Sanlakas vs.

Executive Secretary Reyes

[GR 159085, 3 February 2004];

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 negotiations, the soldiers agreed to
return to barracks. The President, however, did not immediately lift the declaration of a state of
rebellion and did so only on 1 August 2003, through Proclamation 435. In the interim, several petitions
were filed before the Supreme Court challenging the validity of Proclamation 427 and General Order 4.

Issue:

Whether the petitions have been rendered moot by the lifting of the declaration.

Held:

NO. The Court agrees with the Solicitor General that the issuance of Proclamation 435, declaring that
the state of rebellion has ceased to exist, has rendered the case moot. As a rule, courts do not
adjudicate moot cases, judicial power being limited to the determination of “actual controversies.”
Nevertheless, courts will decide a question, otherwise moot, if it is “capable of repetition yet evading
review.” The present case is one such case. 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. On that occasion, “‘an angry and violent mob armed with explosives, firearms, bladed
weapons, clubs, stones and other deadly weapons’ assaulted and attempted to break into Malacañang.”
Petitions were filed before the Supreme Court assailing the validity of the President’s declaration. Five
days after such declaration, however, the President lifted the same. The mootness of the petitions in
Lacson v. Perez and accompanying cases precluded the Court from addressing the constitutionality of
the declaration. 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.