CASE #: 84

TOPIC: Functions of Judicial Review: Checking, Legitimating, and Symbolic

G.R. No. 159085 Feb. 3, 2004
TITLE: SANLAKAS petitioner-appellee, vs. Executive Secretary respondent-appellant
NATURE OF ACTION: Petition to declare unconstitutional Proclamation No. 427, and General Order No. 4

FACTS:
July 27, 2003 some armed 300 junior officers and enlisted men of the AFP stormed into the
Oakwood Premiere apartments in Makati City
They demanded, among other things, the resignation of the President, the Secretary of Defense,
and the Chief of the Philippine National Police
In light of this President GMA issued Proclamation No. 427 and General Order No. 4 both
declaring a state of rebellion and calling out the AFP to suppress the rebellion
By the evening of the same day, the Oakwood occupation ended and the soldiers agreed to return
to barracks however the President did not immediately lift the declaration of a state of rebellion
and only did so on Aug. 1, 2003 through Proclamation No. 435

Side of the Petitioner/Appellee: (SANLAKAS)

Several petitions were filed at the SC challenging the validity of Proclamation No. 427 and
General Order No. 4, among these was by Sanlakas a party list organization contending that
Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution does not require the declaration of a state of rebellion
to call out the armed forces
And that because of the cessation of the Oakwood occupation, there exists no factual basis for
the proclamation of rebellion by the President for an indefinite period

Side of the Respondent/Appellant:

When the Solicitor General was required to comment, he argues that because the declaration
of a state of rebellion was lifted the petitions have been rendered moot

ISSUES:

1. WON SC can adjudicate cases that are moot YES

2. WON President has the power to declare a state of rebellion YES

HELD:

1. Generally, courts do not adjudicate moot cases, the court will however decide a question if it is
capable of repetition yet evading review.

2. The Constitution does not require the President to declare a state of rebellion to exercise her
calling out power grants. Section 18, Article VII grants the President, as Commander-in-Chief, a
sequence of graduated power[s].
 From the most to the least benign, these are: (1) the calling out power, (2) the power to suspend
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, and (3) the power to declare martial law. In the exercise
of the latter two powers, the Constitution requires the concurrence of two conditions, namely, (1) an
actual invasion or rebellion, and (2) that public safety requires the exercise of such power.

Nevertheless, it is equally true that Section 18, Article VII 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.

Section 1, Article VII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution states: The executive power shall be
vested in the President.... As if by exposition, Section 17 of the same Article provides: He shall
ensure that the laws be faithfully executed.

The Presidents authority to declare a state of rebellion springs in the main from her powers as
chief executive and, at the same time, draws strength from her Commander-in-Chief powers.
Indeed, as the Solicitor General accurately points out, statutory authority for such a declaration may
be found in Section 4, Chapter 2 (Ordinance Power), Book III (Office of the President) of the
Revised Administrative Code of 1987, which states:

SEC. 4. Proclamations. Acts of the President fixing a date or declaring a status or condition of
public moment or interest, upon the existence of which the operation of a specific law or regulation
is made to depend, shall be promulgated in proclamations which shall have the force of an
executive order.

A declaration of a state of rebellion is an utter superfluity. At most, it only gives notice to the nation
that such a state exists and that the armed forces may be called to prevent or suppress it. Perhaps
the declaration may wreak emotional effects upon the perceived enemies of the State, even on the
entire nation. But the Courts mandate is to probe only into the legal consequences of the
declaration. The Court finds that such a declaration is devoid of any legal significance. For all legal
intents, the declaration is deemed not written.

DOCTRINE:

CONCURRING OR DISSENTING OPINIONS: