Anda di halaman 1dari 2

SANLAKAS vs.

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
421 SCRA 656 | February 3, 2004

FACTS:
A group of more than three hundred armed soldiers took over the Oakwood
Premiere apartments in Makati City, in opposition to the alleged corrupt
government administration. The President responded by issuing Proclamation No.
427 and General Order No. 4, both of which declared a state of rebellion and
called out the Armed Forces to suppress the rebellion.
The President lifted the declaration of the state of rebellion through Proclamation
No. 435 a few days after the insurgent group was suppressed.
Petitioners challenged the validity of Proclamation No. 427 and General Order No.
4, mainly for fear that the declaration of a state of rebellion opened the door to
unconstitutional implementation of warrantless arrests for the crime of rebellion.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Proclamation No. 427 and General Order No. 4 are valid.
RULING:
The mere declaration of a state of rebellion cannot diminish or violate
constitutionally protected rights. At any rate, the presidential issuances themselves
call for the suppression of rebellion with due regard to constitutional rights.
For the same reasons, apprehensions that the military and police authorities may
resort to warrantless arrests are likewise unfounded. In quelling or suppressing the
rebellion, the authorities may only resort to warrantless arrests of persons
suspected of rebellion, as provided under Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court,
if the circumstances so warrant. The warrantless arrest feared by petitioners is,
thus, not based on the declaration of a state of rebellion. In other words, a person
may be subjected to warrantless arrest for the crime of rebellion whether or not

the President has declared a state of rebellion, so long as the requisites for a valid
warrantless arrest are present.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai