E'ecutive or as Co##ander&in&Chief. !he President, indeclarin$ a state of rebellion and in callin$ out the ar#ed forces, %as #erel" e'ercisin$ a %eddin$ of her Chief E'ecutive and Co##ander&in&Chief po%ers. !hese are "ure7y ee>u%*e po%ers, vestedon the President b" Sections 2 and 2


13/31

Se"ara%e O"*$*o$#

PANGAN+)AN, J.:

Petitioners challen$e the constitutionalit" of the 5state of rebellion5 declared b" the President throu$hProcla#ation No. 3/ and 4eneral rder No. 3 in the %ae of the so&called 5a%ood Incident.5 !he

?uestioned issuances, ho%ever, %ere subse?uentl" lifted b" her on Au$ust 2, 001, %hen sheissued Procla#ation No. 31. 9ence, as of toda", there is no #ore e'tant procla#ation or order thatcan be declared valid or void.

)or this reason, I believe that the Petitions should be dis#issed on the "round of mootness.

!he (udicial po%er to declare a la% or an e'ecutive order unconstitutional, accordin$ to -ustice -oseP. 7aurel, is 5li#ited to actual cases and controversies to be e'ercised after full opportunit" ofar$u#ent b" the parties, and li#ited further to the constitutional ?uestion raised or the ver" lismota presented.52 )ollo%in$ this lon$&held principle, the Court has thus al%a"s been $uided b" thesefourfold re?uisites in decidin$ constitutional la% issues6 2+ there #ust be an actual case orcontrovers" involvin$ a conflict of ri$hts susceptible of (udicial deter#ination; + the constitutional

?uestion #ust be raised b" a proper part"; 1+ the constitutional ?uestion #ust be raised at theearliest opportunit"; and 3+ ad(udication of the constitutional ?uestion #ust be indispensable to theresolution of the case.

@n?uestionabl", the first and the forth re?uire#ents are absent in the present case.

Absence of Case and Controvers"

!he first re?uire#ent, the e'istence of a live case or controvers", #eans that an e'istin$ liti$ation isripe for resolution and susceptible of (udicial deter#ination; as opposed to one that is con(ectural oranticipator",1h"pothetical or fei$ned.3 A (usticiable controvers" involves a definite and concretedispute touchin$ on the le$al relations of parties havin$ adverse le$al interests. 9ence, it ad#its of

specific relief throu$h a decree that is conclusive in character, in contrast to an opinion %hich onl"advises %hat the la% %ould be upon a h"pothetical state of facts.

As a rule, courts have no authorit" to pass upon issues throu$h advisor" opinions or friendl" suitsbet%een parties %ithout real adverse interests./ Neither do courts sit to ad(udicate acade#ic?uestions LL no #atter ho% intellectuall" challen$in$


14/31

In the present case, petitioners have not sho%n that the" have been or continue to be directl" andpecuniaril" pre(udiced or da#a$ed b" the Procla#ation and rder. Neither have the" sho%n that thisCourt has ori$inal (urisdiction over petitions for declarator" relief. I %ould venture to sa" that,perhaps, if this controvers" had e#anated fro# an a!!ealed (ud$#ent fro# a lo%er tribunal, thenthis Court #a" still pass upon the issue on the theor" that it is 5capable of repetition "et evadin$revie%,5 and the case %ould not be an ori"inal action for declarator" relief.

In short, the theor" of 5capable of repetition "et evadin$ revie%5 #a" be invoed onl" %hen thisCourt has (urisdiction over the sub(ect #atter. It cannot be used in the present controvers" fordeclarator" relief, over %hich the Court has no ori"inal (urisdiction.

5%e esolution of t%e &ase on Ot%er 3rounds

!he fourth re?uisite, %hich relates to the absolute necessit" of decidin$ the constitutional issue,#eans that the Court has no other %a" of resolvin$ the case e'cept b" taclin$ an unavoidableconstitutional ?uestion. It is a %ell&settled doctrine that courts %ill not pass upon a constitutional?uestion unless it is the lis mota of the case, or if the case can be disposed on so#e other $rounds.2

8ith due respect, I sub#it that the #ootness of the Petitions has s%ept aside the necessit" of rulin$on the validit" of Procla#ation No. 3/ and 4eneral order No. 3. In the %ae of its #ootness, theconstitutionalit" issue has ceased to be the lis mota of the case or to be an unavoidable ?uestion inthe resolution thereof. 9ence, the dis#issal of the Petitions for #ootness is (ustified.21

-EREFORE, I vote to DISMISS the Petitions. n the constitutionalit" of a 5state of rebellion,5 Ireserve #" (ud$#ent at the proper ti#e and in the proper case.

/NARESSANT+AGO, J.:

!he funda#ental issue in the petitions is the le$alit" of Procla#ation No. 3/ issued b" thePresident on -ul" /, 001 declarin$ a 5state of rebellion5.

!he #a(orit" affir#ed the declaration is le$al because the President %as onl" e'ercisin$ a %eddin$of the 5Chief E'ecutive5 and 5Co##ander&in&Chief5 po%ers. @.S. (urisprudence and co##entatorsare cited discussin$ the a%eso#e po%ers e'ercised b" the @.S. President durin$ #o#ents ofcrisis2 and that these po%ers are also available to the Philippine President. Althou$h the li#itscannot be precisel" defined, the #a(orit" concluded that there are enou$h 5residual po%ers5 to serveas the basis to support the Presidential declaration of a 5state of rebellion5.1 !he #a(orit", ho%ever,e#phasi:ed that the declaration cannot di#inish or violate constitutionall" protected ri$hts.3 !he"affir#ed the le$alit" of %arrantless arrests of persons %ho participated in the rebellion, ifcircu#stances so %arrant %ith this clarification6 5FiGn other %ords, a person #a" be sub(ected to a%arrantless arrests for the cri#e of rebellion %hether or not the President has declared a state ofrebellion, so lon$ as the re?uisites for a valid %arrantless arrest are present.5

If the re?uisites for a %arrantless arrests #ust still be present for an arrest to be #ade, then thedeclaration is a superfluit". I therefore shudder %hen a blanet affir#ation is $iven to the President toissue declarations of a 5state of rebellion5 %hich in fact #a" not be the truth or %hich #a" be in affecteven after the rebellion has ended.

Procla#ation No. 3/ %as issued at 2600 p.#. on -ul" /, 001, at the hei$ht of the occupation ofthe a%ood Pre#ier Apart#ents in A"ala Center, Maati Cit", b" 11 (unior officers and enlisted#en *a%ood Incident+,/%hich be$an in the earl" #ornin$ of -ul" /, 001.


15/31

President issued 4eneral rder No. 3, orderin$ the Ar#ed )orces of the Philippines and thePhilippine National Police to use reasonable force, and pa" due re$ard to constitutional ri$hts, inputtin$ do%n the rebellion. !he a%ood incident ended peacefull" that sa#e evenin$ %hen the#ilitant soldiers surrendered after ne$otiations.

)ro# -ul" / to Au$ust 2, 001, 5search and recover"5 operations %ere conducted. !hrou$hout the

a%ood Incident, searches %ere conducted in the non&occupied areas,20 and, %ith the recover" ofevidence, sta$in$ points for the a%ood Incident %ere found in Cavite, Maati andMandalu"on$.22 After the soldiers left at around 22600 in the evenin$ of -ul" /, a search %asconducted around the a%ood pre#ises.2 !hese searches e'panded in scope on the basis ofrecovered evidence.21

Ra#on Cardenas, Assistant E'ecutive Secretar" in the previous ad#inistration, %as arrested,presented to the #edia in handcuffs and brou$ht for in?uest proceedin$s before the Depart#ent of-ustice *5D-5+ in the #ornin$ of -ul"


16/31

!he PresidentHs procla#ation cites Section 2


17/31

8hen the soldiers surrendered peacefull" in the evenin$ of -ul" /, the rebellion or the coup dH etatended. !he President, ho%ever, did not lift the declaration of the 5state of rebellion5 until da"s later,on Au$ust 2, 001.

After the peaceful surrender, no person suspected of havin$ conspired %ith the soldiers orparticipated in the a%ood incident could be arrested %ithout a %arrant of arrest. Section , Rule

221 of the Revised Rules of Court, %hich $overns arrest %ithout %arrant, provides as follo%s6

SEC. . Arrest %ithout %arrant; %hen la%ful. L A peace officer or a private person #a", %ithout a%arrant, arrest a person6

*a+ 8hen, in his presence, the person to be arrested has co##itted, is actuall" co##ittin$,or is atte#ptin$ to co##it an offense;

*b+ 8hen an offense has (ust been co##itted and he has probable cause to believe basedon personal no%led$e of facts or circu#stances that the person to be arrested hasco##itted it; and

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

In cases fallin$ under para$raphs *a+ and *b+ above, the person arrested %ithout a %arrant shall beforth%ith delivered to the nearest police station or (ail and shall be proceeded a$ainst in accordance%ith section / of Rule 22.

Rule 221, Section , pars. *a+ and *b+ of the Rules of Court are e'ceptions to the due process clausein the Constitution. Section , par. *a+ relates to a situation %here a cri#e is co##itted or atte#ptedin the presence of the arrestin$ officer.

Section , par. *b+, on the other hand, presents the re?uire#ent of 5personal no%led$e5, on the partof the arrestin$ officer, of facts indicatin$ that an offense had 5(ust been co##itted5, and that the

person to be arrested had co##itted that offense.

After the peaceful surrender of the soldiers on -ul" /, 001, there %as no cri#e that %as bein$5atte#pted5, 5bein$ co##itted5, or 5had (ust been co##itted.5 !here should, therefore, be nooccasion to effect a valid %arrantless arrest in connection %ith the a%ood Incident.

!he purpose of the declaration and its duration as far as the overea$er authorities %ere concerned%as onl" to $ive le$al cover to effect %arrantless arrests even if the 5state of rebellion5 or theinstances stated in Rule 221, Section of the Rules are absent or no lon$er e'ist.

ur histor" had sho%n the dan$ers %hen too #uch po%er is concentrated in the hands of oneperson. @nless specificall" defined, it is ris" to concede and acno%led$e the 5residual po%ers5 to

(ustif" the validit" of the presidential issuances. !his can serve as a blan chec for other issuancesand open the door to abuses. !he #a(orit" cite the e'ercise of stron$ e'ecutive po%ers b" @.S.President Andre% -acson. 8as it not President -acson %ho is said to have c"nicall" defied [email protected]. Supre#e CourtHs rulin$ *under Chief -ustice Marshall+ a$ainst the forcible re#oval of the

A#erican Indians fro# the tribal lands b" sa"in$6 5!he Chief -ustice has issued his Decision, no% lethi# tr" to enforce it5 thers ?uote Madison as havin$ $one further %ith6 58ith %hat ar#" %ill theChief -ustice enforce his Decision5


18/31

89ERE)RE, I vote for Procla#ation No. 3/ and 4eneral rder No. 3, issued on -ul" /, 001 b"Respondent President 4loria Macapa$al&Arro"o, to be declared N@77 and =ID for havin$ beenissued %ith $rave abuse of discretion a#ountin$ to lac of (urisdiction. All other orders issued andaction taen based on those issuances, especiall" after the a%ood incident ended in the evenin$of -ul" /, 001, e.$., %arrantless arrests, should also be declared null and void.

*##e$%*$B O"*$*o$

SANO(AGUT+ERRED, J.:

5Courts %ill decide a ?uestion other%ise #oot and acade#ic if it is Hcapable of repetition, "et evadin$revie%.H52 n this pre#ise, I stood apart fro# #" collea$ues in dis#issin$ the petition in 7acson vs.

Pere:. !heir reason %as that President 4loria Macapa$al&Arro"oHs liftin$ of the declaration of a5state of rebellion5 rendered #oot and acade#ic the issue of its constitutionalit". 7ooin$ inretrospect, #" fear then %as the repetition of the act sou$ht to be declared unconstitutional.

No #ore than three *1+ "ears have passed, and here %e are a$ain haunted b" the sa#e issue.

I

A brief restate#ent of the facts is i#perative.

In the %ee hours of -ul" /, 001, three hundred t%ent"&three *11+ (unior officers and enlisted #enof the Ar#ed )orces of the Philippines *A)P+ too over the a%ood Pre#ier Apart#ents, A"ala

Center, Maati Cit". Introducin$ the#selves as the 5Ma$dalo 4roup,5 the" clai#ed that the" %ent toa%ood to air their $rievances about $raft and corruption in the #ilitar", the sale of ar#s anda##unitions to the 5ene#ies5 of the state, the bo#bin$s in Davao Cit" alle$edl" ordered b" 4en.=ictor Corpus, then Chief of the Intelli$ence Service of the Ar#ed )orces of the Philippines *ISA)P+,the increased #ilitar" assistance fro# the @nited States, and 5#icro#ana$e#ent5 in the A)P b"4en. An$elo Re"es, then Secretar" of the Depart#ent of National Defense.1!he #ilitar" #ende#anded the resi$nation of the President, the Secretar" of National Defense and the Chief of thePhilippine National Police.

At about 600 A.M. of the sa#e da", President Arro"o $ave the Ma$dalo 4roup until 600 P.M. to $iveup their positions peacefull" and return to the barracs. At around 2600 P.M., she issuedProcla#ation No. 3/ and 4eneral rder No. 3 declarin$ the e'istence of a 5state of rebellion5 and

callin$ out the A)P to suppress the rebellion.

Shortl" before the 600 P.M. deadline, President Arro"o announced an e'tension until /600 P.M.Durin$ the t%o&hour reprieve, ne$otiations bet%een the Ma$dalo 4roup and various personalitiestoo place. !he rebels a$reed to return to the barracs. !he" left the a%ood pre#ises at 22600P.M.

n -ul"


19/31

recover" of evidence clai#ed to lin hi# to rebellion, Cardenas, acco#panied b" Att". ReneSa$uisa$, %ent to the CID4 in Ca#p Cra#e. n the sa#e da", Cardenas %as brou$ht to theDepart#ent of -ustice for in?uest proceedin$. 9e %as later char$ed %ith the cri#e of rebellion.

!he Mandalu"on$ Cit" Police lie%ise searched the to%nhouses belon$in$ to 7aarni Enri?ue:,alle$edl" used as sta$in$ areas b" the Ma$dalo 4roup.

n Au$ust 2, 001, President Arro"o lifted her declaration of a state of rebellion throu$hProcla#ation No. 31.

Mean%hile, on Au$ust 3, 001, Secretar" -ose 7ina, -r. of the Depart#ent of the Interior and 7ocal4overn#ent, for%arded to the D- the affidavit&co#plaint for coup dHetat of PC ChiefSuperintendent Eduardo Matillano a$ainst Senator 4re$orio 9onasan, Ernesto Macahi"a, 4eor$eDuldulao and several 5-ohn and -ane Does5 nu#berin$ about 2,000.

n Au$ust


20/31

!he Supre#e Court #a" revie%, in an appropriate proceedin$ filed b" an" citi:en, the sufficienc" ofthe factual bases of the procla#ation of #artial la% or the suspension of the privile$e of the %rit orthe e'tension thereof, and #ust pro#ul$ate its decision thereon %ithin thirt" da"s fro# its filin$.

A state of #artial la% does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor supplant thefunctionin$ of the civil courts or le$islative asse#blies, nor authori:e the confer#ent of (urisdiction on

#ilitar" courts and a$encies over civilians %here civil courts are able to function, nor auto#aticall"suspend the privile$e of the %rit.

!he suspension of the privile$e of the %rit shall appl" onl" to persons (udiciall" char$ed for rebellionor offenses inherent in or directl" connected %ith invasion.

Durin$ the suspension of the privile$e of the %rit, an" person thus arrested or detained shall be (udiciall" char$ed %ithin three da"s, other%ise he shall be released.53

!he po%ers of the President %hen she assu#ed the e'istence of rebellion are laid do%n b" theConstitution. She #a" *2+ call the ar#ed forces to prevent or suppress la%less violence, invasion orrebellion; *+ suspend the privile$e of the %rit of habeas corpus; or *1+ place the Philippines or an"

part thereof under #artial la%. No%, %h" did President Arro"o declare a 5state of rebellion5 %hen shehas no such po%er under the Constitution

If President Arro"oHs onl" purpose %as #erel" to e'ercise her 5callin$ out po%er,5 then she couldhave si#pl" ordered the A)P to prevent or suppress %hat she perceived as an invasion or rebellion.Such course raises no constitutional ob(ection, it bein$ provided for b" the above&?uoted provisions.9o%ever, adoptin$ an unorthodo' #easure unbounded and not canali:ed b" the lan$ua$e of theConstitution is dan$erous. It leaves the people at her #erc" and that of the #ilitar", i$norant of theirri$hts under the circu#stances and %ar" of their settled e'pectations. ne $ood illustration isprecisel" in the case of invasion or rebellion. @nder such situation, the President has the po%er tosuspend the privile$e of the %rit of habeas corpus or to declare #artial la%. Such po%er is not aplenar" one, as sho%n b" the nu#erous li#itations i#posed thereon b" the Constitution, so#e of%hich are6 *2+ the public safet" re?uires it; *+ it does not e'ceed si't" *0+ da"s; *1+ %ithin fort"&ei$ht*3


21/31

I cannot si#pl" close #" e"es to the dan$ers that lur behind the see#in$l" har#less declaration ofa 5state of rebellion.5 Still fresh fro# #" #e#or" is the Ma" 2, 002 civil unrest. n such date,President Arro"o placed Metro Manila under a 5state of rebellion5 because of the violent streetclashes involvin$ the lo"alists of for#er President -oseph Estrada and the police authorities.Presidential Spoesperson Ri$oberto !i$lao told reporters, 58e are in a state of rebellion. !his is notan ordinar" de#onstration.5/ I##ediatel" thereafter, there %ere threats of arrests a$ainst those

suspected of insti$atin$ the #arch to Malacaan$. At about 1610 in the afternoon, Senator -uanPonce Enrile %as arrested in his house in Das#arias =illa$e, Maati Cit" b" a $roup led b" 4en.Re"naldo Berro"a, Chief of the Philippine National Police Intelli$ence 4roup.


22/31

#eans that althou$h the alle$ed rebellion had ceased, the PresidentHs declaration continued to be ineffect. As it turned out, several searches and sei:ures too place durin$ the e'tended period.

4enerall", the po%er of the President in ti#es of %ar, invasion or rebellion and durin$ othere#er$enc" situations should be e'ercised (ointl" %ith Con$ress. !his is to insure the correctnessand propriet" of authori:in$ our ar#ed forces to ?uell such hostilities. Such collective (ud$#ent is to

be effected b" 5hei$htened consultation5 bet%een the President and Con$ress. !hus, as can be$leaned fro# the provisions of the Constitution, %hen the President proclai#s #artial la% orsuspends the privile$e of the %rit, he shall 5sub#it a report in person or in %ritin$ to the Con$ress.!he Con$ress, votin$ (ointl", b" a vote of at least a #a(orit" of all its Me#bers in re$ular or specialsession, #a" revoe such procla#ation or suspension, %hich revocation shall not be set aside b"the President.5 Not onl" that, Section 1, Article =I of the Constitution provides that6 5!he Con$ress,b" a vote of t%o&thirds of both 9ouses in (oint session asse#bled, votin$ separatel", shall have thesole po%er to declare the e'istence of a state of %ar. In ti#es of %ar or other national e#er$enc",the Con$ress #a", b" la%, authori:e the President, for a li#ited period and sub(ect to suchrestrictions as it #a" prescribe, to e'ercise po%ers necessar" and proper to carr" out a declarednational polic".5 Clearl", the Constitution has not e'tended e'cessive authorit" in #ilitar", defenseand e#er$enc" #atters to the President. !hou$h the President is desi$nated as the Co##ander&in&Chief of all ar#ed forces of the Philippines, the te'tual reed does not suffice to support li#itlessauthorit". Born b" the nationHs past e'periences, the concurrence of the Con$ress is re?uired as a#easure to %ard&off totalitarian rule. B" declarin$ a 5state of rebellion,5 President Arro"o effectivel"disre$arded such concurrent po%er of Con$ress. At this point, let it be stressed that theaccu#ulation of both the e'ecutive and le$islative po%ers in the sa#e hands constitutes the ver"definition of t"rann".

B" sustainin$ the unusual course taen b" President Arro"o, %e are traversin$ a ver" dan$erouspath. 8e are openin$ the %a" to those %ho, in the end, %ould turn our de#ocrac" into a totalitarianrule. 8hile it #a" not plun$e us strai$ht%a" into dictatorship, ho%ever, it is a step to%ards a %ron$direction. 9istor" #ust not be allo%ed to repeat itself. An" act %hich $ears to%ards possibledictatorship #ust be severed at its inception. As I have stated in #" previous dissent, our nation hadseen the rise of a dictator into po%er. As a #atter of fact, the chan$es #ade b" the 2


23/31

threatened interference %ith interstate co##erce and %ith the free flo% of #ail. !he basic theor"underl"in$ this case L that the President has inherent po%er to act for the nation in cases of #a(orpublic need L %as eroded b" the >oun$sto%n Sheet !ube Co. vs. Sa%"er, also no%n as the SteelSei:ure Case.2


24/31

7oose and irresponsible use of ad(ectives colors all non&le$al and #uch le$al discussion ofpresidential po%ers. HInherentH po%ers, Hi#pliedH po%ers, HincidentalH po%ers, Hplenar"H po%ers, H%arHpo%ers and He#er$enc"H po%ers are used, often interchan$eabl" and %ithout fi'ed or ascertainable#eanin$s.

!he va$ueness and $eneralit" of the clauses that set forth presidential po%ers afford a plausible

basis for pressures %ithin and %ithout an ad#inistration for presidential action be"ond thatsupported b" those %hose responsibilit" it is to defend his actions in court. !he clai# of inherent andunrestricted presidential po%ers has lon$ been a persuasive dialectical %eapon in politicalcontrovers". 8hile it is not surprisin$ that counsel should $rasp support fro# such unad(udicatedclai#s of po%er, a (ud$e cannot accept self&servin$ press state#ents of the attorne" for one of theinterested parties as authorit" in ans%erin$ a constitutional ?uestion, even if the advocate %ashi#self. But prudence has counseled that actual reliance on such nebulous clai#s stop short ofprovoin$ a (udicial testJ5

In re Debs also received a serious blo% in @nited States vs. @nited States District Court. 2 !heSupre#e Court -ustices unani#ousl" re(ected the inherent e'ecutive authorit" to en$a$e in%arrantless electronic surveillance in do#estic securit" cases. !hus, %here a substantial personal

interest in life, libert" or propert" is threatened b" presidential action, In re Debs is re$arded #ore asan anachronis# than authorit".

In Pri:es Cases, b" a vote of to 3, the @.S. Supre#e Court upheld President Abraha# 7incolnHsauthorit" to i#pose a blocade. @nder the @.S. Constitution, onl" Con$ress, e#po%ered to declare a%ar, could i#pose a blocade. It #ust be e#phasi:ed, ho%ever, that there is a distinction bet%eenthe role of the @.S. President in do#estic affairs and in forei$n affairs. !he patterns in the forei$nand do#estic real#s are ?uite different. !he federal re$ulation of do#estic affairs has itsconstitutional ori$ins in the people and the states, and its initiation is allocated pri#aril" to Con$ress*not the E'ecutive+. !he constitutional role for the e'ecutive in do#estic #atters is thus lar$el"ancillar" to that of Con$ress. !hus, %hile it is reco$ni:ed that e'ecutive po%er is predo#inant inforei$n affairs, it is not so in the do#estic sphere. !his distinction should be considered in [email protected]. (urisprudence.

Clearl", the trail of @.S. (urisprudence does not support the vie% that the 5E'ecutive andCo##ander&in&Chief clauses5 of the Constitution $rant the President such broad po%er as to $iveher the option of disre$ardin$ the other restrictive provisions of the Constitution. !he purpose of theConstitution is not onl" to $rant po%er, but to eep it fro# $ettin$ out of hand. !he polic" should be

LL %here the Constitution has laid do%n specific procedures on ho% the President should deal %itha crisis, it is i#perative that he #ust follo% those procedures in #eetin$ the crisis. !hese proceduresserve as li#itations to %hat %ould other%ise be an unbounded e'ercise of po%er.

=

In fine, #a" I state that ever" presidential clai# to a po%er #ust be scrutini:ed %ith caution, for %hat

is at stae is the e?uilibriu# established b" our constitutional s"ste#. !he po%ers of the Presidentare not as particulari:ed as are those of Con$ress. Enu#erated po%ers do not include undefinedpo%ers, as %hat the #a(orit" %ould %ant to point out. I state once #ore that there is no provision inour Constitution authori:in$ the President to declare 5a state of rebellion.5 Not even the constitutionalpo%ers vested upon her include such po%er.

89ERE)RE, I vote to 4RAN! the petitions. Procla#ation No. 3/ and 4eneral rder No. 3 aredeclared @NCNS!I!@!INA7.


25/31

Foo%$o%e#

2 ollo, 4.R. No. 20


26/31

2


27/31

32 +bid .

3 Blac 1, 2/ 7. 3 *2


28/31

po%er %hich he can e'ercise because it see#s to be in the public interest.50*urChief Ma$istrate and 9is Po%ers, 21&23 *22+ Ne% >or.+ 7ater, ho%ever, !aft, asChief -ustice, %ould chan$e his vie%. See M"ers v. @nited States, / @S , /2 7Ed 20, 3/ SC 2 *2+, holdin$ that 5!he %ords of K , follo%in$ the $eneral $rantof e'ecutive po%er under K 2 %ere either an enu#eration of specific functions of theE'ecutive, not all inclusive, or %ere li#itations upon the $eneral $rant of the

e'ecutive po%er, and as such, bein$ li#itations, should not be enlar$ed be"ond the%ords used.5

2 Milton, at 2/.

!he State #a", in the interest of national %elfare and defense, establish and operateindustries and #eans of transportation and co##unication, and upon pa"#ent of (ustco#pensation, transfer to public o%nership utilities and other private enterprises to beoperated b" the 4overn#ent.

1 In ti#es of national e#er$enc" %hen the public interest so re?uires, the State #a"te#poraril" tae over and direct the operation of an" privatel" o%ned public utilit" or

business affected %ith public interest.

3 In ti#es of national e#er$enc" %hen the public interest so re?uires, the State #a", durin$the e#er$enc" and under reasonable ter#s prescribed b" it, te#poraril" tae over or directthe operation of an" privatel" o%ned public utilit" or business affected %ith public interest.

Cortes, !he Philippine Presidenc", A Stud" of E'ecutive Po%er, pp.


29/31

3 (acson v. Pere', su!ra, at /1.

+P v. -amora, su!ra.

PANGAN+)AN J.:

2 An$ara v. Electoral Co##ission, 1 Phil. 21, 2


30/31

2 Ma(orit" pinion, at pp. 23 et se?.

Id., at pp. 0 to 2.

1 Id., at p. .

3 Id., at p. 1.

Id., at pp. 1 to 3.

Id., at p. 3.

/ Report of the )act )indin$ Co##ission created b" Ad#. rd. No. /< dated 10 -ul" 001*hereafter, )eliciano Report+, at p. 2.


31/31

2 Salva vs. Maalintal, 4.R. No. 2101, Septe#ber 2

Documents

8_sanlakas vs Exec Sec