Sanlakas vs.

Executive Secretary Reyes

[GR 159085, 3 February 2004]; also Social Justice Society (SJS) Officers/Member [GR 159103], Suplico, et al., vs. Macapagal-Arroyo, et al. [GR 159185]; Pimentel et al. vs. Romulo et al. [GR 159196] En Banc, Tinga (J): 3 concur, 3 concur in result, 1 concurs in separate opinion to which 2 join, 2 file own separate opinions, 1 dissents in separate opinion, 1 on leave
Facts: They came in the middle of the night. Armed

with high-powered ammunitions and explosives, some three hundred junior officers and enlisted men of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) stormed into the Oakwood Premiere apartments in Makati City in the wee hours of 27 July 2003. Bewailing the corruption in the AFP, the soldiers demanded, among other things, the resignation of the President, the Secretary of Defense and the Chief of the Philippine National Police (PNP). In the wake of the Oakwood occupation, the President issued later in the day Proclamation 427 and General Order 4, both declaring “a state of rebellion” and calling out the Armed Forces to suppress the rebellion. By the evening of 27 July 2003, the Oakwood occupation had ended. After hours-long

The President. did not immediately lift the declaration of a state of rebellion and did so only on 1 August 2003.” Nevertheless. however. firearms. On that occasion.negotiations. courts will decide a question. if it is “capable of repetition yet evading review. clubs. bladed weapons. judicial power being limited to the determination of “actual controversies. through Proclamation 435. stones and other deadly weapons’ . The Court agrees with the Solicitor General that the issuance of Proclamation 435. Held: NO. several petitions were filed before the Supreme Court challenging the validity of Proclamation 427 and General Order 4. declaring that the state of rebellion has ceased to exist. Issue: Whether the petitions have been rendered moot by the lifting of the declaration. As a rule. otherwise moot. In the interim. has rendered the case moot.” The present case is one such case. “‘an angry and violent mob armed with explosives. the soldiers agreed to return to barracks. Once before. the President on 1 May 2001 declared a state of rebellion and called upon the AFP and the PNP to suppress the rebellion through Proclamation 38 and General Order 1. courts do not adjudicate moot cases.

. the President lifted the same. The mootness of the petitions in Lacson v. Five days after such declaration. however.” Petitions were filed before the Supreme Court assailing the validity of the President’s declaration. Perez and accompanying cases precluded the Court from addressing the constitutionality of the declaration.assaulted and attempted to break into Malacañang. To prevent similar questions from reemerging. the Supreme Court seized the opportunity to finally lay to rest the validity of the declaration of a state of rebellion in the exercise of the President’s calling out power. the mootness of the petitions notwithstanding.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful