G.R. No. 159085 – 466 Phil. 482 – 421 SCRA 656 – Political Law – Constitutional Law – The Executive Department – Powers of the President – Calling Out Power – Commander-in-Chief Clause – State of Rebellion – Judicial Review; Sufficiency of Factual Basis
These are four consolidated cases. On 27 July 2003, the Magdalo Group sieged the Oakwood Premiere Apartments in Makati City. They demanded the resignation of PGMA. PGMA then issued Proclamation No. 427 which declared the country under a state of rebellion. She then issued General Order No. 4 which called of the armed forces to suppress rebellion.
SANLAKAS Party-List and others questioned the constitutionality of the Proclamation and the General Order. It was argued that it is an invalid exercise of martial law power; that the declaration of a state of rebellion is a constitutional anomaly; that it is a circumvention of constitutional requirements and procedures; that it causes confusion which poses risk to the security of the citizens.
On 1 August 2003, PGMA issued Proclamation No. 435 which declared that the state of rebellion has ended.
The Solicitor General moved for the dismissal of the petition on the ground that the issue has become moot.
ISSUE: Whether or not the petitions must be granted.
HELD: No. The SC agreed that the issue has become moot but chose to settle the controversy as the issues brought out were matters “capable of repetition yet evading review.”
The Proclamation and the GO are valid exercise of the President’s calling out power. To clarify, it is the G.O. that called out the armed forces. The Proclamation is a superfluity but is in no way prohibited by the Constitution.
The Proclamation and the GO did not declare martial law. They were mere exercise of the calling out power.
It cannot be said that they sanctioned illegal warrantless arrests. These declarations do not diminish constitutional rights. In fact, the declarations themselves state for the suppression of rebellion “with due regard to constitutional rights.”
Neither can it be said that the Proclamation is an invalid exercise of the President’s emergency powers. None of the petitioners have cited which specific act of the President may be construed as an exercise of emergency power.
