Sanlakas vs. Exec Sec (2004)

Tinga, J.
FACTS: July 27, 2003-Oakwood mutiny -Pres GMA issued Proclamation no 47 declaring a "state of rebellion" & General Order No. 4 directing AFP & PNP to supress the rebellion. -by evening, soldiers agreed to return to barracks. GMA, however, did not immediately lift the declaration of a state of rebellion, only doing so on August 1, 2003 thru Proc NO. 435.

Petitioners:
1. Sanlakas & PM; standing as "petitioners committed to assert, defend, protect, uphold, and promote the rights, interests, and welfare of the people, especially the poor and marginalized classes and sectors of Philippine society. Petitioners are committed to defend and assert human rights, including political and civil rights, of the citizens freedom of speech and of expression under Section 4, Article III of the 1987 Constitution, as a vehicle to publicly ventilate their grievances and legitimate demands and to mobilize public opinion to support the same; assert that S18, Art7 of the Consti does not require the declaration of state of rebellion to call out AFP;assert further that there exists no factual basis for the declaration, mutiny having ceased.
2. SJS; standing as "Filipino citizens, taxpayers, law profs & bar reviewers"; assert that S18, Art7 of the Consti does not require the declaration of the state of rebellion, declaration a "constitutional anomaly" that misleads because "overzealous public officers, acting pursuant to such proclamation or general order, are liable to violate the constitutional right of private citizens"; proclamation is a circumvention of the report requirement under the same S18, Art7, commanding the President to submit a report to Congress within 48 hours from the proclamation of martial law; presidential issuances cannot be construed as an exercise of emergency powers as Congress has not delegated any such power to the President
3. members of House; standing as citizens and as Members of the House of Representatives whose rights, powers and functions were allegedly affected by the declaration of a state of rebellion; the declaration of a state of rebellion is a "superfluity," and is actually an exercise of emergency powers, such exercise, it is contended, amounts to a usurpation of the power of Congress granted by S23 (2), Art6 of the Constitution
4. Pimentel; standing as Senator; assails the subject presidential issuances as "an unwarranted, illegal and abusive exercise of a martial law power that has no basis under the Constitution; petitioner fears that the declaration of a state of rebellion "opens the door to the unconstitutional implementation of warrantless arrests" for the crime of rebellion

Respondents: SolGen; petitions have been rendered moot by the lifitng of the proclamation; questions standing of petitioners

ISSUES:
1. whether or not petitioners have standing
2. whether or not case has been rendered moot by the lifting of the proclamation 3. whether or not the proclamation calling the state of rebellion is proper

RULING: 1. NOT EVERY PETITIONER. only members of the House and Sen Pimentel have standing. Sanlakas & PM have no standing by analogy with LDP in Lacson v Perez "… petitioner has not demonstrated any injury to itself which would justify the resort to the Court. Petitioner is a juridical person not subject to arrest. Thus, it cannot claim to be threatened by a warrantless arrest. Nor is it alleged that its leaders, members, and supporters are being threatened with warrantless arrest and detention for the crime of rebellion." At best they seek for declaratory relief, which is not in the original jurisdiction of SC. Even assuming that Sanlakas & PM are "people's organizations" in the language of Ss15-16, Art13 of the Consti, they are still not endowed with standing for as in Kilosbayan v Morato "These provisions have not changed the traditional rule that only real parties in interest or those with standing, as the case may be, may invoke the judicial power. The jurisdiction of this Court, even in cases involving constitutional questions, is limited by the "case and controversy" requirement of S5,Art8. This requirement lies at the very heart of the judicial function." SJS, though alleging to be taxpayers, is not endowed with standing since "A taxpayer may bring suit where the act complained of directly involves the illegal disbursement of public funds derived from taxation.No such illegal disbursement is alleged." Court has ruled out the doctrine of "transcendental importance" regarding constitutional questions in this particular case. Only members of Congress, who's (?) powers as provided in the Consti on giving the Pres emergency powers are allegedly being impaired, can question the legality of the proclamation of the state of rebellion.

2. YES. As a rule, courts do not adjudicate moot cases, judicial power being limited to the determination of "actual controversies." Nevertheless, courts will decide a question, otherwise moot, if it is "capable of repetition yet evading review."19 The case at bar is one such case, since prior events (the May 1, 2001 incident when the Pres also declared a state of rebellion) prove that it can be repeated. 3. YES. S18, Art 7 grants the President, as Commander-in-Chief, a "sequence" of "graduated power[s]." From the most to the least benign, these are: the calling out power, the power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, and the power to declare martial law. In the exercise of the latter two powers, the Constitution requires the concurrence of two conditions, namely, an actual invasion or rebellion, and that public safety requires the exercise of such power. However, as we observed in Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Zamora, "[t]hese conditions are not required in the exercise of the calling out power. The only criterion is that 'whenever it becomes necessary,' the President may call the armed forces 'to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion.'"Nevertheless, it is equally true that S18, Art7 does not expressly prohibit the President from declaring a state of rebellion. Note that the Constitution vests the President not only with Commander-in-Chief powers but, first and foremost, with Executive powers. The ponencia then traced the evolution of executive power in the US (Jackson and the South Carolina situation, Lincoln and teh 'war powers', Cleveland in In re: Eugene Debs) in an effort to show that "the Commander-in-Chief powers are broad enough as it is and become more so when taken together with the provision on executive power and the presidential oath of office. Thus, the plenitude of the powers of the presidency equips the occupant with the means to address exigencies or threats which undermine the very existence of government or the integrity of the State." This, plus Marcos v Manglapus on residual powers, the Rev Admin Code S4, Ch2, Bk3 on the executive power of the Pres to declare a certain status, argue towards the validity of the proclamation. However, the Court maintains that the declaration is devoid of any legal significance for being superflous. Also, the mere declaration of a state of rebellion cannot diminish or violate constitutionally protected rights. if a state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution or automatically suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus,61 then it is with more reason that a simple declaration of a state of rebellion could not bring about these conditions. Apprehensions that the military and police authorities may resort to warrantless arrests are likewise unfounded. In Lacson vs. Perez, supra, majority of the Court held that "[i]n quelling or suppressing the rebellion, the authorities may only resort to warrantless arrests of persons suspected of rebellion, as provided under Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court,63 if the circumstances so warrant. The warrantless arrest feared by petitioners is, thus, not based on the declaration of a 'state of rebellion.'"64 In other words, a person may be subjected to a warrantless arrest for the crime of rebellion whether or not the President has declared a state of rebellion, so long as the requisites for a valid warrantless arrest are present. The argument that the declaration of a state of rebellion amounts to a declaration of martial law and, therefore, is a circumvention of the report requirement, is a leap of logic. There is no illustration that the President has attempted to exercise or has exercised martial law powers. Finally, Nor by any stretch of the imagination can the declaration constitute an indirect exercise of emergency powers, which exercise depends upon a grant of Congress pursuant to S23 (2), Art6 of the Constitution. The petitions do not cite a specific instance where the President has attempted to or has exercised powers beyond her powers as Chief Executive or as Commander-in-Chief. The President, in declaring a state of rebellion and in calling out the armed forces, was merely exercising a wedding of her Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief powers. These are purely executive powers, vested on the President by S1 & 18, Art7, as opposed to the delegated legislative powers contemplated by Section 23 (2), Article VI.