Lacson

vs. Perez
G.R. No. 147780, G.R. No. 147781, G.R. No. 147799, G.R. No. 147810

FACTS
- On May 1, 2001, President Macapagal-Arroyo issued Proclamation No. 38 declaring that there
was a state of rebellion in the National Capital Region.
o She also issued General Order No. 1 directing the Armed Forces of the Philippines and
the Philippine National Police to suppress the rebellion in the National Capital Region.
o Warrantless arrests of several leaders and promoters of the rebellion were effected.
- On May 6, 2001, President ordered the lifting of the declaration of a state of rebellion in
Metro Manila.
- On May 10, 2001, four petitions were filed before the Court:
o G.R. No. 147780 (by Lacson, Aquino, and Mancao): prohibition, injunction, mandamus,
and habeas corpus
o G.R. No. 147781 (by Defensor-Santiago): mandamus and/or review of the factual basis
for the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, with prayer for a
temporary restraining order
o G.R. No. 147799 (by Lumbao): prohibition and injunction with prayer for a writ of
preliminary injunction and/or restraining order
o G.R. No. 147810 (by Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino): certiorari and prohibition

ISSUE
Whether or not the petitions should be dismissed for being rendered moot and academic.

HOLDING
Petitions are DISMISSED for being MOOT AND ACADEMIC.

All the foregoing petitions assail the declaration of a state of rebellion by President Gloria Macapagal-
Arroyo and the warrantless arrests allegedly effected by virtue thereof, as having no basis both in fact
and in law. The lifting of the said declaration in Metro Manila has rendered the petitions moot and
academic.

DOCTRINE
When an issue or case no longer presents a justiciable controversy or when the matter in dispute has
already been resolved, it becomes moot. In such case, a determination of the issue would have no
practical use, and there is no actual substantial relief to which the petitioner would be entitled and
which would be negated by the dismissal of the petition.

As a rule, the Court is not empowered to decide moot questions or to declare principles or rules of law
which cannot affect the result as to the thing in issue in the case before it. The Court may only
adjudicate actual, ongoing controversies.

PETITION

RULING

G.R. No. 147780

The appropriate court be directed to desist from Relief is premature for no complaints or charges
arraigning and proceeding with the trial of the have been filed against any of the petitioners for
case until the instant petition is finally resolved
any crime.
Hold departure orders issued against them be The prayer to set aside hold departure orders
declared null and void ab initio
must be made in proper proceedings initiated for
that purpose. Petitioners are not even expressing
intention to leave the country in the near future.
Issuance of a writ of habeas corpus
Writ is not called for since its purpose is to relieve
petitioners from unlawful restraint, a matter
which remains speculative.
G.R. No. 147781
Mandamus and/or review of the factual basis for Petitioner has not shown that she is in imminent
the suspension of the privilege of the writ of danger of being arrested without a warrant.
habeas corpus

The legal right of the petitioner to the
performance of a particular act must be clear and
complete. Mandamus will not issue unless the
right to relief is clear at the time of the award.
G.R. No. 147799
Declaration of a state of rebellion violates the Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution
doctrine of separation of powers: The Judiciary expressly provides: The President shall be the
has the constitutional prerogative to determine Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the
or interpret what took place on May 1, 2001
Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary,
he may call out such armed forces to prevent or
suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion..

BUT

Judicial review on the factual basis of the exercise
of this power is no longer feasible because
Proclamation No. 38 has been lifted.
G.R. No. 147810
Certiorari and prohibition
Petitioner is a juridical person not subject to
arrest. Thus, it cannot claim to be threatened by
a warrantless arrest.

A party must show a personal stake in the
outcome of the case or an injury to himself that
can be redressed by a favorable decision so as to
warrant an invocation of the courts jurisdiction
and to justify the exercise of the courts remedial
powers in his behalf.