Anda di halaman 1dari 4

Republic of the Philippines THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, SECRETARY HERNANDO PEREZ, THE

SUPREME COURT ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES, GENERAL DIOMEDIO VILLANUEVA,


Manila THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, and DIRECTOR GENERAL LEANDRO
MENDOZA, respondents.
EN BANC
RESOLUTION
G.R. No. 147780 May 10, 2001
MELO, J.:
PANFILO LACSON, MICHAEL RAY B. AQUINO and CESAR O. MANCAO,
petitioners, On May 1, 2001, President Macapagal-Arroyo, faced by an "angry and
vs. violent mob armed with explosives, firearms, bladed weapons, clubs,
SECRETARY HERNANDO PEREZ, P/DIRECTOR LEANDRO MENDOZA, and stones and other deadly weapons" assaulting and attempting to break into
P/SR. SUPT. REYNALDO BERROYA, respondents. Malacañang, issued Proclamation No. 38 declaring that there was a state
of rebellion in the National Capital Region. She likewise issued General
---------------------------------------- Order No. 1 directing the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the
Philippine National Police to suppress the rebellion in the National Capital
G.R. No. 147781 May 10, 2001 Region. Warrantless arrests of several alleged leaders and promoters of
the "rebellion" were thereafter effected.
MIRIAM DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO, petitioner,
vs. Aggrieved by the warrantless arrests, and the declaration of a "state of
ANGELO REYES, Secretary of National Defense, ET AL., respondents. rebellion," which allegedly gave a semblance of legality to the arrests, the
following four related petitions were filed before the Court –
----------------------------------------
(1) G. R. No. 147780 for prohibition, injunction, mandamus, and habeas
corpus (with an urgent application for the issuance of temporary
G.R. No. 147799 May 10, 2001
restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction) filed by Panfilio M.
Lacson, Michael Ray B. Aquino, and Cezar O. Mancao; (2) G. R. No. 147781
RONALDO A. LUMBAO, petitioner,
for mandamus and/or review of the factual basis for the suspension of the
vs.
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, with prayer for the suspension of
SECRETARY HERNANDO PEREZ, GENERAL DIOMEDIO VILLANUEVA,
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, with prayer for a temporary
P/DIRECTOR LEANDRO MENDOZA, and P/SR. SUPT. REYNALDO restraining order filed by Miriam Defensor-Santiago; (3) G. R. No. 147799
BERROYA, respondents.
for prohibition and injunction with prayer for a writ of preliminary
injunction and/or restraining order filed by Ronaldo A. Lumbao; and (4) G.
---------------------------------------- R. No. 147810 for certiorari and prohibition filed by the political
partyLaban ng Demokratikong Pilipino.
G.R. No. 147810 May 10, 2001
All the foregoing petitions assail the declaration of a state of rebellion by
THE LABAN NG DEMOKRATIKONG PILIPINO, petitioner, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and the warrantless arrests allegedly
vs. effected by virtue thereof, as having no basis both in fact and in law.

1
Significantly, on May 6, 2001, President Macapagal-Arroyo ordered the Further, a person subject of a warrantless arrest must be delivered to the
lifting of the declaration of a "state of rebellion" in Metro Manila. proper judicial authorities within the periods provided in Article 125 of the
Accordingly, the instant petitions have been rendered moot and academic. Revised Penal Code, otherwise the arresting officer could be held liable for
As to petitioners' claim that the proclamation of a "state of rebellion" is delay in the delivery of detained persons. Should the detention be without
being used by the authorities to justify warrantless arrests, the Secretary of legal ground, the person arrested can charge the arresting officer with
Justice denies that it has issued a particular order to arrest specific persons arbitrary detention. All this is without prejudice to his filing an action for
in connection with the "rebellion." He states that what is extant are damages against the arresting officer under Article 32 of the Civil Code.
general instructions to law enforcement officers and military agencies to Verily, petitioners have a surfeit of other remedies which they can avail
implement Proclamation No. 38. Indeed, as stated in respondents' Joint themselves of, thereby making the prayer for prohibition
Comments: and mandamus improper at this time (Section 2 and 3, Rule 65, Rules of
Court).1âwphi1.nêt
[I]t is already the declared intention of the Justice Department
and police authorities to obtain regular warrants of arrests from Aside from the foregoing reasons, several considerations likewise
the courts for all acts committed prior to and until May 1, 2001 inevitably call for the dismissal of the petitions at bar.
which means that preliminary investigations will henceforth be
conducted. G.R. No. 147780

(Comment, G.R. No. 147780, p. 28; G.R. No. 147781, p. In connection with their alleged impending warrantless arrest, petitioners
18; G.R. No. 147799, p. 16; G.R. No. 147810, p. 24) Lacson, Aquino, and mancao pray that the "appropriate court before
whom the informations against petitioners are filed be directed to desist
With this declaration, petitioners' apprehensions as to warrantless arrests from arraigning and proceeding with the trial of the case, until the instant
should be laid to rest. petition is finally resolved." This relief is clearly premature considering that
as of this date, no complaints or charges have been filed against any of the
In quelling or suppressing the rebellion, the authorities may only resort to petitioners for any crime. And in the event that the same are later filed,
warrantless arrests of persons suspected of rebellion, as provided under this Court cannot enjoin criminal prosecution conducted in accordance
Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, if the circumstances so warrant. with the Rules of Court, for by that time any arrest would have been in
The warrantless arrest feared by petitioners is, thus, not based on the pursuant of a duly issued warrant.
declaration of a "state of rebellion."
As regards petitioners' prayer that the hold departure orders issued
Moreover, petitioners' contention in G. R. No. 147780 (Lacson Petition), against them be declared null and void ab initio, it is to be noted that
147781 (Defensor-Santiago Petition), and 147799 (Lumbao Petition) that petitioners are not directly assailing the validity of the subject hold
they are under imminent danger of being arrested without warrant do not departure orders in their petition. They are not even expressing intention
justify their resort to the extraordinary remedies of mandamus and to leave the country in the near future. The prayer to set aside the same
prohibition, since an individual subjected to warrantless arrest is not must be made in proper proceedings initiated for that purpose.
without adequate remedies in the ordinary course of law. Such an
individual may ask for a preliminary investigation under Rule 112 of the Anent petitioners' allegations ex abundante ad cautelam in support of their
Rules of Court, where he may adduce evidence in his defense, or he may application for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, it is manifest that
submit himself to inquest proceedings to determine whether or not he the writ is not called for since its purpose is to relieve petitioners from
should remain under custody and correspondingly be charged in court.

2
unlawful restraint (Ngaya-an v. Balweg, 200 SCRA 149 [1991]), a matter judgment might also prove unmanageable for the courts. Certain
which remains speculative up to this very day. pertinent information might be difficult to verify, or wholly
unavailable to the courts. In many instances, the evidence upon
G.R. No. 147781 which the President might decide that there is a need to call out
the armed forces may be of a nature not constituting technical
The petition herein is denominated by petitioner Defensor-Santiago as one proof.
for mandamus. It is basic in matters relating to petitions
for mandamus that the legal right of the petitioner to the performance of a On the other hand, the President as Commander-in-Chief has a
particular act which is sought to be compelled must be clear and vast intelligence network to gather information, some of which
complete. Mandamus will not issue unless the right to relief is clear at the may be classified as highly confidential or affecting the security of
time of the award (Palileo v. Ruiz Castro, 85 Phil. 272). Up to the present the state. In the exercise of the power to call, on-the-spot
time, petitioner Defensor Santiago has not shown that she is in imminent decisions may be imperatively necessary in emergency situations
danger of being arrested without a warrant. In point of fact, the authorities to avert great loss of human lives and mass destruction of
have categorically stated that petitioner will not be arrested without a property. x x x
warrant.
(at pp.22-23)
G.R. No. 147799
The Court, in a proper case, may look into the sufficiency of the factual
Petitioner Lumbao, leader of the People's Movement against Poverty basis of the exercise of this power. However, this is no longer feasible at
(PMAP), for his part, argues that the declaration of a "state of rebellion" is this time, Proclamation No. 38 having been lifted.
violative of the doctrine of separation of powers, being an encroachment
on the domain of the judiciary which has the constitutional prerogative to G.R. No. 147810
"determine or interpret" what took place on May 1, 2001, and that the
declaration of a state of rebellion cannot be an exception to the general Petitioner Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino is not a real party-in-interest.
rule on the allocation of the governmental powers. The rule requires that a party must show a personal stake in the outcome
of the case or an injury to himself that can be redressed by a favorable
We disagree. To be sure, Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution decision so as to warrant an invocation of the court's jurisdiction and to
expressly provides that "[t]he President shall be the Commander-in-Chief justify the exercise of the court's remedial powers in his behalf (KMU Labor
of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, Center v. Garcia, Jr., 239 SCRA 386 [1994]). Here, petitioner has not
he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, demonstrated any injury to itself which would justify resort to the Court.
invasion or rebellion…" Thus, we held inIntegrated Bar of the Philippines v. Petitioner is a juridical person not subject to arrest. Thus, it cannot claim to
Hon. Zamora, (G.R. No. 141284, August 15, 2000): be threatened by a warrantless arrest. Nor is it alleged that its leaders,
members, and supporters are being threatened with warrantless arrest
x x x The factual necessity of calling out the armed forces is not and detention for the crime of rebellion. Every action must be brought in
easily quantifiable and cannot be objectively established since the name of the party whose legal right has been invaded or infringed, or
matters considered for satisfying the same is a combination of whose legal right is under imminent threat of invasion or infringement.
several factors which are not always accessible to the courts.
Besides the absence of textual standards that the court may use At best, the instant petition may be considered as an action for declaratory
to judge necessity, information necessary to arrive at such relief, petitioner claiming that its right to freedom of expression and

3
freedom of assembly is affected by the declaration of a "state of rebellion"
and that said proclamation is invalid for being contrary to the Constitution.

However, to consider the petition as one for declaratory relief affords little
comfort to petitioner, this Court not having jurisdiction in the first instance
over such a petition. Section 5[1], Article VIII of the Constitution limits the
original jurisdiction of the Court to cases affecting ambassadors, other
public ministers and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari,
prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petitions are hereby DISMISSED.


However, in G.R. No. 147780, 147781, and 147799, respondents,
consistent and congruent with their undertaking earlier adverted to,
together with their agents, representatives, and all persons acting for and
in their behalf, are hereby enjoined from arresting petitioners therein
without the required judicial warrant for all acts committed in relation to
or in connection with the may 1, 2001 siege of Malacañang.

SO ORDERED.