Lacson v. Perez, G.R. No.

147780, May 10, 2001

FACTS:

President Macapagal-Arroyo declared a State of Rebellion (Proclamation No. 38) on May 1, 2001 as well
as General Order No. 1 ordering the AFP and the PNP to suppress the rebellion in the NCR. Warrantless
arrests of several alleged leaders and promoters of the “rebellion” were thereafter effected. Petitioner
filed for prohibition, injunction, mandamus and habeas corpus with an application for the issuance of
temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction. Petitioners assail the declaration of
Proc. No. 38 and the warrantless arrests allegedly effected by virtue thereof. Petitioners furthermore
pray that the appropriate court, wherein the information against them were filed, would desist
arraignment and trial until this instant petition is resolved. They also contend that they are allegedly
faced with impending warrantless arrests and unlawful restraint being that hold departure orders were
issued against them.

ISSUES: Whether or not Proclamation No. 38 is valid, along with the warrantless arrests and hold
departure orders allegedly effected by the same.

RULING:

President Macapagal-Arroyo ordered the lifting of Proc. No. 38 on May 6, 2006, accordingly the instant
petition has been rendered moot and academic. Respondents have declared that the Justice
Department and the police authorities intend to obtain regular warrants of arrests from the courts for
all acts committed prior to and until May 1, 2001. Under Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court,
authorities may only resort to warrantless arrests of persons suspected of rebellion in suppressing the
rebellion if the circumstances so warrant, thus the warrantless arrests are not based on Proc. No. 38.
Petitioner’s prayer for mandamus and prohibition is improper at this time because an individual
warrantlessly arrested has adequate remedies in law: