CONSTI 1 DIGESTS | CANDELARIA | ABELLAR ARCILLA ATIENZA BANTA BAYANI BELLO BUGAY CUALOPING DE LUIS DE VESA GANDINGCO GOMEZ
GUIANG LIM MANGAYA MENDOZA
NIERRA ONG PENILLA RACELA REYES REYES TRIAS VALDEZ VILLAMOR WENCESLAO
ART VII SEC 18
52. SANLAKAS v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY (Mendoza)
GR NO: 159085| DATE: February 3, 2004 | PONENTE: Tinga, J.
Calling out Powers of the President; Magdalo; Oakwood Mutiny; Proclamation
427; General Order 4
PETITIONER: SANLAKAS, represented by REP. J.V. BAUTISTA, and
PARTIDO NG MANGGAGAWA, represented by REP. RENATO MAGTUBO
RESPONDENTS: EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, SECRETARY ANGELO REYES, GENERAL
NARCISO ABAYA, DIR. GEN. HERMOGENES EBDANE
DOCTRINE: THE PRESIDENT’S AUTHORITY TO DECLARE A STATE OF REBELLION
SPRINGS IN THE MAIN FROM HER POWERS AS CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND, AT THE SAME
TIME, DRAWS STRENGTH FROM HER COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF POWERS.
SUMMARY (RECIT READY):
300 junior officers and enlisted men of AFP (collectively called as Magdalo) stormed
the Oakwood Premiere apartments demanding President GMA, Secretary of Defense
and Chief of PNP to resign. In this regard, PGMA issued Proclamation No. 427 and
General Order No. 4 both declaring a “state of rebellion” and calling out the Armed
Forces to suppress the rebellion. Petitioners are contending that this is
unconstitutional as this is an unwarranted, illegal and abusive exercise of martial law
power that has no basis under the Constitution. The Court stated that in calling out
the armed forces, a declaration of a state of rebellion is an utter super-fluity. At
most , it only gives notice to the nation that such a state exists and that the armed
forces may be called to prevent or suppress it.. For all legal intents, the declaration is
deemed not written. The petition was DISMISSED The Court finds that such a
declaration is devoid of any legal significance.
FACTS:
 300 junior officers and enlisted men of the AFP stormed into the Oakwood
Premiere apartment in Makati City on July 27, 2003. Bewailing the corruption
in the AFP, the soldiers demanded the resignation of the President, the
Secretary of Defense and the Chief of PNP.
 President Arroyo issued Proclamation No. 427 and General Order No. 4 both
declaring "A State of Rebellion" and calling out the AFP to suppress the
rebellion.
 By the evening of July 27, 2003, the Oakwood occupation had ended. After
hours-long negotiations, the soldiers agreed to return to barracks. PGMA
however, DID NOT IMMEDIATELY LIFT THE DECLARATION OF A STATE OF
REBELLION and did so only on August 1, 2003 through Proclamation No. 435.
 In the interim, several petitions were filed before this Court challenging the
validity of Proclamation No. 427 and General Order No. 4
 Sanlakas and Partido ng Manggagawa (PM) argued: Sec. 18, Art. VII of the
Constitution does not require the declaration of a state of rebellion to call out
the armed forces. They further submit that, 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.
 Petitioners SJS Officers and Members contend: They contend that the
declaration is a "constitutional anomaly" that "confuses, confounds, and
misleads" because "overzealous public officers, acting pursuant to such
proclamation or general order are liable to violate the constitutional right of
private citizens". Petitioners also submit that the proclamation is a
circumvention of the report requirement under the same Section 18, Art. VII
commanding the President to submit a report to Congress within 48 hours
from the proclamation of martial law (O.A. naman ng SJS)
 Petitioner Pimentel assails the subject presidential issuances as "an
unwarranted, illegal and abusive exercise of martial law power that has no
basis under the Constitution."
 The OSG argues that the petitions have been rendered moot by the lifting of
the declaration. Further, SolGen questions the standing of the petitioners to
bring suit.
ISSUE:
 Not Important: Locus Standi issu: WON petitioners have legal standing to file
the cae. – Only Sen. Pimentel and Rep. Suplico et al. have legal standing to sue.
Sanlakas, PM and SJS have no legal standing.
 IMPORTANT: WON Proclamation No. 427 and General Order 4 are
constitutional - YES
HELD:
The petition is DISMISSED. Proclamation No. 427 and General Order 4 are
CONSTITUTIONAL.
RATIO:
 The Court agrees that the case is moot. Nevertheless, the Court decided to
review the case as it deemed that it is "capable of repetition yet evading
review”.
 On the issue of Locus Standi:
o Only petitioners Rep. Suplico et al. and Sen. Pimentel have standing
as they are members of Congress the powers of Congress are
allegedly being impaired.
o Petitioners Sanlakas and PM and SJS officers have no legal standing
as the Court deems that they have no substantial interest in the case
or that they will sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental
act being challenged.
 The Court held that for the purpose of exercising the calling out power, the
Constitution does not require the President to make a declaration of a state of
rebellion. Sec. 18, Art. VII provides: "...whenever it becomes necessary, he may
call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion
or rebellion."
CONSTI 1 DIGESTS | CANDELARIA | ABELLAR ARCILLA ATIENZA BANTA BAYANI BELLO BUGAY CUALOPING DE LUIS DE VESA GANDINGCO GOMEZ GUIANG LIM MANGAYA MENDOZA
NIERRA ONG PENILLA RACELA REYES REYES TRIAS VALDEZ VILLAMOR WENCESLAO
 In declaring martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus, the Constitution requires two conditions:
o 1.) An actual rebellion or invasion
o 2.) Public safety requires such power.
 The only criterion for the President to exercise the calling out power is
"whenever it becomes necessary" the President may call the armed
forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion.
 The Court cited cases in US history where the President exercised his power
to call the military. To summarize:
o The lesson to be learned from the US constitutional history is that
the Commander-in-Chief powers are broad enough as it is and
become more so when taken together with the provision on
executive power and the president oath of office. Thus, the plenitude
of the powers of the presidency equips the occupant with the means
to address exigencies or threats which undermine the very existence
of government or the integrity of the State.
 The Court again JJs. The Court cited the writing of the late Mme, Justice Irene
Cortes "In the Philippine Presidency A Study of Executive Power" wherein
Justice Cortes proposed that the Philippine President was vested with
residual power and that this is even greater than that of the U.S. President.
She attributed this distinction to the "unitary and highly centralized" nature
of the Philippine Government.
 The Court stated that in calling out the armed forces, a declaration of a state of
rebellion is an utter super-fluity. At most, it only gives notice to the nation
that such a state exists and that the armed forces may be called to prevent or
suppress it. The Court finds that such a declaration is devoid of any legal
significance. For all legal intents, the declaration is deemed not written.
 According to the Court, the petitioners failed to cite specific instance where
the President attempted to or has exercised her power as Chief executive or
as Commander-in-Chief.
 Justice Sandoval-Gutierrez, dissenting - "It is my view that nowhere in the
Constitution can be found a provision which grants to the President the
authority to declare a "state of rebellion" or exercise powers, which may be
legally allowed only under a state of martial law.
 WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED