Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 159085 February 3, 2004
SANA!AS, re"re#e$%e& by REP. '.(. )au%*#%a, a$& PART+,O NG MANGGAGA-A,
re"re#e$%e& by REP. RENATO MAGTU)O petitioners,
vs
E.ECUT+(E SECRETAR/ SECRETAR/ ANGEO RE/ES, GENERA NARC+SO A)A/A, ,+R.
GEN. 0ERMOGENES E),ANE, respondents.
1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
G.R. No. 159103 February 3, 2004
SOC+A 'UST+CE SOC+ET/ 3S'S4 OFF+CERS5MEM)ERS $a6e7y, SAMSON S. ACANTARA,
E, (+NCENT S. A)ANO, RENE ). GOROSPE, E,-+N R. SAN,O(A a$& RO,OFO ,.
MAP+E, petitioners,
vs
0ON. E.ECUT+(E SECRETAR/ A)ERTO G. ROMUO, 0ON. SECRETAR/ OF 'UST+CE
S+MEON ,ATUMANONG, 0ON. SECRETAR/ OF NAT+ONA ,EFENSE ANGEO RE/ES, a$&
0ON. SECRETAR/ 'OSE +NA, 'R., respondents.
1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
G.R. No. 159185 February 3, 2004
REP. ROE. T. SUP+CO, REP. CAROS M. PA,+A, REP. CESO . O)REGAT, REP.
0USS+N U. AM+N, REP. A)RA0AM !A0+ ). M+TRA, REP. EMM/OU '. TA+NO2SANTOS,
a$& REP. GEORG+U R. /UMU20ERM+,A, petitioners,
vs
PRES+,ENT GOR+A MACAPAGA2ARRO/O8 a$& E.ECUT+(E SECRETAR/ A)ERTO G.
ROMUO,respondents.
1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
G.R. No. 159199 February 3, 2004
A:U++NO :. P+MENTE, 'R. a# a Me6ber o; %<e Se$a%e, petitioner,
vs
SECRETAR/ A)ERTO ROMUO, AS E.ECUT+(E SECRETAR/8 SECRETAR/ ANGEO
RE/ES, AS SECRETAR/ OF NAT+ONA ,EFENSE8 GENERA NARC+SO A)A/A, AS C0+EF OF
STAFF OF T0E ARME, FORCES8 SECRETAR/ 'OSE +NA, e% a7., respondents.
D E C I S I N
T+NGA, J.=
!he" ca#e in the #iddle of the ni$ht. Ar#ed %ith hi$h&po%ered a##unitions and e'plosives, so#e
three hundred (unior officers and enlisted #en of the Ar#ed )orces of the Philippines *A)P+ stor#ed
into the a,%ood Pre#iere apart#ents in Ma,ati Cit" in the %ee hours of -ul" ./, .001. Be%ailin$
the corruption in the A)P, the soldiers de#anded, a#on$ other thin$s, the resi$nation of the
President, the Secretar" of Defense and the Chief of the Philippine National Police *PNP+.
2
In the %a,e of the a,%ood occupation, the President issued later in the da" Procla#ation No. 3./
and 4eneral rder No. 3, both declarin$ 5a state of rebellion5 and callin$ out the Ar#ed )orces to
suppress the rebellion. Procla#ation No. 3./ reads in full6
PRC7AMA!IN N. 3./
DEC7ARIN4 A S!A!E ) REBE77IN
89EREAS, certain ele#ents of the Ar#ed )orces of the Philippines, ar#ed %ith hi$h&po%ered
firear#s and e'plosives, actin$ upon the insti$ation and co##and and direction of ,no%n and
un,no%n leaders, have sei:ed a buildin$ in Ma,ati Cit", put bo#bs in the area, publicl" declared
%ithdra%al of support for, and too, ar#s a$ainst the dul" constituted 4overn#ent, and continue to
rise publicl" and sho% open hostilit", for the purpose of re#ovin$ alle$iance to the 4overn#ent
certain bodies of the Ar#ed )orces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police, and
deprivin$ the President of the Republic of the Philippines, %holl" or partiall", of her po%ers and
prero$atives %hich constitute the cri#e of rebellion punishable under Article 213 of the Revised
Penal Code, as a#ended;
89EREAS, these #is$uided ele#ents of the Ar#ed )orces of the Philippines are bein$ supported,
abetted and aided b" ,no%n and un,no%n leaders, conspirators and plotters in the $overn#ent
service and outside the $overn#ent;
89EREAS, under Section 2<, Article =II of the present Constitution, %henever it beco#es
necessar", the President, as the Co##ander&in&Chief of the Ar#ed )orces of the Philippines, #a"
call out such Ar#ed )orces to suppress the rebellion;
N8, !9ERE)RE, I, 47RIA MACAPA4A7&ARR>, b" virtue of the po%ers vested in #e b"
la%, hereb" confir# the e'istence of an actual and on&$oin$ rebellion, co#pellin$ #e to declare a
state of rebellion.
In vie% of the fore$oin$, I a# issuin$ 4eneral rder No. 3 in accordance %ith Section 2<, Article =II
of the Constitution, callin$ out the Ar#ed )orces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police
to i##ediatel" carr" out the necessar" actions and #easures to suppress and ?uell the rebellion
%ith due re$ard to constitutional ri$hts.
4eneral rder No. 3 is si#ilarl" %orded6
4ENERA7 RDER N. 3
DIREC!IN4 !9E ARMED )RCES ) !9E P9I7IPPINES AND !9E P9I7IPPINE NA!INA7
P7ICE ! S@PPRESS REBE77IN
89EREAS, certain ele#ents of the Ar#ed )orces of the Philippines, ar#ed %ith hi$h&po%ered
firear#s and e'plosives, actin$ upon the insti$ation and co##and and direction of ,no%n and
un,no%n leaders, have sei:ed a buildin$ in Ma,ati Cit", put bo#bs in the area, publicl" declared
%ithdra%al of support for, and too, ar#s a$ainst the dul" constituted 4overn#ent, and continue to
rise publicl" and sho% open hostilit", for the purpose of re#ovin$ alle$iance to the 4overn#ent
certain bodies of the Ar#ed )orces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police, and
deprivin$ the President of the Republic of the Philippines, %holl" or partiall", of her po%ers and
prero$atives %hich constitute the cri#e of rebellion punishable under Article 213 et seq. of the
Revised Penal Code, as a#ended;
89EREAS, these #is$uided ele#ents of the Ar#ed )orces of the Philippines are bein$ supported,
abetted and aided b" ,no%n and un,no%n leaders, conspirators and plotters in the $overn#ent
service and outside the $overn#ent;
89EREAS, under Section 2<, Article =II of the present Constitution, %henever it beco#es
necessar", the President, as the Co##ander&in&Chief of all Ar#ed )orces of the Philippines, #a"
call out such Ar#ed )orces to suppress the rebellion;
N8, !9ERE)RE, I, 47RIA MACAPA4A7&ARR>, b" virtue of the po%ers vested in #e b"
the Constitution as President of the Republic of the Philippines and Co##ander&in&Chief of all the
ar#ed forces of the Philippines and pursuant to Procla#ation No. 3./ dated -ul" ./, .001, do
hereb" call upon the Ar#ed )orces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police to suppress
and ?uell the rebellion.
I hereb" direct the Chief of the Ar#ed )orces of the Philippines and the Chief of the Philippine
National Police and the officers and #en of the Ar#ed )orces of the Philippines and the Philippine
National Police to i##ediatel" carr" out the necessar" and appropriate actions and #easures to
suppress and ?uell the rebellion %ith due re$ard to constitutional ri$hts.
B" the evenin$ of -ul" ./, .001, the a,%ood occupation had ended. After hours&lon$ ne$otiations,
the soldiers a$reed to return to barrac,s. !he President, ho%ever, did not i##ediatel" lift the
declaration of a state of rebellion and did so onl" on Au$ust 2, .001, throu$h Procla#ation No. 31A6
DEC7ARIN4 !9A! !9E S!A!E ) REBE77IN 9AS CEASED ! EBIS!
89EREAS, b" virtue of Procla#ation No. 3./ dated -ul" ./, .001, a state of rebellion %as
declared;
89EREAS, b" virtue of 4eneral rder No. 3 dated -ul" ./, .001, %hich %as issued on the basis of
Procla#ation No. 3./ dated -ul" ./, .001, and pursuant to Article =II, Section 2< of the Constitution,
the Ar#ed )orces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police %ere directed to suppress
and ?uell the rebellion;
89EREAS, the Ar#ed )orces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police have effectivel"
suppressed and ?uelled the rebellion.
N8, !9ERE)RE, I, 47RIA MACAPA4A7&ARR>, President of the Philippines, b" virtue of
the po%ers vested in #e b" la%, hereb" declare that the state of rebellion has ceased to e'ist.
In the interi#, several petitions %ere filed before this Court challen$in$ the validit" of Procla#ation
No. 3./ and 4eneral rder No. 3.
In 4.R. No. 2AC0<A *Sanlakas and PM v. Executive Secretary, et al.+,
.
part"&list or$ani:ations
Sanla,as and Partido n$ Man$$a$a%a *PM+, contend that Section 2<, Article =II of the Constitution
does not re?uire the declaration of a state of rebellion to call out the ar#ed forces.
1
!he" further
sub#it that, because of the cessation of the a,%ood occupation, there e'ists no sufficient factual
basis for the procla#ation b" the President of a state of rebellion for an indefinite period.
3
Petitioners in 4.R. No. 2AC201 *SJS Officers/Members v. Hon. Executive Secretary, et al.+ are
officersD#e#bers of the Social -ustice Societ" *S-S+, 5)ilipino citi:ens, ta'pa"ers, la% professors
and bar revie%ers.5
A
7i,e Sanla,as and PM, the" clai# that Section 2<, Article =II of the Constitution
does not authori:e the declaration of a state of rebellion.
E
!he" contend that the declaration is a
5constitutional ano#al"5 that 5confuses, confounds and #isleads5 because 5FoGver:ealous public
officers, actin$ pursuant to such procla#ation or $eneral order, are liable to violate the constitutional
ri$ht of private citi:ens.5
/
Petitioners also sub#it that the procla#ation is a circu#vention of the
report re?uire#ent under the sa#e Section 2<, Article =II, co##andin$ the President to sub#it a
report to Con$ress %ithin 3< hours fro# the procla#ation of #artial la%.
<
)inall", the" contend that
the presidential issuances cannot be construed as an e'ercise of e#er$enc" po%ers as Con$ress
has not dele$ated an" such po%er to the President.
C
In 4.R. No. 2AC2<A *e!. Su!lico et al. v. President Maca!a"al#$rroyo and Executive Secretary
omulo+, petitioners brou$ht suit as citi:ens and as Me#bers of the 9ouse of Representatives
%hose ri$hts, po%ers and functions %ere alle$edl" affected b" the declaration of a state of
rebellion.
20
Petitioners do not challen$e the po%er of the President to call out the Ar#ed
)orces.
22
!he" ar$ue, ho%ever, that the declaration of a state of rebellion is a 5superfluit",5 and is
actuall" an e'ercise of e#er$enc" po%ers.
2.
Such e'ercise, it is contended, a#ounts to a usurpation
of the po%er of Con$ress $ranted b" Section .1 *.+, Article =I of the Constitution.
21
In 4.R. No. 2AC2CE *Pimentel v. omulo, et al.+, petitioner Senator assails the sub(ect presidential
issuances as 5an un%arranted, ille$al and abusive e'ercise of a #artial la% po%er that has no basis
under the Constitution.5
23
In the #ain, petitioner fears that the declaration of a state of rebellion
5opens the door to the unconstitutional i#ple#entation of %arrantless arrests5 for the cri#e of
rebellion.
2A
Re?uired to co##ent, the Solicitor 4eneral ar$ues that the petitions have been rendered #oot b"
the liftin$ of the declaration.
2E
In addition, the Solicitor 4eneral ?uestions the standin$ of the
petitioners to brin$ suit.
2/
!he Court a$rees %ith the Solicitor 4eneral that the issuance of Procla#ation No. 31A, declarin$
that the state of rebellion has ceased to e'ist, has rendered the case #oot. As a rule, courts do not
ad(udicate #oot cases, (udicial po%er bein$ li#ited to the deter#ination of
5a>%ua7 controversies.5
2<
Nevertheless, courts %ill decide a ?uestion, other%ise #oot, if it is 5capable
of repetition "et evadin$ revie%.5
2C
!he case at bar is one such case.
nce before, the President on Ma" 2, .002 declared a state of rebellion and called upon the A)P
and the PNP to suppress the rebellion throu$h Procla#ation No. 1< and 4eneral rder No. 2. n
that occasion, 5Han an$r" and violent #ob ar#ed %ith e'plosives, firear#s, bladed %eapons, clubs,
stones and other deadl" %eaponsH assaulted and atte#pted to brea, into MalacaIan$.5
.0
Petitions
%ere filed before this Court assailin$ the validit" of the PresidentHs declaration. )ive da"s after such
declaration, ho%ever, the President lifted the sa#e. !he #ootness of the petitions in 7acson v. Pere:
and acco#pan"in$ cases
.2
precluded this Court fro# addressin$ the constitutionalit" of the
declaration.
!o prevent si#ilar ?uestions fro# ree#er$in$, %e sei:e this opportunit" to finall" la" to rest the
validit" of the declaration of a state of rebellion in the e'ercise of the PresidentHs callin$ out po%er,
the #ootness of the petitions not%ithstandin$.
nl" petitioners Rep. Suplico et al. and Sen. Pi#entel, as Me#bers of Con$ress, have standin$ to
challen$e the sub(ect issuances. In P%ili!!ine &onstitution $ssociation v. Enrique',
..
this Court
reco$ni:ed that6
!o the e'tent the po%ers of Con$ress are i#paired, so is the po%er of each #e#ber thereof,
since his office confers a ri$ht to participate in the e'ercise of the po%ers of that institution.
An act of the E'ecutive %hich in(ures the institution of Con$ress causes a derivative but
nonetheless substantial in(ur", %hich can be ?uestioned b" a #e#ber of Con$ress. In such a
case, an" #e#ber of Con$ress can have a resort to the courts.
Petitioner Me#bers of Con$ress clai# that the declaration of a state of rebellion b" the
President is tanta#ount to an e'ercise of Con$ressH e#er$enc" po%ers, thus i#pairin$ the
la%#a,ersH le$islative po%ers. Petitioners also #aintain that the declaration is a subterfu$e
to avoid con$ressional scrutin" into the PresidentHs e'ercise of #artial la% po%ers.
Petitioners Sanla,as and PM, and S-S fficersDMe#bers, have no le$al standin$ or locus
standi to brin$ suit. 57e$al standin$5 or locus standi has been defined as a personal and
substantial interest in the case such that the part" has sustained or %ill sustain direct in(ur"
as a result of the $overn#ental act that is bein$ challen$edJ. !he $ist of the ?uestion of
standin$ is %hether a part" alle$es 5such personal sta,e in the outco#e of the controvers"
as to assure that concrete adverseness %hich sharpens the presentation of issues upon
%hich the court depends for illu#ination of difficult constitutional ?uestions.5
.1
Petitioners Sanla,as and PM assert that6
.. As a basic principle of the or$ani:ations and as an i#portant plan, in their pro$ra#s,
petitioners are co##itted to assert, defend, protect, uphold, and pro#ote the ri$hts,
interests, and %elfare of the people, especiall" the poor and #ar$inali:ed classes and
sectors of Philippine societ". Petitioners are co##itted to defend and assert hu#an ri$hts,
includin$ political and civil ri$hts, of the citi:ens.
1. Me#bers of the petitioner or$ani:ations resort to #ass actions and #obili:ations in the
e'ercise of their Constitutional ri$hts to peaceabl" asse#ble and their freedo# of speech
and of e'pression under Section 4, Article III of the 198? Co$#%*%u%*o$, as a vehicle to
publicl" ventilate their $rievances and le$iti#ate de#ands and to #obili:e public opinion to
support the sa#e.
.3
FE#phasis in the ori$inal.G
Petitioner part"&list or$ani:ations clai# no better ri$ht than the 7aban n$ De#o,rati,on$ Pilipino,
%hose standin$ this Court re(ected in (acson v. Pere'6
J petitioner has not de#onstrated an" in(ur" to itself %hich %ould (ustif" the resort to the
Court. Petitioner is a (uridical person not sub(ect to arrest. !hus, it cannot clai# to be
threatened b" a %arrantless arrest. Nor is it alle$ed that its leaders, #e#bers, and
supporters are bein$ threatened %ith %arrantless arrest and detention for the cri#e of
rebellion. Ever" action #ust be brou$ht in the na#e of the part" %hose le$al ri$hts has been
invaded or infrin$ed, or %hose le$al ri$ht is under i##inent threat of invasion or
infrin$e#ent.
At best, the instant petition #a" be considered as an action for declarator" relief, petitioner
clai#in$ that itFHGs ri$ht to freedo# of e'pression and freedo# of asse#bl" is affected b" the
declaration of a 5state of rebellion5 and that said procla#ation is invalid for bein$ contrar" to
the Constitution.
9o%ever, to consider the petition as one for declarator" relief affords little co#fort to
petitioner, this Court not havin$ (urisdiction in the first instance over such a petition. Section A
F2G, Article =III of the Constitution li#its the ori$inal (urisdiction of the court to cases affectin$
a#bassadors, other public #inisters and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari,
!ro%ibition, mandamus, quo )arranto, and %abeas cor!us.
.A
Even assu#in$ that petitioners are 5peopleHs or$ani:ations,5 this status %ould not vest the# %ith the
re?uisite personalit" to ?uestion the validit" of the presidential issuances, as this Court #ade clear
in *ilosbayan v. Morato6
.E
!he Constitution provides that 5the State shall respect the role of independent peopleHs
or$ani:ations to enable the people to pursue and protect, %ithin the de#ocratic fra#e%or,,
their le$iti#ate and collective interests and aspirations throu$h peaceful and la%ful #eans,5
that their ri$ht to 5effective and reasonable participation at all levels of social, political, and
econo#ic decision&#a,in$ shall not be abrid$ed.5 *Art. BIII, KK2A&2E+
!hese provisions have not chan$ed the traditional rule that onl" real !arties in interest or
t%ose )it% standin", as the case #a" be, #a" invo,e the (udicial po%er. !he (urisdiction of
this Court, even in cases involvin$ constitutional ?uestions, is li#ited b" the 5case and
controvers"5 re?uire#ent of Art. =III, KA. !his re?uire#ent lies at the ver" heart of the (udicial
function. It is %hat differentiates decision#a,in$ in the courts fro# decision#a,in$ in the
political depart#ents of the $overn#ent and bars the brin$in$ of suits b" (ust an" part".
./
!hat petitioner S-S officersD#e#bers are ta'pa"ers and citi:ens does not necessaril" endo% the#
%ith standin$. A ta'pa"er #a" brin$ suit %here the act co#plained of directl" involves the ille$al
disburse#ent of public funds derived fro# ta'ation.
.<
No such ille$al disburse#ent is alle$ed.
n the other hand, a citi:en %ill be allo%ed to raise a constitutional ?uestion onl" %hen he can sho%
that he has personall" suffered so#e actual or threatened in(ur" as a result of the alle$edl" ille$al
conduct of the $overn#ent; the in(ur" is fairl" traceable to the challen$ed action; and the in(ur" is
li,el" to be redressed b" a favorable action.
.C
A$ain, no such in(ur" is alle$ed in this case.
Even $rantin$ these petitioners have standin$ on the $round that the issues the" raise are of
transcendental i#portance, the petitions #ust fail.
It is true that for the purpose of e'ercisin$ the callin$ out po%er the Constitution does not re?uire the
President to #a,e a declaration of a state of rebellion. Section 2<, Article =II provides6
Sec. 2<. !he President shall be the Co##ander&in&Chief of all ar#ed forces of the
Philippines and@<e$eAer *% be>o6e# $e>e##ary, <e 6ay >a77 ou% #u>< ar6e& ;or>e# %o
"reAe$% or #u""re## 7a@7e## A*o7e$>e, *$Aa#*o$ or rebe77*o$. In case of invasion or
rebellion, %hen the public safet" re?uires it, he #a", for a period not e'ceedin$ si't" da"s,
suspend the privile$e of the %rit of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or an" part thereof
under #artial la%. 8ithin fort"&ei$ht hours fro# the procla#ation of #artial la% or the
suspension of the %rit of habeas corpus, the President shall sub#it a report in person or in
%ritin$ to the Con$ress. !he Con$ress, votin$ (ointl", b" a vote of at least a #a(orit" of all its
Me#bers in re$ular or special session, #a" revo,e such procla#ation or suspension, %hich
revocation shall not be set aside b" the President. @pon the initiative of the President, the
Con$ress #a", in the sa#e #anner, e'tend such procla#ation or suspension for a period to
be deter#ined b" the Con$ress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safet"
re?uires it.
!he Con$ress, if not in session, shall, %ithin t%ent"&four hours follo%in$ such procla#ation
or suspension, convene in accordance %ith its rules %ithout need of a call.
!he Supre#e Court #a" revie%, in an appropriate proceedin$ filed b" an" citi:en, the
sufficienc" of the factual basis for the procla#ation of #artial la% or the suspension of the
privile$e of the %rit of habeas corpus or the e'tension thereof, and #ust pro#ul$ate its
decision thereon %ithin thirt" da"s fro# its filin$.
A state of #artial la% does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor supplant the
functionin$ of the civil courts or le$islative asse#blies, nor authori:e the confer#ent of the
(urisdiction on #ilitar" courts and a$encies over civilians %here civil courts are able to
function, nor auto#aticall" suspend the privile$e of the %rit.
!he suspension of the privile$e of the %rit shall appl" onl" to persons (udiciall" char$ed for
rebellion or offenses inherent in or directl" connected %ith invasion.
Durin$ the suspension of the privile$e of the %rit, an" person thus arrested or detained shall
be (udiciall" char$ed %ithin three da"s, other%ise he shall be released. FE#phasis supplied.G
!he above provision $rants the President, as Co##ander&in&Chief, a 5se?uence5 of 5$raduated
po%erFsG.5
10
)ro# the #ost to the least beni$n, these are6 the callin$ out po%er, the po%er to
suspend the privile$e of the %rit of%abeas cor!us, and the po%er to declare #artial la%. In the
e'ercise of the latter t%o po%ers, the Constitution re?uires the concurrence of t%o conditions,
na#el", an actual invasion or rebellion, and that public safet" re?uires the e'ercise of such
po%er.
12
9o%ever, as %e observed in +nte"rated ,ar of t%e P%ili!!ines v. -amora,
1.
5FtGhese
conditions are not re?uired in the e'ercise of the callin$ out po%er. !he onl" criterion is that
H%henever it beco#es necessar",H the President #a" call the ar#ed forces Hto prevent or suppress
la%less violence, invasion or rebellion.H5
Nevertheless, it is e?uall" true that Section 2<, Article =II does $o% e'pressl" prohibit the President
fro# declarin$ a state of rebellion. Note that the Constitution vests the President not onl"
%ith &ommander#in#&%ief po%ers but, first and fore#ost, %ith Executive po%ers.
Section 2, Article =II of the 2C</ Philippine Constitution states6 5!he e'ecutive po%er shall be vested
in the PresidentJ.5 As if b" e'position, Section 2/ of the sa#e Article provides6 59e shall ensure that
the la%s be faithfull" e'ecuted.5 !he provisions trace their histor" to the Constitution of the @nited
States.
!he specific provisions of the @.S. Constitution $rantin$ the @.S. President e'ecutive and
co##ander&in&chief po%ers have re#ained in their ori$inal si#ple for# since the Philadelphia
Constitution of 2//E, Article II of %hich states in part6
Section 2. 2. !he E'ecutive Po%er shall be vested in a President of the @nited States of
A#erica . . . .
. . . .
Section .. 2. !he President shall be Co##ander in Chief of the Ar#" and Nav" of the @nited
States. . . .
. . . .
Section 1. J he shall ta,e care that the la%s be faithfull" e'ecutedJ. FArticle II L E'ecutive
Po%erG
Recallin$ in historical vi$nettes the use b" the @.S. President of the above&?uoted provisions, as
(u'taposed a$ainst the correspondin$ action of the @.S. Supre#e Court, is instructive. Clad %ith the
prero$atives of the office and endo%ed %ith soverei$n po%ers, %hich are dra%n chiefl" fro# the
E'ecutive Po%er and Co##ander&in&Chief provisions, as %ell as the presidential oath of office, the
President serves as Chief of State or Chief of 4overn#ent, Co##ander&in&Chief, Chief of )orei$n
Relations and Chief of Public pinion.
11
)irst to find definitive ne% piers for the authorit" of the Chief of State, as the protector of the people,
%as President Andre% -ac,son. Co#in$ to office b" virtue of a political revolution, -ac,son, as
President not onl" ,ept faith %ith the people b" drivin$ the patricians fro# po%er. ld 9ic,or", as he
%as fondl" called, %as the first President to cha#pion the indissolubilit" of the @nion b" defeatin$
South CarolinaHs nullification effort.
13
!he )ederal !ariff Acts of 2<.< and 2<1. that Con$ress enacted did not pacif" the hotspurs fro#
South Carolina. Its State 7e$islature ordered an election for a convention, %hose #e#bers ?uic,l"
passed an rdinance of Nullification. !he rdinance declared the !ariff Acts unconstitutional,
prohibited South Carolina citi:ens fro# obe"in$ the# after a certain date in 2<11, and threatened
secession if the )ederal 4overn#ent sou$ht to oppose the tariff la%s. !he 7e$islature then
i#ple#ented the rdinance %ith bristlin$ punitive la%s ai#ed at an" %ho sou$ht to pa" or collect
custo#s duties.
1A
-ac,son bided his ti#e. 9is tas, of enforce#ent %ould not be eas". !echnicall", the President #i$ht
send troops into a State onl" if the 4overnor called for help to suppress an insurrection, %hich %ould
not occur in the instance. !he President could also send troops to see to it that the la%s enacted b"
Con$ress %ere faithfull" e'ecuted. But these la%s %ere ai#ed at individual citi:ens, and provided no
enforce#ent #achiner" a$ainst violation b" a State. -ac,son prepared to as, Con$ress for a force
bill.
1E
In a letter to a friend, the President $ave the essence of his position. 9e %rote6 5. . . %hen a faction in
a State atte#pts to nullif" a constitutional la% of Con$ress, or to destro" the @nion, the balance of
the people co#posin$ this @nion have a perfect ri$ht to coerce the# to obedience.5 !hen in a
Procla#ation he issued on Dece#ber 20, 2<1., he called upon South Carolinians to reali:e that
there could be no peaceable interference %ith the e'ecution of the la%s, and dared the#, 5disunion
b" ar#ed force is %rea#o$. Are "ou read" to incur its $uiltM5
1/
!he Procla#ation fri$htened nullifiers, non&nullifiers and ti$ht&rope %al,ers. Soon, State 7e$islatures
be$an to adopt resolutions of a$ree#ent, and the President announced that the national voice fro#
Maine on the north to 7ouisiana on the south had declared nullification and accession 5confined to
conte#pt and infa#".5
1<
No other President entered office faced %ith proble#s so for#idable, and enfeebled b" personal and
political handicaps so dauntin$, as Abraha# 7incoln.
7incoln believed the PresidentHs po%er broad and that of Con$ress e'plicit and restricted, and
sou$ht so#e source of e'ecutive po%er not failed b" #isuse or %rec,ed b" sabota$e. 9e sei:ed
upon the PresidentHs desi$nation b" the Constitution as Co##ander&in&Chief, coupled it to the
e'ecutive po%er provision N and (oined the# as 5the %ar po%er5 %hich authori:ed hi# to do #an"
thin$s be"ond the co#petence of Con$ress.
1C
7incoln e#braced the -ac,son concept of the PresidentHs independent po%er and dut" under his
oath directl" to represent and protect the people. In his Messa$e of -ul" 3, 2<E2, 7incoln declared
that 5the E'ecutive found the dut" of e#plo"in$ the %ar po%er in defense of the $overn#ent forced
upon hi#. 9e could not but perfor# the dut" or surrender the e'istence of the 4overn#ent . . . .5
!his concept be$an as a transition device, to be validated b" Con$ress %hen it asse#bled. In less
than t%o&"ears, it $re% into an independent po%er under %hich he felt authori:ed to suspend the
privile$e of the %rit of %abeas cor!us, issue the E#ancipation Procla#ation, and restore reoccupied
States.
30
7incolnHs Procla#ation of April 2A, 2<E2, called for /A,000 troops. !heir first service, accordin$ to the
procla#ation, %ould be to recapture forts, places and propert", ta,in$ care 5to avoid an" devastation,
an" destruction of or interference %ith propert", or an" disturbance of peaceful citi:ens.5
32
Earl" in 2<E1, the @.S. Supre#e Court approved President 7incolnHs report to use the %ar po%ers
%ithout the benefit of Con$ress. !he decision %as handed in the celebrated Pri'e &ases
3.
%hich
involved suits attac,in$ the PresidentHs ri$ht to le$all" institute a bloc,ade. Althou$h his Procla#ation
%as subse?uentl" validated b" Con$ress, the clai#ants contended that under international la%, a
bloc,ade could be instituted onl" as a #easure of %ar under the soverei$n po%er of the State. Since
under the Constitution onl" Con$ress is e'clusivel" e#po%ered to declare %ar, it is onl" that bod"
that could i#pose a bloc,ade and all pri:es sei:ed before the le$islative declaration %ere ille$al. B"
a A to 3 vote, the Supre#e Court upheld 7incolnHs ri$ht to act as he had.
31
In the course of ti#e, the @.S. PresidentHs po%er to call out ar#ed forces and suspend the privile$e
of the %rit of%abeas cor!us %ithout prior le$islative approval, in case of invasion, insurrection, or
rebellion ca#e to be reco$ni:ed and accepted. !he @nited States introduced the e'panded
presidential po%ers in the Philippines throu$h the Philippine Bill of 2C0..
33
!he use of the po%er %as
put to (udicial test and this Court held that the case raised a political ?uestion and said that it is
be"ond its province to in?uire into the e'ercise of the po%er.
3A
7ater, the $rant of the po%er %as
incorporated in the 2C1A Constitution.
3E
Elected in 2<<3, 4rover Cleveland too, his ascent to the presidenc" to #ean that it #ade hi# the
trustee of all the people. 4uided b" the #a'i# that 5Public office is a public trust,5 %hich he practiced
durin$ his incu#benc", Cleveland sent federal troops to Illinois to ?uell stri,in$ rail%a" %or,ers %ho
defied a court in(unction. !he in(unction banned all pic,etin$ and distribution of handbills. )or leadin$
the stri,es and violatin$ the in(unction, Debs, %ho %as the union president, %as convicted of
conte#pt of court. Brou$ht to the Supre#e Court, the principal issue %as b" %hat authorit" of the
Constitution or statute had the President to send troops %ithout the re?uest of the 4overnor of the
State.
3/
In +n e. Eu"ene /ebs, et al,
3<
the Supre#e Court upheld the conte#pt conviction. It ruled that it is
not the $overn#entHs province to #i' in #erel" individual present controversies. Still, so it %ent on,
5%henever %ron$s co#plained of are such as affect the public at lar$e, and are in respect of #atters
%hich b" the Constitution are entrusted to the care of the Nation and concernin$ %hich the Nation
o%es the dut" to all citi:ens of securin$ to the# their co##on ri$hts, then the #ere fact that the
4overn#ent has no pecuniar" interest in the controvers" is not sufficient to e'clude it fro# the
Courts, or prevent it fro# ta,in$ #easures therein to full" dischar$e those constitutional
duties.5
3C
!hus, ClevelandHs course had the CourtHs attest.
!a,in$ off fro# President Cleveland, President !heodore Roosevelt launched %hat political scientists
dub the 5ste%ardship theor".5 Callin$ hi#self 5the ste%ard of the people,5 he felt that the e'ecutive
po%er 5%as li#ited onl" b" the specific restrictions and prohibitions appearin$ in the Constitution, or
i#pleaded b" Con$ress under its constitutional po%ers.5
A0
!he #ost far&reachin$ e'tension of presidential po%er 5!.R.5 ever undertoo, to e#plo" %as his plan
to occup" and operate Penns"lvaniaHs coal #ines under his authorit" as Co##ander&in&Chief. In the
issue, he found #eans other than force to end the 2C0. hard&coal stri,e, but he had #ade detailed
plans to use his po%er as Co##ander&in&Chief to %rest the #ines fro# the stubborn operators, so
that coal production %ould be$in a$ain.
A2
Eventuall", the po%er of the State to intervene in and even ta,e over the operation of vital utilities in
the public interest %as accepted. In the Philippines, this led to the incorporation of Section E,
A.
Article
BIII of the 2C1A Constitution, %hich %as later carried over %ith #odifications in Section /,
A1
Article
BI= of the 2C/1 Constitution, and thereafter in Section 2<,
A3
Article BII of the 2C</ Constitution.
!he lesson to be learned fro# the @.S. constitutional histor" is that the Co##ander&in&Chief po%ers
are broad enou$h as it is and beco#e #ore so %hen ta,en to$ether %ith the provision on e'ecutive
po%er and the presidential oath of office. !hus, the plenitude of the po%ers of the presidenc" e?uips
the occupant %ith the #eans to address e'i$encies or threats %hich under#ine the ver" e'istence of
$overn#ent or the inte$rit" of the State.
In !he Philippine Presidenc" A Stud" of E'ecutive Po%er, the late M#e. -ustice Irene R. Cortes,
proposed that the Philippine President %as vested %ith residual po%er and that this is even $reater
than that of the @.S. President. She attributed this distinction to the 5unitar" and hi$hl" centrali:ed5
nature of the Philippine $overn#ent. She noted that, 5!here is no counterpart of the several states of
the A#erican union %hich have reserved po%ers under the @nited States constitution.5 Elaboratin$
on the constitutional basis for her ar$u#ent, she %rote6
J. !he F2C1AG Philippine FCGonstitution establishes the three depart#ents of the $overn#ent
in this #anner6 5!he le$islative po%er shall be vested in a Con$ress of the Philippines %hich
shall consist of a Senate and a 9ouse of Representatives.5 5!he e'ecutive po%er shall be
vested in a President of the Philippines.5 !he (udicial po%ers shall be vested in one Supre#e
Court and in such inferior courts as #a" be provided b" la%.5 !hese provisions not onl"
establish a separation of po%ers b" actual division but also confer plenar" le$islative,
e'ecutive, and (udicial po%ers. )or as the Supre#e Court of the Philippines pointed out
inOcam!o v. &aban"is, 5a $rant of le$islative po%er #eans a $rant of all the le$islative
po%er; and a $rant of the (udicial po%er #eans a $rant of all the (udicial po%er %hich #a" be
e'ercised under the $overn#ent.5 If this is true of the le$islative po%er %hich is e'ercised b"
t%o cha#bers %ith a co#bined #e#bership Fat that ti#eG of #ore than 2.0 and of the
(udicial po%er %hich is vested in a hierarch" of courts, it can e?uall" if not #ore appropriatel"
appl" to the e'ecutive po%er %hich is vested in one official L the president. 9e personifies
the e'ecutive branch. !here is a unit" in the e'ecutive branch absent fro# the t%o other
branches of $overn#ent. !he president is not the chief of #an" e'ecutives. 9e is the
e'ecutive. 9is direction of the e'ecutive branch can be #ore i##ediate and direct than the
@nited States president because he is $iven b" e'press provision of the constitution control
over all e'ecutive depart#ents, bureaus and offices.
AA
!he estee#ed -ustice conducted her stud" a$ainst the bac,drop of the 2C1A Constitution, the
fra#ers of %hich, earl" on, arrived at a $eneral opinion in favor of a stron$ E'ecutive in the
Philippines.5
AE
Since then, reelin$ fro# the after#ath of #artial la%, our #ost recent Charter has
restricted the PresidentHs po%ers as Co##ander&in&Chief. !he sa#e, ho%ever, cannot be said of the
PresidentHs po%ers as Chief E'ecutive.
In her ponencia in Marcos v. Man$lapus, -ustice Cortes put her thesis into (urisprudence. !here, the
Court, b" a sli# <&/ #ar$in, upheld the PresidentHs po%er to forbid the return of her e'iled
predecessor. !he rationale for the #a(orit"Hs rulin$ rested on the PresidentHs
J unstated residual po%ers %hich are i#plied fro# the $rant of e'ecutive po%er and %hich
are necessar" for her to co#pl" %ith her duties under the Constitution. !he po%ers of the
President are not li#ited to %hat are e'pressl" enu#erated in the article on the E'ecutive
Depart#ent and in scattered provisions of the Constitution. !his is so, not%ithstandin$ the
avo%ed intent of the #e#bers of the Constitutional Co##ission of 2C<E to li#it the po%ers
of the President as a reaction to the abuses under the re$i#e of Mr. Marcos, for the result
%as a limitation of s!ecific !o)ers of the President, particularl" those relatin$ to the
co##ander&in&chief clause, but not a diminution of t%e "eneral "rant of executive
!o)er.
A/
F@nderscorin$ supplied. Italics in the ori$inal.G
!hus, the PresidentHs authorit" to declare a state of rebellion sprin$s in the #ain fro# her po%ers as
chief e'ecutive and, at the sa#e ti#e, dra%s stren$th fro# her Co##ander&in&Chief po%ers.
Indeed, as the Solicitor 4eneral accuratel" points out, statutor" authorit" for such a declaration #a"
be found in Section 3, Chapter . *rdinance Po%er+, Boo, III *ffice of the President+ of the Revised
Ad#inistrative Code of 2C</, %hich states6
SEC. 3. Proclamations. L Acts of the President fi'in$ a date or declarin$ a status or condition
of public #o#ent or interest, u"o$ %<e e1*#%e$>e o; @<*>< %<e o"era%*o$ o; a #"e>*;*> 7a@
or reBu7a%*o$ *# 6a&e %o &e"e$&, shall be pro#ul$ated in !roclamations %hich shall have
the force of an e'ecutive order. FE#phasis supplied.G
!he fore$oin$ discussion not%ithstandin$, in callin$ out the ar#ed forces, a declaration of a state of
rebellion is an utter superfluit".
A<
At #ost, it onl" $ives notice to the nation that such a state e'ists
and that the ar#ed forces #a" be called to prevent or suppress it.
AC
Perhaps the declaration #a"
%rea, e#otional effects upon the perceived ene#ies of the State, even on the entire nation. But this
CourtHs #andate is to probe onl" into the le$al conse?uences of the declaration. !his Court finds that
such a declaration is devoid of an" le$al si$nificance. )or all le$al intents, the declaration is dee#ed
not %ritten.
Should there be an" 5confusion5 $enerated b" the issuance of Procla#ation No. 3./ and 4eneral
rder No. 3, %e clarif" that, as the dissenters in (acson correctl" pointed out, the #ere declaration
of a state of rebellion cannot di#inish or violate constitutionall" protected ri$hts.
E0
Indeed, if a state of
#artial la% does not suspend the operation of the Constitution or auto#aticall" suspend the privile$e
of the %rit of habeas corpus,
E2
then it is %ith #ore reason that a si#ple declaration of a state of
rebellion could not brin$ about these conditions.
E.
At an" rate, the presidential issuances the#selves
call for the suppression of the rebellion 5%ith due re$ard to constitutional ri$hts.5
)or the sa#e reasons, apprehensions that the #ilitar" and police authorities #a" resort to
%arrantless arrests are li,e%ise unfounded. In (acson vs. Pere', su!ra, #a(orit" of the Court held
that 5FiGn ?uellin$ or suppressin$ the rebellion, the authorities #a" onl" resort to %arrantless arrests
of persons suspected of rebellion, as provided under Section A, Rule 221 of the Rules of Court,
E1
if
the circu#stances so %arrant. !he %arrantless arrest feared b" petitioners is, thus, not based on the
declaration of a Hstate of rebellion.H5
E3
In other %ords, a person #a" be sub(ected to a %arrantless
arrest for the cri#e of rebellion %hether or not the President has declared a state of rebellion, so
lon$ as the re?uisites for a valid %arrantless arrest are present.
It is not disputed that the President has full discretionar" po%er to call out the ar#ed forces and to
deter#ine the necessit" for the e'ercise of such po%er. 8hile the Court #a" e'a#ine %hether the
po%er %as e'ercised %ithin constitutional li#its or in a #anner constitutin$ $rave abuse of
discretion, none of the petitioners here have, b" %a" of proof, supported their assertion that the
President acted %ithout factual basis.
EA
!he ar$u#ent that the declaration of a state of rebellion a#ounts to a declaration of #artial la% and,
therefore, is a circu#vention of the report re?uire#ent, is a leap of lo$ic. !here is no indication that
#ilitar" tribunals have replaced civil courts in the 5theater of %ar5 or that #ilitar" authorities have
ta,en over the functions of civil $overn#ent. !here is no alle$ation of curtail#ent of civil or political
ri$hts. !here is no indication that the President has e'ercised (udicial and le$islative po%ers. In
short, there is no illustration that the President has atte#pted to e'ercise or has e'ercised #artial
la% po%ers.
Nor b" an" stretch of the i#a$ination can the declaration constitute an indirect e'ercise of
e#er$enc" po%ers, %hich e'ercise depends upon a $rant of Con$ress pursuant to Section .1 *.+,
Article =I of the Constitution6
Sec. .1. *2+ J.
*.+ In ti#es of %ar or other national e#er$enc", the Con$ress #a", b" la%, authori:e the
President, for a li#ited period and sub(ect to such restrictions as it #a" prescribe, to e'ercise
po%ers necessar" and proper to carr" out a declared national polic". @nless sooner
%ithdra%n b" resolution of the Con$ress, such po%ers shall cease upon the ne't
ad(ourn#ent thereof.
!he petitions do not cite a specific instance %here the President has atte#pted to or has e'ercised
po%ers be"ond her po%ers as Chief E'ecutive or as Co##ander&in&Chief. !he President, in
declarin$ a state of rebellion and in callin$ out the ar#ed forces, %as #erel" e'ercisin$ a %eddin$ of
her Chief E'ecutive and Co##ander&in&Chief po%ers. !hese are "ure7y e1e>u%*Ae po%ers, vested
on the President b" Sections 2 and 2<, Article =II, as opposed to the &e7eBa%e& 7eB*#7a%*Ae po%ers
conte#plated b" Section .1 *.+, Article =I.
-0EREFORE, the petitions are hereb" ,+SM+SSE,.
SO OR,ERE,.
&ar!io, &orona, and &ar!io#Morales, JJ., concur.
/avide, Jr., &.J., in the result.
Puno, J., in the result.
0itu", J., see separate opinion.
Pan"aniban, J., see separate opinion.
1uisumbin", J., (oins -. Pan$anibanHs pinion.
2nares#Santia"o, J., see separate opinion.
Sandoval#3utierre', J., please see dissentin$ opinion.
$ustria#Martine', J., concur in the result.
&alle4o, Sr., J., concurs in the separate opinion of -. Pan$aniban.
$'cuna, J., on official leave.
Se"ara%e O"*$*o$#
PANGAN+)AN, J.:
Petitioners challen$e the constitutionalit" of the 5state of rebellion5 declared b" the President throu$h
Procla#ation No. 3./ and 4eneral rder No. 3 in the %a,e of the so&called 5a,%ood Incident.5 !he
?uestioned issuances, ho%ever, %ere subse?uentl" lifted b" her on Au$ust 2, .001, %hen she
issued Procla#ation No. 31A. 9ence, as of toda", there is no #ore e'tant procla#ation or order that
can be declared valid or void.
)or this reason, I believe that the Petitions should be dis#issed on the "round of mootness.
!he (udicial po%er to declare a la% or an e'ecutive order unconstitutional, accordin$ to -ustice -ose
P. 7aurel, is 5li#ited to actual cases and controversies to be e'ercised after full opportunit" of
ar$u#ent b" the parties, and li#ited further to the constitutional ?uestion raised or the ver" lis
mota presented.5
2
)ollo%in$ this lon$&held principle, the Court has thus al%a"s been $uided b" these
fourfold re?uisites in decidin$ constitutional la% issues6 2+ there #ust be an actual case or
controvers" involvin$ a conflict of ri$hts susceptible of (udicial deter#ination; .+ the constitutional
?uestion #ust be raised b" a proper part"; 1+ the constitutional ?uestion #ust be raised at the
earliest opportunit"; and 3+ ad(udication of the constitutional ?uestion #ust be indispensable to the
resolution of the case.
.
@n?uestionabl", the first and the forth re?uire#ents are absent in the present case.
Absence of Case and Controvers"
!he first re?uire#ent, the e'istence of a live case or controvers", #eans that an e'istin$ liti$ation is
ripe for resolution and susceptible of (udicial deter#ination; as opposed to one that is con(ectural or
anticipator",
1
h"pothetical or fei$ned.
3
A (usticiable controvers" involves a definite and concrete
dispute touchin$ on the le$al relations of parties havin$ adverse le$al interests.
A
9ence, it ad#its of
specific relief throu$h a decree that is conclusive in character, in contrast to an opinion %hich onl"
advises %hat the la% %ould be upon a h"pothetical state of facts.
E
As a rule, courts have no authorit" to pass upon issues throu$h advisor" opinions or friendl" suits
bet%een parties %ithout real adverse interests.
/
Neither do courts sit to ad(udicate acade#ic
?uestions LL no #atter ho% intellectuall" challen$in$
<
LL because %ithout a (usticiable controvers",
an ad(udication %ould be of no practical use or value.
C
8hile the Petitions herein have previousl" e#bodied a live case or controvers", the" no% have been
rendered e'tinct b" the liftin$ of the ?uestioned issuances. !hus, nothin$ is $ained b" breathin$ life
into a dead issue.
Moreover, %ithout a (usticiable controvers", the Petitions
20
have beco#e pleas for declarator" relief,
over %hich the Supre#e Court has no ori"inal (urisdiction. Be it re#e#bered that the" %ere filed
directl" %ith this Court and thus invo,ed its ori$inal (urisdiction.
22
n the theor" that the 5state of rebellion5 issue is 5capable of repetition "et evadin$ revie%,5 I
respectfull" sub#it that the ?uestion #a" indeed still be resolved even after the liftin$ of the
Procla#ation and rder, "roA*&e& %<e "ar%y ra*#*$B *% *$ a "ro"er >a#e <a# bee$ a$&5or
>o$%*$ue %o be "reCu&*>e& or &a6aBe& a# a &*re>% re#u7% o; %<e*r *##ua$>e.
In the present case, petitioners have not sho%n that the" have been or continue to be directl" and
pecuniaril" pre(udiced or da#a$ed b" the Procla#ation and rder. Neither have the" sho%n that this
Court has ori$inal (urisdiction over petitions for declarator" relief. I %ould venture to sa" that,
perhaps, if this controvers" had e#anated fro# an a!!ealed (ud$#ent fro# a lo%er tribunal, then
this Court #a" still pass upon the issue on the theor" that it is 5capable of repetition "et evadin$
revie%,5 and the case %ould not be an ori"inal action for declarator" relief.
In short, the theor" of 5capable of repetition "et evadin$ revie%5 #a" be invo,ed onl" %hen this
Court has (urisdiction over the sub(ect #atter. It cannot be used in the present controvers" for
declarator" relief, over %hich the Court has no ori"inal (urisdiction.
5%e esolution of t%e &ase on Ot%er 3rounds
!he fourth re?uisite, %hich relates to the absolute necessit" of decidin$ the constitutional issue,
#eans that the Court has no other %a" of resolvin$ the case e'cept b" tac,lin$ an unavoidable
constitutional ?uestion. It is a %ell&settled doctrine that courts %ill not pass upon a constitutional
?uestion unless it is the lis mota of the case, or if the case can be disposed on so#e other $rounds.
2.
8ith due respect, I sub#it that the #ootness of the Petitions has s%ept aside the necessit" of rulin$
on the validit" of Procla#ation No. 3./ and 4eneral order No. 3. In the %a,e of its #ootness, the
constitutionalit" issue has ceased to be the lis mota of the case or to be an unavoidable ?uestion in
the resolution thereof. 9ence, the dis#issal of the Petitions for #ootness is (ustified.
21
-0EREFORE, I vote to DISMISS the Petitions. n the constitutionalit" of a 5state of rebellion,5 I
reserve #" (ud$#ent at the proper ti#e and in the proper case.
/NARES2SANT+AGO, J.:
!he funda#ental issue in the petitions is the le$alit" of Procla#ation No. 3./ issued b" the
President on -ul" ./, .001 declarin$ a 5state of rebellion5.
!he #a(orit" affir#ed the declaration is le$al because the President %as onl" e'ercisin$ a %eddin$
of the 5Chief E'ecutive5 and 5Co##ander&in&Chief5 po%ers. @.S. (urisprudence and co##entators
are cited discussin$ the a%eso#e po%ers e'ercised b" the @.S. President durin$ #o#ents of
crisis
2
and that these po%ers are also available to the Philippine President.
.
Althou$h the li#its
cannot be precisel" defined, the #a(orit" concluded that there are enou$h 5residual po%ers5 to serve
as the basis to support the Presidential declaration of a 5state of rebellion5.
1
!he #a(orit", ho%ever,
e#phasi:ed that the declaration cannot di#inish or violate constitutionall" protected ri$hts.
3
!he"
affir#ed the le$alit" of %arrantless arrests of persons %ho participated in the rebellion, if
circu#stances so %arrant
A
%ith this clarification6 5FiGn other %ords, a person #a" be sub(ected to a
%arrantless arrests for the cri#e of rebellion %hether or not the President has declared a state of
rebellion, so lon$ as the re?uisites for a valid %arrantless arrest are present.5
E
If the re?uisites for a %arrantless arrests #ust still be present for an arrest to be #ade, then the
declaration is a superfluit". I therefore shudder %hen a blan,et affir#ation is $iven to the President to
issue declarations of a 5state of rebellion5 %hich in fact #a" not be the truth or %hich #a" be in affect
even after the rebellion has ended.
Procla#ation No. 3./ %as issued at 2600 p.#. on -ul" ./, .001, at the hei$ht of the occupation of
the a,%ood Pre#ier Apart#ents in A"ala Center, Ma,ati Cit", b" 1.1 (unior officers and enlisted
#en *a,%ood Incident+,
/
%hich be$an in the earl" #ornin$ of -ul" ./, .001.
<
Shortl" after, the
President issued 4eneral rder No. 3, orderin$ the Ar#ed )orces of the Philippines and the
Philippine National Police to use reasonable force, and pa" due re$ard to constitutional ri$hts, in
puttin$ do%n the rebellion.
C
!he a,%ood incident ended peacefull" that sa#e evenin$ %hen the
#ilitant soldiers surrendered after ne$otiations.
)ro# -ul" ./ to Au$ust 2, .001, 5search and recover"5 operations %ere conducted. !hrou$hout the
a,%ood Incident, searches %ere conducted in the non&occupied areas,
20
and, %ith the recover" of
evidence, sta$in$ points for the a,%ood Incident %ere found in Cavite, Ma,ati and
Mandalu"on$.
22
After the soldiers left at around 22600 in the evenin$ of -ul" ./, a search %as
conducted around the a,%ood pre#ises.
2.
!hese searches e'panded in scope on the basis of
recovered evidence.
21
Ra#on Cardenas, Assistant E'ecutive Secretar" in the previous ad#inistration, %as arrested,
presented to the #edia in handcuffs and brou$ht for in?uest proceedin$s before the Depart#ent of
-ustice *5D-5+ in the #ornin$ of -ul" .<.
23
9e %as initiall" detained at the ffice of the Anti&
r$ani:ed Cri#e Division of the Cri#inal Investi$ation and Detection 4roup *5CID45+, and brou$ht
to the D- in the afternoon of -ul" .<.
2A
Cardenas %as later char$ed %ith the cri#e of rebellion,
2E
but
as of this %ritin$ has been allo%ed bail.
n -ul" 12, .001, 3 da"s after the #ilitant $roup had surrendered peacefull", an official
spo,esperson fro# the D- declared that the PresidentHs 5indefinite5 i#position of the 5state of
rebellion5 %ould #a,e 5%arrantless arrests5 a valid e'ercise of e'ecutive po%er.
!he Court can ta,e (udicial notice that the police authorities %ere releasin$ to #edia 5evidence
found5 purportin$ to lin, personalities in the political opposition, the #ost pro#inent of %ho# %as
Senator 4rin$o 9onasan. Even Senator 7oi E(ercito and Ma"or -= E(ercitoHs na#es %ere bein$
lin,ed to the atte#pted uprisin$.
n Au$ust 2, .001, the President issued Procla#ation No. 31A, declarin$ that the Ar#ed )orces of
the Philippines and the Philippine National Police had effectivel" suppressed and ?uelled the
rebellion, and, accordin$l", that the 5state of rebellion5 had ceased on that date.
!he #a(orit" discussed onl" the abstract nature of the po%ers e'ercised b" the Chief E'ecutive,
%ithout considerin$ if there %as sufficient factual basis for the PresidentHs declaration of a 5state of
rebellion5 and %hen it ended. In ta,in$ this position, the #a(orit" is returnin$, if not e'pandin$, the
doctrine enunciated in 4arcia&Padilla v. Enrile,
2/
%hich overturned the land#ar, doctrine in 7ansan$
v. 4arcia.
2<
In 7ansan$, the Supre#e Court upheld its authorit" to in?uire into the factual bases for
the suspension of the privile$e of the %rit of habeas corpus, and held that this in?uir" raises a
(udicial rather than a political ?uestion. In 4arcia&Padilla, on the other hand, the ponencia held that
7ansan$ %as no lon$er authoritative, and that the PresidentHs decision to suspend the privile$e is
final and conclusive upon the courts and all other persons.
!hese t%o cases %ere decided prior to the 2C</ Constitution, %hich re?uires this Court not onl" to
settle actualcontroversies involvin$ ri$hts %hich are le$all" de#andable and enforceable, but also to
deter#ine %hether or not there has been a $rave abuse of discretion a#ountin$ to lac, or e'cess of
(urisdiction on the part of an" branch or instru#entalit" of $overn#ent.
2C
!his provision in the 2C</
Constitution %as precisel" #eant to chec, abuses of e'ecutive po%er. Martial 7a% %as still fresh in
the #inds of the dele$ates in 2C</Ol a)!%i6.n7t
!he #a(orit" i$nored the fact that the 5state of rebellion5 declared b" the President %as in effect five
da"s after the peaceful surrender of the #ilitant $roup.
!he PresidentHs procla#ation cites Section 2<, Article =II of the Constitution as the basis for the
declaration of the 5state of rebellion.5.
Section 2< authori:es the President, as Co##ander&in&Chief, to call out the Ar#ed )orces, in order
to suppress one of three conditions6 *2+ la%less violence, *.+ rebellion or *1+ invasion.
.0
In the latter
t%o cases, i.e., rebellion or invasion, the President #a", %hen public safet" re?uires, also *2+
suspend the privile$e of the %rit of habeas corpus, or *.+ place the Philippines or an" part thereof
under #artial la%.
!he #a(orit" #ade it clear that e'ercise of the PresidentHs Co##ander&in&Chief po%ers does not
re?uire the declaration of a 5state of rebellion5 or a declaration of a 5state of la%less violence5 or a
5state of invasion5. 8hen an" of these conditions e'ist, the President #a" call out the ar#ed forces
to suppress the dan$er.
!hus, the declaration of a 5state of rebellion5 does not have an" le$al #eanin$ or conse?uence. !his
declaration does not $ive the President an" e'tra po%ers. It does not have an" $ood purpose.
If the declaration is used to (ustif" %arrantless arrests even after the rebellion has ended, as in the
case of Cardenas, such declaration or, at the least, the %arrantless arrests, #ust be struc, do%n.
Clearl" defined in Article 213 of the Revised Penal Code is the cri#e of rebellion or insurrection, to
%it6
AR!. 213. Rebellion or insurrection L 9o% co##itted. L !he cri#e of rebellion or insurrection is
co##itted b" risin$ publicl" and ta,in$ up ar#s a$ainst the 4overn#ent for the purpose of re#ovin$
fro# the alle$iance to said 4overn#ent or its la%s, the territor" of the Republic of the Philippines or
an" part thereof, of an" bod" of land, naval or other ar#ed forces, or deprivin$ the Chief E'ecutive
or the le$islature, %holl" or partiall", of an" of their po%ers or prero$atives.
n the other hand, a coup dH etat is defined as follo%s6
AR!. 213&A. Coup dH etat. L 9o% co##itted. L !he cri#e of coup dH etat is a s%ift attac,
acco#panied b" violence, inti#idation, threat, strate$" or stealth, directed a$ainst the dul"
constituted authorities of the Republic of the Philippines, or an" #ilitar" ca#p or installation,
co##unications net%or,s, public utilities or other facilities needed for the e'ercise and continued
possession of po%er, sin$l" or si#ultaneousl" carried out an"%here in the Philippines b" an" person
or persons, belon$in$ to the #ilitar" or police or holdin$ an" public office or e#plo"#ent, %ith or
%ithout civilian support or participation, for the purpose of sei:in$ or di#inishin$ state po%er.
@nder these provisions, the cri#e of rebellion or insurrection is co##itted onl" b" 5risin$ publicl" or
ta,in$ up ar#s a$ainst the 4overn#ent5. A coup dH etat, on the other hand, ta,es place onl" %hen
there is a 5s%ift attac, acco#panied b" violence.5 nce the act of 5risin$ publicl" and ta,in$ up ar#s
a$ainst the 4overn#ent5 ceases, the co##ission of the cri#e of rebellion ceases. Si#ilarl", %hen
the 5s%ift attac,5 ceases, the cri#e of coup dH etat is no lon$er bein$ co##itted.
Rebellion has been held to be a continuin$ cri#e,
.2
and the authorities #a" resort to %arrantless
arrests of persons suspected of rebellion, as provided under Section A, Rule 221 of the Rules of
Court.
..
9o%ever, this doctrine should be applied to its proper conte't L i.e., relatin$ to subversive
ar#ed or$ani:ations, such as the Ne% PeopleHs Ar#", the avo%ed purpose of %hich is the ar#ed
overthro% of the or$ani:ed and established $overn#ent. nl" in such instance should rebellion be
considered a continuin$ cri#e.
8hen the soldiers surrendered peacefull" in the evenin$ of -ul" ./, the rebellion or the coup dH etat
ended. !he President, ho%ever, did not lift the declaration of the 5state of rebellion5 until A da"s later,
on Au$ust 2, .001.
After the peaceful surrender, no person suspected of havin$ conspired %ith the soldiers or
participated in the a,%ood incident could be arrested %ithout a %arrant of arrest. Section A, Rule
221 of the Revised Rules of Court, %hich $overns arrest %ithout %arrant, provides as follo%s6
SEC. A. Arrest %ithout %arrant; %hen la%ful. L A peace officer or a private person #a", %ithout a
%arrant, arrest a person6
*a+ 8hen, in his presence, the person to be arrested has co##itted, is actuall" co##ittin$,
or is atte#ptin$ to co##it an offense;
*b+ 8hen an offense has (ust been co##itted and he has probable cause to believe based
on personal ,no%led$e of facts or circu#stances that the person to be arrested has
co##itted it; and
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
In cases fallin$ under para$raphs *a+ and *b+ above, the person arrested %ithout a %arrant shall be
forth%ith delivered to the nearest police station or (ail and shall be proceeded a$ainst in accordance
%ith section / of Rule 22..
Rule 221, Section A, pars. *a+ and *b+ of the Rules of Court are e'ceptions to the due process clause
in the Constitution. Section A, par. *a+ relates to a situation %here a cri#e is co##itted or atte#pted
in the presence of the arrestin$ officer.
Section A, par. *b+, on the other hand, presents the re?uire#ent of 5personal ,no%led$e5, on the part
of the arrestin$ officer, of facts indicatin$ that an offense had 5(ust been co##itted5, and that the
person to be arrested had co##itted that offense.
After the peaceful surrender of the soldiers on -ul" ./, .001, there %as no cri#e that %as bein$
5atte#pted5, 5bein$ co##itted5, or 5had (ust been co##itted.5 !here should, therefore, be no
occasion to effect a valid %arrantless arrest in connection %ith the a,%ood Incident.
!he purpose of the declaration and its duration as far as the overea$er authorities %ere concerned
%as onl" to $ive le$al cover to effect %arrantless arrests even if the 5state of rebellion5 or the
instances stated in Rule 221, Section A of the Rules are absent or no lon$er e'ist.
ur histor" had sho%n the dan$ers %hen too #uch po%er is concentrated in the hands of one
person. @nless specificall" defined, it is ris," to concede and ac,no%led$e the 5residual po%ers5 to
(ustif" the validit" of the presidential issuances. !his can serve as a blan, chec, for other issuances
and open the door to abuses. !he #a(orit" cite the e'ercise of stron$ e'ecutive po%ers b" @.S.
President Andre% -ac,son. 8as it not President -ac,son %ho is said to have c"nicall" defied the
@.S. Supre#e CourtHs rulin$ *under Chief -ustice Marshall+ a$ainst the forcible re#oval of the
A#erican Indians fro# the tribal lands b" sa"in$6 5!he Chief -ustice has issued his Decision, no% let
hi# tr" to enforce itM5 thers ?uote Madison as havin$ $one further %ith6 58ith %hat ar#" %ill the
Chief -ustice enforce his DecisionM5
89ERE)RE, I vote for Procla#ation No. 3./ and 4eneral rder No. 3, issued on -ul" ./, .001 b"
Respondent President 4loria Macapa$al&Arro"o, to be declared N@77 and =ID for havin$ been
issued %ith $rave abuse of discretion a#ountin$ to lac, of (urisdiction. All other orders issued and
action ta,en based on those issuances, especiall" after the a,%ood incident ended in the evenin$
of -ul" ./, .001, e.$., %arrantless arrests, should also be declared null and void.
,*##e$%*$B O"*$*o$
SAN,O(A2GUT+ERRED, J.:
5Courts %ill decide a ?uestion other%ise #oot and acade#ic if it is Hcapable of repetition, "et evadin$
revie%.H5
2
n this pre#ise, I stood apart fro# #" collea$ues in dis#issin$ the petition in 7acson vs.
Pere:.
.
!heir reason %as that President 4loria Macapa$al&Arro"oHs liftin$ of the declaration of a
5state of rebellion5 rendered #oot and acade#ic the issue of its constitutionalit". 7oo,in$ in
retrospect, #" fear then %as the repetition of the act sou$ht to be declared unconstitutional.
No #ore than three *1+ "ears have passed, and here %e are a$ain haunted b" the sa#e issue.
I
A brief restate#ent of the facts is i#perative.
In the %ee hours of -ul" ./, .001, three hundred t%ent"&three *1.1+ (unior officers and enlisted #en
of the Ar#ed )orces of the Philippines *A)P+ too, over the a,%ood Pre#ier Apart#ents, A"ala
Center, Ma,ati Cit". Introducin$ the#selves as the 5Ma$dalo 4roup,5 the" clai#ed that the" %ent to
a,%ood to air their $rievances about $raft and corruption in the #ilitar", the sale of ar#s and
a##unitions to the 5ene#ies5 of the state, the bo#bin$s in Davao Cit" alle$edl" ordered b" 4en.
=ictor Corpus, then Chief of the Intelli$ence Service of the Ar#ed )orces of the Philippines *ISA)P+,
the increased #ilitar" assistance fro# the @nited States, and 5#icro#ana$e#ent5 in the A)P b"
4en. An$elo Re"es, then Secretar" of the Depart#ent of National Defense.
1
!he #ilitar" #en
de#anded the resi$nation of the President, the Secretar" of National Defense and the Chief of the
Philippine National Police.
At about C600 A.M. of the sa#e da", President Arro"o $ave the Ma$dalo 4roup until A600 P.M. to $ive
up their positions peacefull" and return to the barrac,s. At around 2600 P.M., she issued
Procla#ation No. 3./ and 4eneral rder No. 3 declarin$ the e'istence of a 5state of rebellion5 and
callin$ out the A)P to suppress the rebellion.
Shortl" before the A600 P.M. deadline, President Arro"o announced an e'tension until /600 P.M.
Durin$ the t%o&hour reprieve, ne$otiations bet%een the Ma$dalo 4roup and various personalities
too, place. !he rebels a$reed to return to the barrac,s. !he" left the a,%ood pre#ises at 22600
P.M.
n -ul" .<, .001, A$ents of the National Bureau of Investi$ation *NBI+ searched the house o%ned
b" Ra#on Cardenas at .2// Paraiso St., Das#ariIas =illa$e, Ma,ati Cit". After the raid and the
recover" of evidence clai#ed to lin, hi# to rebellion, Cardenas, acco#panied b" Att". Rene
Sa$uisa$, %ent to the CID4 in Ca#p Cra#e. n the sa#e da", Cardenas %as brou$ht to the
Depart#ent of -ustice for in?uest proceedin$. 9e %as later char$ed %ith the cri#e of rebellion.
!he Mandalu"on$ Cit" Police li,e%ise searched the to%nhouses belon$in$ to 7aarni Enri?ue:,
alle$edl" used as sta$in$ areas b" the Ma$dalo 4roup.
n Au$ust 2, .001, President Arro"o lifted her declaration of a state of rebellion throu$h
Procla#ation No. 31A.
Mean%hile, on Au$ust 3, .001, Secretar" -ose 7ina, -r. of the Depart#ent of the Interior and 7ocal
4overn#ent, for%arded to the D- the affidavit&co#plaint for coup dHetat of PC Chief
Superintendent Eduardo Matillano a$ainst Senator 4re$orio 9onasan, Ernesto Macahi"a, 4eor$e
Duldulao and several 5-ohn and -ane Does5 nu#berin$ about 2,000.
n Au$ust <, .001, PNP Chief Inspector -esus )ernande: of the Eastern Police District referred to
the D- an investi$ation report reco##endin$ that Enri?ue: and a certain Ro#" Escalona be
prosecuted for rebellion and insurrection.
II
I re$ret that I cannot $ive #" assent to the ponencia of Mr. -ustice Dante . !in$a even as I ad#ire
it for its lucidit" and historical accurac". !he passa$e of ti#e has not chan$ed #" pinion in 7acson
vs. Pere: L that President Arro"oHs declaration of a 5state of rebellion5 is unconstitutional.
I cannot subscribe to the #a(orit"Hs vie% that the declaration of a 5state of rebellion5 is (ustified under
Article =II of the 2C</ Constitution $rantin$ her 5E'ecutive5 and 5Co##ander&in&Chief5 po%ers.
III
Consistent %ith #" previous stand, it is #" vie% that no%here in the Constitution can be found a
provision %hich $rants to the President the authorit" to declare a 5state of rebellion,5 or e'ercise
po%ers, %hich #a" be le$all" allo%ed onl" under a state of #artial la%. President Arro"o, in
declarin$ a 5state of rebellion,5 deviated fro# the follo%in$ provisions of the Constitution6
5Sec. 2<. !he President shall be the Co##ander&in&Chief of all ar#ed forces of the Philippines and
%henever if beco#es necessar", he #a" call out such ar#ed forces to prevent or suppress la%less
violence, invasion or rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, %hen the public safet" re?uires it, he
#a", for a period not e'ceedin$ si't" da"s, suspend the privile$e of the %rit of habeas corpus or
place the Philippines or an" part thereof under #artial la%. 8ithin fort"&ei$ht hours fro# the
procla#ation of #artial la% or the suspension of the privile$e of the %rit of habeas corpus, the
President shall sub#it a report in person or in %ritin$ to the Con$ress. !he Con$ress, votin$ (ointl",
b" a vote of at least a #a(orit" of all its Me#bers in re$ular or special session, #a" revo,e such
procla#ation or suspension, %hich revocation shall not be set aside b" the President. @pon the
initiative of the President, the Con$ress #a", in the sa#e #anner, e'tend such procla#ation or
suspension for a period to be deter#ined b" the Con$ress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist
and public safet" re?uires it.
!he Con$ress, if not in session, shall %ithin t%ent"&four hours follo%in$ such procla#ation or
suspension, convene in accordance %ith its rules %ithout need of a call.l a)!%il .net
!he Supre#e Court #a" revie%, in an appropriate proceedin$ filed b" an" citi:en, the sufficienc" of
the factual bases of the procla#ation of #artial la% or the suspension of the privile$e of the %rit or
the e'tension thereof, and #ust pro#ul$ate its decision thereon %ithin thirt" da"s fro# its filin$.
A state of #artial la% does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor supplant the
functionin$ of the civil courts or le$islative asse#blies, nor authori:e the confer#ent of (urisdiction on
#ilitar" courts and a$encies over civilians %here civil courts are able to function, nor auto#aticall"
suspend the privile$e of the %rit.
!he suspension of the privile$e of the %rit shall appl" onl" to persons (udiciall" char$ed for rebellion
or offenses inherent in or directl" connected %ith invasion.
Durin$ the suspension of the privile$e of the %rit, an" person thus arrested or detained shall be
(udiciall" char$ed %ithin three da"s, other%ise he shall be released.5
3
!he po%ers of the President %hen she assu#ed the e'istence of rebellion are laid do%n b" the
Constitution. She #a" *2+ call the ar#ed forces to prevent or suppress la%less violence, invasion or
rebellion; *.+ suspend the privile$e of the %rit of habeas corpus; or *1+ place the Philippines or an"
part thereof under #artial la%. No%, %h" did President Arro"o declare a 5state of rebellion5 %hen she
has no such po%er under the ConstitutionM
If President Arro"oHs onl" purpose %as #erel" to e'ercise her 5callin$ out po%er,5 then she could
have si#pl" ordered the A)P to prevent or suppress %hat she perceived as an invasion or rebellion.
Such course raises no constitutional ob(ection, it bein$ provided for b" the above&?uoted provisions.
9o%ever, adoptin$ an unorthodo' #easure unbounded and not canali:ed b" the lan$ua$e of the
Constitution is dan$erous. It leaves the people at her #erc" and that of the #ilitar", i$norant of their
ri$hts under the circu#stances and %ar" of their settled e'pectations. ne $ood illustration is
precisel" in the case of invasion or rebellion. @nder such situation, the President has the po%er to
suspend the privile$e of the %rit of habeas corpus or to declare #artial la%. Such po%er is not a
plenar" one, as sho%n b" the nu#erous li#itations i#posed thereon b" the Constitution, so#e of
%hich are6 *2+ the public safet" re?uires it; *.+ it does not e'ceed si't" *E0+ da"s; *1+ %ithin fort"&ei$ht
*3<+ hours, she shall sub#it a report, in %ritin$ or in person, to Con$ress; *3+ !he Con$ress, b" a
vote of at least a #a(orit" of all its #e#bers, #a" revo,e such procla#ation or suspension. All these
li#itations for# part of the citi:ensH settled e'pectations. If the President e'ceeds the set li#itations,
the citi:ens ,no% that the" #a" resort to this Court throu$h appropriate proceedin$ to ?uestion the
sufficienc" of the factual bases of the procla#ation of #artial la% or the suspension of the privile$e
of the %rit. In turn, this Court shall pro#ul$ate its Decision %ithin thirt" da"s fro# the filin$ of the
proper pleadin$. All the fore$oin$ $uarantees and li#itations are absent in the declaration of a 5state
of rebellion.5 It is not sub(ect to clear le$al restraints. 9o% then can the citi:ens deter#ine the
propriet" of the PresidentHs acts co##itted pursuant to such declarationM 9o% can e'cess of po%er
be curtailed at its inceptionM
Indeed, I see no reason for the President to deviate fro# the concise and plain provisions of the
Constitution. In a societ" %hich adheres to the rule of la%, resort to e'tra&constitutional #easures is
unnecessar" %here the la% has provided ever"thin$ for an" e#er$enc" or contin$enc". )or even if it
#a" be proven beneficial for a ti#e, the precedent it sets is pernicious as the la% #a", in a little
%hile, be disre$arded a$ain on the sa#e prete't but for ?uestionable purposes. Even in ti#e of
e#er$enc", $overn#ent action #a" var" in breath and intensit" fro# #ore nor#al ti#es, "et it need
not be less constitutional.
A
E'traordinar" conditions #a" call for e'traordinar" re#edies. But it cannot
(ustif" action %hich lies outside the sphere of constitutional authorit". E'traordinar" conditions do not
create or enlar$e constitutional po%er.
E
I cannot si#pl" close #" e"es to the dan$ers that lur, behind the see#in$l" har#less declaration of
a 5state of rebellion.5 Still fresh fro# #" #e#or" is the Ma" 2, .002 civil unrest. n such date,
President Arro"o placed Metro Manila under a 5state of rebellion5 because of the violent street
clashes involvin$ the lo"alists of for#er President -oseph Estrada and the police authorities.
Presidential Spo,esperson Ri$oberto !i$lao told reporters, 58e are in a state of rebellion. !his is not
an ordinar" de#onstration.5
/
I##ediatel" thereafter, there %ere threats of arrests a$ainst those
suspected of insti$atin$ the #arch to MalacaIan$. At about 1610 in the afternoon, Senator -uan
Ponce Enrile %as arrested in his house in Das#ariIas =illa$e, Ma,ati Cit" b" a $roup led b" 4en.
Re"naldo Berro"a, Chief of the Philippine National Police Intelli$ence 4roup.
<
!hereafter, he and his
#en proceeded to hunt re&electionist Senator 4re$orio 9onasan, for#er PNP Chief, no% Senator
Panfilo 7acson, for#er A#bassador Ernesto Maceda, Bri$. 4en. -a,e Mala(a,an, Senior
Superintendents Michael Ra" A?uino and Cesar Mancao II, Ronald 7u#bao and Cesar !ane$a of
the PeopleHs Move#ent A$ainst Povert" *PMAP+.
C
)or#er -ustice Secretar" 9ernando Pere: said
that he %as 5stud"in$5 the possibilit" of placin$ Senator Miria# Defensor&Santia$o 5under the
8itness Protection Pro$ra#.5 Director =ictor Batac, for#er Chief of the PNP Directorate for Police
Co##unit" Relations, and Senior Superintendent Diosdado =aleroso, of the Philippine Center for
!ransnational Cri#e, surrendered to 4en. Berro"a. Both denied havin$ plotted the sie$e. n Ma" .,
.002, for#er A#bassador Ernesto Maceda %as arrested.
n President Arro"oHs #ere declaration of a 5state of rebellion,5 police authorities arrested %ithout
%arrants the above&#entioned personalities. In effect, she placed the Philippines under #artial la%
%ithout a declaration to that effect and %ithout observin$ the proper procedure. !his is a ver"
dan$erous precedent. !he Constitution provides that 5the ri$ht of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers and effects a$ainst unreasonable searches and sei:ure of %hatever nature
and for an" purpose shall be inviolable, and no search %arrant or %arrant of arrest shall issue e'cept
upon probable cause to be deter#ined personall" b" the (ud$e after e'a#ination under oath or
affir#ation of the co#plainant and the %itnesses he #a" produce, and particularl" describin$ the
place to be searched and the persons or thin$s to be sei:ed.5
20
bviousl", violation of this
constitutional provision cannot be (ustified b" reason of the declaration of a 5state of rebellion5 for
such declaration, as earlier #entioned, is unconstitutional.
Even under Section A, Rule 221 of the Revised Rules on Cri#inal Procedure
22
the %arrantless
arrests effected b" President Arro"oHs #en are not (ustified. !he above&#entioned personalities
cannot be considered 5to have co##itted, are actuall" co##ittin$, or are atte#ptin$ to co##it an
offense5 at the ti#e the" %ere arrested %ithout %arrants. None of the# participated in the riot %hich
too, place in the vicinit" of the MalacaIan$ Palace. So#e of the# %ere in their respective houses
perfor#in$ innocent acts. !he sure fact is LL the" %ere not in the presence of 4en. Berro"a. Clearl",
he did not see %hether the" had co##itted, %ere co##ittin$ or %ere atte#ptin$ to co##it the cri#e
of rebellion.
2.
It bears #entionin$ that at the ti#e so#e of the suspected insti$ators %ere arrested, a
lon$ interval of ti#e alread" passed and hence, it cannot be le$all" said that the" had (ust co##itted
an offense. Neither can it be said that 4en. Berro"a or an" of his #en had 5personal ,no%led$e of
facts or circu#stances that the persons to be arrested have co##itted a cri#e.5 !hat %ould be far
fro# realit".6a)!%il .net
!he circu#stances that arose fro# President Arro"oHs resort to the declaration of a 5state of
rebellion5 to suppress %hat she perceived as the Ma" 2, .002 rebellion are the ver" evils that %e
should prevent fro# happenin$ a$ain. !his can onl" be done if %e stri,e such unusual #easure as
unconstitutional.
Si$nificantl", %hile the a,%ood event ended peacefull" on the ni$ht of -ul" ./, .001, President
Arro"oHs declaration of a 5state of rebellion5 continued until the liftin$ thereof on Au$ust 2, .001. !his
#eans that althou$h the alle$ed rebellion had ceased, the PresidentHs declaration continued to be in
effect. As it turned out, several searches and sei:ures too, place durin$ the e'tended period.
4enerall", the po%er of the President in ti#es of %ar, invasion or rebellion and durin$ other
e#er$enc" situations should be e'ercised (ointl" %ith Con$ress. !his is to insure the correctness
and propriet" of authori:in$ our ar#ed forces to ?uell such hostilities. Such collective (ud$#ent is to
be effected b" 5hei$htened consultation5 bet%een the President and Con$ress. !hus, as can be
$leaned fro# the provisions of the Constitution, %hen the President proclai#s #artial la% or
suspends the privile$e of the %rit, he shall 5sub#it a report in person or in %ritin$ to the Con$ress.
!he Con$ress, votin$ (ointl", b" a vote of at least a #a(orit" of all its Me#bers in re$ular or special
session, #a" revo,e such procla#ation or suspension, %hich revocation shall not be set aside b"
the President.5 Not onl" that, Section .1, Article =I of the Constitution provides that6 5!he Con$ress,
b" a vote of t%o&thirds of both 9ouses in (oint session asse#bled, votin$ separatel", shall have the
sole po%er to declare the e'istence of a state of %ar. In ti#es of %ar or other national e#er$enc",
the Con$ress #a", b" la%, authori:e the President, for a li#ited period and sub(ect to such
restrictions as it #a" prescribe, to e'ercise po%ers necessar" and proper to carr" out a declared
national polic".5 Clearl", the Constitution has not e'tended e'cessive authorit" in #ilitar", defense
and e#er$enc" #atters to the President. !hou$h the President is desi$nated as the Co##ander&in&
Chief of all ar#ed forces of the Philippines, the te'tual reed does not suffice to support li#itless
authorit". Born b" the nationHs past e'periences, the concurrence of the Con$ress is re?uired as a
#easure to %ard&off totalitarian rule. B" declarin$ a 5state of rebellion,5 President Arro"o effectivel"
disre$arded such concurrent po%er of Con$ress. At this point, let it be stressed that the
accu#ulation of both the e'ecutive and le$islative po%ers in the sa#e hands constitutes the ver"
definition of t"rann".
B" sustainin$ the unusual course ta,en b" President Arro"o, %e are traversin$ a ver" dan$erous
path. 8e are openin$ the %a" to those %ho, in the end, %ould turn our de#ocrac" into a totalitarian
rule. 8hile it #a" not plun$e us strai$ht%a" into dictatorship, ho%ever, it is a step to%ards a %ron$
direction. 9istor" #ust not be allo%ed to repeat itself. An" act %hich $ears to%ards possible
dictatorship #ust be severed at its inception. As I have stated in #" previous dissent, our nation had
seen the rise of a dictator into po%er. As a #atter of fact, the chan$es #ade b" the 2C<E
Constitutional Co##ission in the #artial la% te't of the Constitution %ere to a lar$e e'tent a reaction
a$ainst the direction %hich this Court too, durin$ the re$i#e of President Marcos.
21
In rulin$ that the
declaration of a 5state of rebellion5 is a prero$ative of the President, then, I sa", our countr" is tracin$
the sa#e dan$erous road of the past.
I=
!he #a(orit" cited @.S. cases in support of their stand that the PresidentHs procla#ation of 5state of
rebellion5 is in accordance %ith the Constitutional provisions $rantin$ her 5po%ers as chief
e'ecutive.5 I find that In re Debs
23
and Pri:e Cases
2A
illustrate an e'ecutive po%er #uch lar$er than is
indicated b" the rudi#entar" constitutional provisions. Clearl", these cases cannot support the
#a(orit"Hs conclusion that6 5!he lesson to be learned fro# the @.S. constitutional histor" is that the
Co##ander&in&Chief po%ers are broad enou$h as it is and beco#e #ore so %hen ta,en to$ether
%ith the provision on e'ecutive po%er and the presidential oath of office. !hus, the plenitude of the
po%ers of the presidenc" e?uips the occupant %ith the #eans to address e'i$encies or threats
%hich under#ine the ver" e'istence of $overn#ent or the inte$rit" of the State.5
!here are reasons %h" I find the above conclusion of the #a(orit" naccurate. )ro# a surve" of @.S.
(urisprudence, the outstandin$ fact re#ains that ever" specific proposal to confer uncontrollable
po%er upon the President is re(ected.
2E
In re Debs,
2/
the @.S. Supre#e Court Decision upheld the
po%er of President 4rover Cleveland to prevent the stri,e of rail%a" %or,ers on the $round that it
threatened interference %ith interstate co##erce and %ith the free flo% of #ail. !he basic theor"
underl"in$ this case L that the President has inherent po%er to act for the nation in cases of #a(or
public need L %as eroded b" the >oun$sto%n Sheet P !ube Co. vs. Sa%"er, also ,no%n as the Steel
Sei:ure Case.
2<
!his case aroused $reat public interest, lar$el" because of its i#portant i#plications
concernin$ the boundaries of presidential po%ers. !he seven separate opinions consist of 2.<
pa$es in the Reports and contain a $reat deal of i#portant date on the po%ers of the Chief
E'ecutive. !he sa#e case de#onstrates %ell that e'ecutive po%ers, even durin$ an alle$ed
e#er$enc", #a" still be sub(ect to (udicial control. !he decision constitutes a 5dra#atic vindication5
of the A#erican constitutional $overn#ent.
2C
Mr. -ustice Andre% -ac,son, concurrin$ in the (ud$#ent
and opinion of the Court, elo?uentl" e'pounded on the 5e'ecutive5 and 5co##ander&in&chief5
po%ers, thus6
5!he Solicitor $eneral see,s the po%er of sei:ure in three clauses of the E'ecutive Article, the first
readin$, H!he e'ecutive Po%er shall be vested in a President of the @nited States of A#erica.H 7est I
be thou$ht to e'a$$erate, I ?uote the interpretation %hich his brief puts upon it6 HIn our vie%, this
clause constitutes a $rant of all the e'ecutive po%ers of %hich the 4overn#ent is capable.H If that be
true, it is difficult to see %h" the forefathers bothered to add several specific ite#s, includin$ so#e
triflin$ ones.
!he e'a#ple of such unli#ited e'ecutive po%er that #ust have #ost i#pressed the forefathers %as
the prero$ative e'ercised b" 4eor$e III, and the description of its evils in the Declaration of
Independence leads #e to doubt that the" %ere creatin$ their ne% E'ecutive in his i#a$e.
Continental European e'a#ples %ere no #ore appealin$. And if %e see, instruction fro# our o%n
ti#es, %e can #atch it onl" fro# the e'ecutive po%ers in those $overn#ents %ere disparin$l"
describe as totalitarian. I cannot accept the vie% that this clause is a $rant in bul, of all conceivable
e'ecutive po%ers but re$ard it as an allocation to the presidential office of the $eneric po%ers
thereafter stated.
!he clause on %hich the 4overn#ent ne't relies is that H!he President shall be Co##ander in Chief
of the Ar#" and Nav" of the @nited StatesJH !hese cr"ptic %ords have $iven rise to so#e of the
#ost persistent controversies in our constitutional histor". f course, the" i#pl" so#ethin$ #ore
than an e#pt" title. But (ust %hat authorit" $oes %ith the na#e has pla$ued presidential advisers
%ho %ould not %aive or narro% it b" non&assertion "et cannot sa" %here it be$ins or ends.
' ' ' ' ' '
!he third clause in %hich the Solicitor 4eneral finds sei:ure po%ers is that Hhe shall ta,e care that
the la%s be faithfull" e'ecutedJH !hat authorit" #ust be #atched a$ainst %ords of the )ifth
A#end#ent that HNo person shall beJdeprived of life, libert" or propert", %ithout due process of
la%JH ne $ives a $overn#ental authorit" that reaches so far as there is la%, the other $ives a
private ri$ht that authorit" shall $o no farther. !hese si$nif" about all there is of the principle that ours
is a $overn#ental of la%s, not of #en, and that %e sub#it ourselves to rulers onl" if under rules.5
)urther, Mr. -ustice -ac,son referred to the discussion of inherent e'ecutive po%ers as 5loose and
irresponsible use of ad(ectives.5 9is %rath could be seen as reserved for those %ho use the %ord
5inherent5 to #ean 5unli#ited.5
.0
!hus6
5!he Solicitor 4eneral lastl" $rounds support of the sei:ure upon nebulous, inherent po%ers never
e'pressl" $ranted but said to have accrued to the office fro# the custo#s and clai#s of precedin$
ad#inistrations. !he plea is for a resultin$ po%er to deal %ith a crisis or an e#er$enc" accordin$ to
the necessities of the case, the unarticulated assu#ption bein$ that necessit" ,no%s no la%.
7oose and irresponsible use of ad(ectives colors all non&le$al and #uch le$al discussion of
presidential po%ers. HInherentH po%ers, Hi#pliedH po%ers, HincidentalH po%ers, Hplenar"H po%ers, H%arH
po%ers and He#er$enc"H po%ers are used, often interchan$eabl" and %ithout fi'ed or ascertainable
#eanin$s.
!he va$ueness and $eneralit" of the clauses that set forth presidential po%ers afford a plausible
basis for pressures %ithin and %ithout an ad#inistration for presidential action be"ond that
supported b" those %hose responsibilit" it is to defend his actions in court. !he clai# of inherent and
unrestricted presidential po%ers has lon$ been a persuasive dialectical %eapon in political
controvers". 8hile it is not surprisin$ that counsel should $rasp support fro# such unad(udicated
clai#s of po%er, a (ud$e cannot accept self&servin$ press state#ents of the attorne" for one of the
interested parties as authorit" in ans%erin$ a constitutional ?uestion, even if the advocate %as
hi#self. But prudence has counseled that actual reliance on such nebulous clai#s stop short of
provo,in$ a (udicial testJ5
In re Debs also received a serious blo% in @nited States vs. @nited States District Court.
.2
!he
Supre#e Court -ustices unani#ousl" re(ected the inherent e'ecutive authorit" to en$a$e in
%arrantless electronic surveillance in do#estic securit" cases. !hus, %here a substantial personal
interest in life, libert" or propert" is threatened b" presidential action, In re Debs is re$arded #ore as
an anachronis# than authorit".
In Pri:es Cases, b" a vote of A to 3, the @.S. Supre#e Court upheld President Abraha# 7incolnHs
authorit" to i#pose a bloc,ade. @nder the @.S. Constitution, onl" Con$ress, e#po%ered to declare a
%ar, could i#pose a bloc,ade. It #ust be e#phasi:ed, ho%ever, that there is a distinction bet%een
the role of the @.S. President in do#estic affairs and in forei$n affairs. !he patterns in the forei$n
and do#estic real#s are ?uite different. !he federal re$ulation of do#estic affairs has its
constitutional ori$ins in the people and the states, and its initiation is allocated pri#aril" to Con$ress
*not the E'ecutive+. !he constitutional role for the e'ecutive in do#estic #atters is thus lar$el"
ancillar" to that of Con$ress.
..
!hus, %hile it is reco$ni:ed that e'ecutive po%er is predo#inant in
forei$n affairs, it is not so in the do#estic sphere. !his distinction should be considered in invo,in$
@.S. (urisprudence.
Clearl", the trail of @.S. (urisprudence does not support the vie% that the 5E'ecutive and
Co##ander&in&Chief clauses5 of the Constitution $rant the President such broad po%er as to $ive
her the option of disre$ardin$ the other restrictive provisions of the Constitution. !he purpose of the
Constitution is not onl" to $rant po%er, but to ,eep it fro# $ettin$ out of hand. !he polic" should be
LL %here the Constitution has laid do%n specific procedures on ho% the President should deal %ith
a crisis, it is i#perative that he #ust follo% those procedures in #eetin$ the crisis. !hese procedures
serve as li#itations to %hat %ould other%ise be an unbounded e'ercise of po%er.
=
In fine, #a" I state that ever" presidential clai# to a po%er #ust be scrutini:ed %ith caution, for %hat
is at sta,e is the e?uilibriu# established b" our constitutional s"ste#. !he po%ers of the President
are not as particulari:ed as are those of Con$ress. Enu#erated po%ers do not include undefined
po%ers, as %hat the #a(orit" %ould %ant to point out. I state once #ore that there is no provision in
our Constitution authori:in$ the President to declare 5a state of rebellion.5 Not even the constitutional
po%ers vested upon her include such po%er.
89ERE)RE, I vote to 4RAN! the petitions. Procla#ation No. 3./ and 4eneral rder No. 3 are
declared @NCNS!I!@!INA7.
Foo%$o%e#
2
ollo, 4.R. No. 2AC0<A, p. /; ollo, 4.R. No. 2AC201, pp. 3&A; ollo, 4.R. No. 2AC2<A, pp.
3&A; ollo, 4.R. No. 2AC2<E, p. C.
.
!he Court in a Resolution dated Au$ust A, .001 *ollo, 4.R. No. 2AC0<E, p. 2<+ previousl"
dis#issed the Sanla,as petition for failure to attach certified true copies of Procla#ation No.
3./ and 4eneral rder No. 3, and for failure to e'plain %h" service of the petition on
respondents %as not #ade personall". Petitioners subse?uentl" filed a #otion for leave to
ad#it the petition %ith co#pliance for reconsideration, attachin$ there%ith a certified cop" of
the i#pu$ned Procla#ation and 4eneral rder. !he Court, in a Resolution dated Au$ust 2.,
.001 *Id., at /1+ $ranted petitionersH #otion for leave and reinstated the petition.
1
+d., at 20&2..
3
+d., at 21&23.
A
ollo, 4.R. No. 2AC201, p. 3.
E
+d., at E.
/
+d., at <.
<
+d., at /.
C
+bid.
20
ollo, 4.R. No. 2AC2<A, p. A.
22
+d., at 20.
2.
+bid.
21
+bid.
23
ollo, 4.R. No. 2AC2CE, p. /.
2A
+d., at 2/.
2E
ollo, 4.R. No. 2AC0<A, p. 3A; ollo, 4.R. No. 2AC201, p. .1; ollo, 4.R. No. 2AC2<A, p.
..; ollo, 4.R. No. 2AC2<E, p. 32.
2/
ollo, 4.R. No. 2AC0<A, pp. 33&3A; ollo, 4.R. No. 2AC201, pp. ..&.1; ollo, 4.R. No.
2AC2<A, pp. .2&..; ollo, 4.R. No. 2AC2<E, pp. 30&32.
2<
Const., art. =III, sec. 2; /umlao v. &OME(E&, 4.R. No. 7&A..3A, -anuar" .., 2C<0, CA
SCRA 1C..
2C
$lunan +++ v. Mirasol, 4.R. No. 20<1CC, -ul" 12, 2CC/, ./E SCRA A02.
.0
(acson v. Pere', 4.R. No. 23//<0, Ma" 20, .002, 1A/ SCRA /A/, /E..
.2
Su!ra.
..
4.R. No. 22120A, Au$ust 2C, 2CC3, .1A SCRA A0E.
.1
+nte"rated ,ar of t%e P%ili!!ines v. -amora, 4.R. No. 232.<3, Au$ust 2A, .000, 11< SCRA
<2.
.3
ollo, 4.R. No. 2AC0<A, p. E.
.A
(acson v. Pere', su!ra, at /EE.
.E
4.R. No. 22<C20, Nove#ber 2C, 2CCA, .A0 SCRA 210.
./
+d., at 21C.
.<
,ayan 8,a"on" $lyansan" Makabayan9 v. -amora, 4.R No. 21<A/0, ctober 20, .000,
13. SCRA 33C.
.C
4.R. No. 21.C.., April .2, 2CC<, !eleco##unications and Broadcast Attorne"s of the
Philippines, Inc. v. Co##ission on Elections, .<C SCRA 11/.
10
II Record of the Constitutional Co##ission 30C.
12
+nte"rated ,ar of t%e P%ili!!ines v. -amora, su!ra at 220.
1.
+bid.
11
In the Philippines, the President is called the Chief E'ecutive.
13
Milton, !he @se of Presidential Po%er, 2/<C&2C31, pp. /1, <E&C0.
1A
+d., at C2.
1E
+d., at C..
1/
+bid.
1<
Milton, at C2&C..
1C
+d., at 20C.
30
+bid.
32
+bid.
3.
. Blac, E1A, 2/ 7. 3AC *2<E1+.
31
Milton, at 220.
33
A para$raph of section A of the act of the @.S. Con$ress of -ul" 2, 2C0., other%ise ,no%n
as the Philippine Bill of 2C0., provides6 5!hat the privile$e of the %rit of %abeas cor!us shall
not be suspended, unless %hen in cases of rebellion, insurrection, or invasion the public
safet" #a" re?uire it, in either of %hich events the sa#e #a" be suspended b" the
President, or b" the 4overnor&4eneral %ith the approval of the Philippine Co##ission,
%henever durin$ such period the necessit" for such suspension shall e'ist.5
3A
,arcelon v. ,aker, A Phil. </, 201 *2C0A+.
3E
Sec. 20, Art. =II, 2C1A Const.
3/
Milton, 2E<&2/0; Peter Irons, A PeopleHs 9istor" of the Supre#e Court, Published b" the
Pen$uin 4roup6 Ne% >or,, N.>., 2CCC, pp. .3A&.3/.
3<
2A< @.S. 20C. *2<C3+.
3C
+d., at 2201.
A0
Milton, at 220. In An Autobio$raph", Roosevelt %rote6
!he #ost i#portant factor in $ettin$ the ri$ht spirit in #" Ad#inistration, ne't to the
insistence upon coura$e, honest", and a $enuine de#ocrac" of desire to serve the
plain people, %as #" insistence upon the theor" that the e'ecutive po%er %as li#ited
onl" b" specific restrictions and prohibitions appearin$ in the Constitution or i#posed
b" the Con$ress under its Constitutional po%ers. M" vie% %as that ever" e'ecutive
officer, and above all, e'ecutive officer in hi$h position %as a ste%ard of the people,
and not to content hi#self %ith the ne$ative #erit of ,eepin$ his talents unda#a$ed
in a nap,in. I declined to adopt the vie% that %hat %as i#perativel" necessar" for the
Nation could not be done b" the President unless he could find so#e specific
authori:ation to do it. M" belief %as that it %as not onl" his ri$ht but his dut" to do
an"thin$ that the needs of the Nation de#anded unless such action %as forbidden b"
the Constitution or b" the la%s. @nder this interpretation of the e'ecutive po%er, I did
and caused to be done #an" thin$s not previousl" done b" the President and the
heads of the Depart#ents. I did not usurp po%er, but I did $reatl" broaden the use of
e'ecutive po%er. In other %ords, I acted for the public %elfare, I acted for the
co##on %ell&bein$ of all our people, %henever and in %hatever #anner %as
necessar", unless prevented b" direct constitutional or le$islative prohibition. I did not
care a rap for the #ere for# and sho% of po%er; I cared i##ensel" for the use that
could be #ade of the substance. FAn Autobio$raph", 1<C *2C21+ Ne% >or,.G
8illia# 9o%ard !aft too, the opposite vie%. 9e opined that 5the President can
e'ercise no po%er %hich cannot be fairl" and reasonabl" traced to so#e specific
$rant of po%er or (ustl" i#plied and included %ithin such e'press $rant as proper and
necessar" to its e'ercise. Such specific $rant #ust be either in the Constitution or in
an act of Con$ress passed in pursuance thereof. !here is no undefined residuu# of
po%er %hich he can e'ercise because it see#s to be in the public interest.5
A0
*ur
Chief Ma$istrate and 9is Po%ers, 21C&23. *2C2E+ Ne% >or,.+ 7ater, ho%ever, !aft, as
Chief -ustice, %ould chan$e his vie%. See M"ers v. @nited States, ./. @S A., /2 7
Ed 2E0, 3/ SC .2 *2C.E+, holdin$ that 5!he %ords of K ., follo%in$ the $eneral $rant
of e'ecutive po%er under K 2 %ere either an enu#eration of specific functions of the
E'ecutive, not all inclusive, or %ere li#itations upon the $eneral $rant of the
e'ecutive po%er, and as such, bein$ li#itations, should not be enlar$ed be"ond the
%ords used.5
A2
Milton, at 2/C.
A.
!he State #a", in the interest of national %elfare and defense, establish and operate
industries and #eans of transportation and co##unication, and upon pa"#ent of (ust
co#pensation, transfer to public o%nership utilities and other private enterprises to be
operated b" the 4overn#ent.
A1
In ti#es of national e#er$enc" %hen the public interest so re?uires, the State #a"
te#poraril" ta,e over and direct the operation of an" privatel" o%ned public utilit" or
business affected %ith public interest.
A3
In ti#es of national e#er$enc" %hen the public interest so re?uires, the State #a", durin$
the e#er$enc" and under reasonable ter#s prescribed b" it, te#poraril" ta,e over or direct
the operation of an" privatel" o%ned public utilit" or business affected %ith public interest.
AA
Cortes, !he Philippine Presidenc", A Stud" of E'ecutive Po%er, pp. E<&EC.
AE
I Aru$eo, !he )ra#in$ of the Constitutional Convention 1C/ *2C3C+ Manila.
A/
Marcos v. Man"la!us, 4.R. No. <<.22, ctober ./, 2C<C, 2/< SCRA /E0, /E1&/E3.
A<
See (acson v. Pere', su!ra, Qapunan, -., dissentin$, at //1, //E.
AC
+bid.
E0
+bid.
E2
Const., art. =II, sec. 2<.
E.
(acson v. Pere', su!ra, Sandoval&4utierre: dissentin$, at /C.&/C1.
E1
SEC. A. $rrests )it%out )arrant: )%en la)ful. L A police officer or a private person #a",
%ithout a %arrant, arrest a person6
*a+ 8hen, in his presence, the person to be arrested has co##itted, or is actuall"
co##ittin$, or is atte#ptin$ to co##it an offense;
*b+ 8hen an offense has (ust been co##itted and he has probable cause to believe
based on personal ,no%led$e of facts or circu#stances that the person to be
arrested has co##itted it;
J.
E3
(acson v. Pere', su!ra, at /E1.
EA
+,P v. -amora, su!ra.
PANGAN+)AN J.:
2
An$ara v. Electoral Co##ission, E1 Phil. 21C, 2A<, -ul" 2A,2C1E.
.
Mirasol v. Court of Appeals, 1A2 SCRA 33, A1&A3, )ebruar" 2, .002; Board of pto#etr" v.
Colet, .E0 SCRA <<, 201, -ul" 10, 2CCE; 7alican v. 9on. =er$ara, 13. Phil. 3<A, 3C<, -ul"
12, 2CC/; Philippine Constitution Association v. Enri?ue:, .1A SCRA A0E, A2<&A2C, Au$ust
2C, 2CC3.
1
!an v. People, 1A. Phil. /.3, /1A, Ma" 2C, 2CC<; Board of pto#etr" v. Colet; id., p. 203.
3
4uin$ona -r. v. Court of Appeals, 1A3 Phil. 32A, 3.E, -ul" 20, 2CC<; Meralco 8or,ers @nion
v. >atco, 2.A Phil. AC0, AC3, -anuar" 10, 2CE/.
A
4uin$ona -r. v. Court of Appeals, supra.
E
Ibid.
/
Ibid.
<
Philippine Association of Colle$es and @niversities v. Secretar" of Education, C/ Phil. <0E,
<22, ctober 12, 2CAA.
C
-aafar v. CME7EC, 1E3 Phil. 1.., 1.<, March 2A, 2CCC; Philippine National Ban, v. Court
of Appeals, 1A1 Phil. 3/1, 3/C, -une .E, 2CC<; 4ancho&on v. Secretar" of 7abor and
E#plo"#ent, 11/ Phil. EA3, EA<, April 23, 2CC/.
20
!he Petitions %ere ori$inall" filed before the Supre#e Court.
22
!he ori$inal (urisdiction of the Supre#e Court under Section A *2+ of Article =III of the
Constitution is li#ited to 5petitions for certiorari, prohibition, #anda#us, ?uo %arranto, and
habeas corpus.5 Declarator" relief is not included.
2.
Mirasol v. Court of Appeals, supra; Intia -r. v. CA, 1EE Phil. ./1, .C., April 10, 2CCC,
citin$ Sotto v. Co##ission on Elections, /E Phil. A2E, A.., April 2E, 2C3E; 7alican v. 9on.
=er$ara, supra; !" v. !ra#pe, 1.2 Phil. <2, 201, Dece#ber 2, 2CCA; Macasiano v. National
9ousin$ Authorit", ..3 SCRA .1E, .3., -ul" 2, 2CC1.
21
Republic v. 9on. -ud$e =illara#a -r., 133 Phil. .<<, 102, Septe#ber A, 2CC/; 7achica v.
9on. >ap, 213 Phil. 2E3, 2E<, Septe#ber .A, 2CE<; Meralco 8or,ers @nion v. >atco, supra.
/NARES2SANT+AGO J.:
2
Ma(orit" pinion, at pp. 23 et se?.
.
Id., at pp. .0 to .2.
1
Id., at p. ...
3
Id., at p. .1.
A
Id., at pp. .1 to .3.
E
Id., at p. .3.
/
Report of the )act )indin$ Co##ission created b" Ad#. rd. No. /< dated 10 -ul" .001
*hereafter, )eliciano Report+, at p. 2.
<
)eliciano Report, at p. 2.
C
Id., at pp. 2<&2C.
20
Id., at p. .<.
22
Id.
2.
Id., at pp. .< to 10.
21
Id.
23
Id., at p. 12.
2A
Id.
2E
Id.
2/
.0E Phil. 1C. *2C<1+.
2<
23C Phil. A3/ *2C/2+.
2C
Const., art. =III, sec. 2.
.0
Inte$rated Bar of the Philippines v. Ra#ora, 4.R. No. 232.<3, 2A Au$ust .000, 11< SCRA
<2.
.2
See, e.$., 7ansan$ v. 4arcia, supra; @#il v. Ra#os, 4.R. No. <2AE/, 1 ctober 2CC2, .0.
SCRA .A2.
..
7acson v. Pere:, 4.R. No. 23//<0, 20 Ma" .002, 1A/ SCRA /A/.
SAN,O(A2GUT+ERRED, dissentin$
2
Salva vs. Ma,alintal, 4.R. No. 21.E01, Septe#ber 2<, .000.
.
4.R. No. 23//<0, Ma" 20, .002, 1A/ SCRA /A/.
1
!he Report of the )act&)indin$ Co##ission at 2.
3
Section 2<, Article =II of the 2C</ Constitution.
A
S#ithDCotter, Po%ers of the President Durin$ Crises, 2C/. at 21.
E
)reund, Sutherland, 9o%e, Bro%n, Constitutional 7a%, 3th Ed. 2C// at EAE.
/
in?/.net, Ma" ., .002 at 2.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation