SANLAKAS, et. al, petitioners, Vs. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, et. al, respondents.

G.R. NO. 159085, FEB. 3, 2004

Facts: 
In the wee hours of 27 July 203 some 300 junior officers and enlisted men of AFP, heavily armed
stormed the Oakwood Premiere in Makati demanding for the resignation of the President, Secretary of
Defence and Chief of the PNP.  By virtue of Proclamation 427 dated 27 July 2003, state of rebellion was
declared and General Order No 4 of the same date, the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the
Philippine National Police were directed to suppress and quell the rebellion pursuant to Section 18 Article
VII of the Constitution. The soldiers returned to barracks on the same night and the declaration of state of
rebellion was lifted on 1 August 2003 by virtue of Proclamation No 435. In the interim, several petitions
were filed before the Court challenging the validity of Proclamation No. 427 and General Order No. 4.
Sanlakas contend that Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution does not require the declaration of a
state of rebellion to call out the armed forces. Because of the cessation of the Oakwood occupation, there
exists no sufficient factual basis for the proclamation by the President of a state of rebellion for an
indefinite period. Solicitor General argues that the petitions have been rendered moot by the lifting of the
declaration.

Issue: 
Whether or not declaring state of rebellion is needed to declare General Order No 4?

Ruling: 
Petitions dismissed. The state of rebellion has ceased to exist and has rendered the case moot.
Nevertheless, courts will decide a question, otherwise moot, if it is capable of repetition yet evading
review. The case at bar is one such case. The mere declaration of a state of rebellion cannot diminish or
violate constitutionally protected rights. Indeed, if a state of martial law does not suspend the operation of
the Constitution or automatically suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, then it is with more
reason that a simple declaration of a state of rebellion could not bring about these conditions. The
presidential issuances themselves call for the suppression of the rebellion with due regard to
constitutional rights.