SANLAKAS, represented by Rep. J.V. Bautista, and PARTIDO NG MANGGAGAWA, represented by Rep. Renato Magubo, petitioners, vs. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, SECRETARY ANGELO REYES, GENERAL NARCISO ABAYA, DIR. GEN. HERMOGENES EBDANE, respondents.

Facts:

In 27 July 2003, some 300 junior officers and enlisted men of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) with high-powered guns and explosives occupied the Oakwood Premiere in Makati City. Expressing dismay over corruption in the AFP, they demanded the resignation of the President of the Philippines, Chief of Staff of the AFP and the Director General of the Philippine National Police (PNP). In light of the said situation, the President Issued Proclamations No. 427 and on the basis of such proclamation, General Order No. 4, both of which declares “a State of Rebellion” and calls out the AFP suppress the same. Both issuances are based on the fact that the President, as the Commander-in-Chief of the AFP, may call such AFP to suppress rebellion.

By the evening of 27 July 2003 the occupation has ended however, the President has not lifted the declaration of a state of rebellion until 01 August 2003.

Issues:

1. Are petitions challenging validity Proclamation no. 427 and General Order No. 4 as moot and academic?

2. Proclamation No. 427 and General Order No. 4 necessary to call out AFP to suppress said rebellion?

Decisions:

1. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) made a valid argument that when the state of rebellion was lifted the petitions were rendered moot and academic. However, it was held that if it is “capable of repetition yet evading review” the court will have to decide on the case.

2. The Court finds that both Proclamation No. 427 and General Order No. 4 with no legal consequence and significance, hence dismissing the petitions.

The power of the President to declare a state of rebellion springs from her (Pres. Arroyo) powers as the chief executive and draws it strength as the Commander-in-Chief. Notwithstanding, the Court held that to call out the AFP to suppress such rebellion is not necessary and excessive as in the absence of such the President, as the Commander-in-Chief may call out the AFP to suppress rebellion.

CASE REPORTED BY

Sherwin Jet B. FerrerShermaine B. FerrerRavie D. Piansay