CASE: Lacson v. Perez (2001), G.R. No.

147780
Ponente: Justice Melo [concurring: C.J. Davide; Bellosillo, Puno, Mendoza, Panganiban, Gonzaga-Reyes] Petitioners: Panfilo Lacson, Michael Ray B. Aquino and Cesar O. Mancao Respondents: Secretary Hernando Perez (DOJ), P/Director Leandro Mendoza, P/Sr. Supt. Reynaldo Berroya
NOTE: The Lacson v. Perez case was heard along with three other cases (Santiago v. Reyes, Lumbao v. Perez, and Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino v. DOJ). All four were filed in the aftermath of the so-called EDSA 3, when supporters of Joseph Estrada clashed with pro-government forces after the Ex-President was arrested along with his son, future Senator Jinggoy Estrada.)

Date: 10 May 2001 Facts:

25 April 2001 [ Honasan, Lacson] -

Ex-President Estrada arrested upon the warrant issued by the Sandiganbayan (criminal case: Plunder). Hundreds of policemen were deployed for arrest; Estrada supporters had gotten together outside the Estrada residence in Greenhills to try and prevent the arrest from happening. The government forces and the Estrada supporters clashed police ended up using batons and water hoses against the rock-throwing rallyists. Joseph Estrada and his son (and co-accused) Jinggoy Estrada were later brought to Camp Crame. In the days to come, crowds gathered at the EDSA Shrine to show their support for Estrada, including. Prominent figures, like Senators Enrile, Santiago, Honasan and some Senatoriables, including Lacson spoke before the crowd.

1 May 2001 [ GMA issues Proc. No. Enrile and Maceda]

The pro-Estrada crowd at EDSA decided to march to Malacanang Palace. The PNP was asked to guard the Palace, while the AFP was asked to reinforce the police. Barricades were set up and manned by police, but the rallyists were able to reach Gate 7 of Malacanang. The government forces dispersed the crowd using warning shots, tear gas and water canons; on the other hand, the rallyists took to hurling stones at the police. Scores of people were hurt on both sides. On the same day, after the crowd had been dispersed, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued Proclamation No. 38 which declared that (1) there was an on-going rebellion and thus (2) she had to declare [Manila] as being under a State of Rebellion. She also issued General Order No. 1 which called upon the AFP and the PNP to suppress and quell the rebellion. Pursuant to the proclamation, a number of people were arrested without warrants, including key leaders of the opposition: Enrile (later released on cash bond) Maceda (temporarily released upon recognizance) Others were ordered arrested, but evaded apprehension: (Hmm Sinu-sino kaya?) Lacson Honasan

6 May 2001 [GMA lifts State of Rebellion] President Macapagal-Arroyo ordered the lifting of the State of Rebellion in Metro Manila.

Pertinent laws/provisions/concepts:
MANDAMUS (Not definition, but clarification on the pre-requisite conditions for have the writ issued.) Legal right of the petitioner to the performance of a particular act which is sought to be compelled must be clear and complete; Mandamus will not be issued unless the right to relief is clear at the time of the award. HABEAS CORPUS Extraordinary writ whose purpose is to relieve [petitioners] from unlawful restraint Proclamation No. 38 / General Order No. 1
Presidential Proclamation No. 38 DECLARING STATE OF REBELLION IN THE NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION WHEREAS, the angry and violent mob, armed with explosives, firearms, bladed weapons, clubs, stones and other deadly weapons, in great part coming from the mass gathering at the EDSA Shrine, and other armed groups, having been agitated and incited and, acting upon the instigation and under the command and direction of known and unknown leaders, have and continue to assault and attempt to break into Malacaang with the avowed purpose of overthrowing the duly constituted Government and forcibly seize power, and have and continue to rise publicly, shown open hostility, and take up arms against the duly constituted Government for the purpose of removing from the allegiance to the Government certain bodies of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police, and to deprive the President of the Republic of the Philippines, wholly and partially, of her powers and prerogatives which constitute the continuing crime of rebellion punishable under Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code; WHEREAS, armed groups recruited by known and unknown leaders, conspirators, and plotters have continue (sic) to rise publicly by the use of arms to overthrow the duly constituted Government and seize political power;

WHEREAS, under Article VII, Section 18 of the Constitution, whenever necessary, the President as the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines, may call out such armed forces to suppress the rebellion; NOW, THEREFORE, I, GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, by virtue of the powers vested in me by law hereby recognize and confirm the existence of an actual and on-going rebellion compelling me to declare a state of rebellion; In view of the foregoing, I am issuing General Order NO. 1 in accordance with Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution calling upon the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National police to suppress and quell the rebellion. City of Manila, May 1, 2001. GENERAL ORDER NO. 1 DIRECTING THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPIENS AND THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE TO SUPPRESS THE REBELLION IN THE NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION WHEREAS, the angry and violent mob, armed with explosives, firearms, bladed weapons, clubs, stones and other deadly weapons, in great part coming from the mass gathering at the EDSA Shrine, and other armed groups, having been agitated and incited and, acting upon the instigation and under the command and direction of known and unknown leaders, have and continue to assault and attempt to break into Malacaang with the avowed purpose of overthrowing the duly constituted Government and forcibly seize political power, and have and continue to rise publicly, show open hostility, and take up arms against the duly constituted Government certain bodies of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police, and to deprive the President of the Republic of the Philippines, wholly and partially, of her powers and prerogatives which constitute the continuing crime of rebellion punishable under Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code; WHEREAS, armed groups recruited by known and unknown leaders, conspirators, and plotters have continue (sic) to rise publicly by the use of arms to overthrow the duly constituted Government and seize political power; WHEREAS, under Article VII, Section 18 of the Constitution, whenever necessary, the President as the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines, may call out such armed forces to suppress the rebellion; NOW, THEREFORE, I, GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, by virtue of the powers vested in me under the Constitution as President of the Republic of the Philippines and Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and pursuant to Proclamation No. 38, dated May 1, 2001, do hereby call upon the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine national police to suppress and quell the rebellion. I hereby direct the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Chief of the Philippine National Police and the officers and men of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police to immediately carry out the necessary and appropriate actions and measures to suppress and quell the rebellion with due regard to constitutional rights. City of Manila, May 1, 2001.

Sec. 18, Art. VII (1987 Constitution)

The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the President. Upon the initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the same manner, extend such proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it.

Sec. 5, Rule 113 (Rules of Court)

Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; (b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded against in accordance with section 7 of Rule 112.

Issues:
Biggest issue: Can the Supreme Court look into the constitutionality of a Proclamation [issued by the President] that has already been lifted? Petitioners claim: that Proclamation No. 38 has no basis in fact/law. (MOOT) The declaration of the State of Rebellion had been lifted by 6 May 2001.

Other issues: 1. Petitioners claim: Extraordinary remedies of Mandamus and Prohibition necessary because of imminent danger of being arrested without warrant. Justice Melo (not yet proper time for such remedies): There are certain situations where warrantless arrests can be carried out. Sec. 5, Rule 113 (Rules of Court) if circumstances so warrant. Warrantless arrests *feared by petitioners+ not based on the declaration of a State of Rebellion Those subjected to warrantless arrests can avail of some remedies. Preliminary investigation Rule 112 (Rules of Court); Submit to inquest proceedings to determine whether or not he/she should remain in custody; Person subjected to warrantless arrests must be delivered to proper judicial authorities within periods provided (Art. 125, Revised Penal Code) otherwise, arresting officer liable for the delay. If subsequently it is determined that the arrests were without legal ground Charge officer w/ arbitrary detention. File action for damages against arresting officer (Art. 32, Civil Code) Justice Melo concludes: Petitioners have a surfeit *excessive amount+ of other remedies which they can avail themselves of, thereby making the prayer for prohibition and mandamus improper at this time.

2. Petitioners prayer: Courts where information against petitioners have been filed be directed to desist from arraigning and proceeding with the trial of the case. (Till the resolution of the instant petition.)

Justice Melo (premature): No complaints/charges have been filed against any of the petitioners for any crime. Even if later filed, SC cannot enjoin criminal prosecution conducted in accordance with the Rules of Court by that time, any arrest would have been in pursuant of a duly issues warrant.

3. Petitioners prayer: That the hold departure orders against them be issued null and void. Justice Melo: Petitioners did not assail the validity of the hold departure orders. Nor have petitioners expressed any intention to leave the country soon. THUS, prayer must be made in proper proceedings initiated for that purpose.

4. Petitioners prayer: Issuance of writ of habeas corpus. Justice Melo: Not called for: purpose of writ is to relieve petitioners from unlawful restraint speculative matter at that point.

5. Petitioner Santiagos prayer: Issuance of Mandamus. Justice Melo: Mandamus will not be issued unless the right to relief is clear at the time of the award: Santiago has not shown that she is in imminent danger of being arrested w/o a warrant; authorities have even explicitly stated that Santiago will not be arrested w/o a warrant.

6. CONSTI. ISSUE: Petitioner Lumbao argues that the declaration of a state of rebellion violates the doctrine of separation of powers an encroachment on the domain of the judiciary which has the constitutional prerogative to determine or interpret what took place in 1 May 2001. *Dodots note: Im not entirely sure how the petitioner argues that this is a violation of the separation of powers doctrine. It looks more like an issue of whether the Presidential discretion was within the specified Constitutional limits.] Justice Melo: Sec. 18, Art. VII (1987 Consti.) The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion IBP v. Hon. Zamora (2000) The factual necessity of calling out the armed forces is not easily quantifiable since matters considered for satisfying the same is a combination of several factors which are not always accessible to the courts In many instances, the evidence upon which the President might decide that there is a need to call out the armed forces may be of a nature not constituting technical proof In the exercise of power to call. On-the-spot decisions may be imperatively necessary in emergency situations to avert great loss of human lives and mass destruction of property *Dodots note: This may be read as a confirmation that mobilizing the military/police

is to a large extent within the limits of Presidential discretion, especially in emergency situations.] The SC in a proper case may look into the sufficiency of the factual basis of the exercise of this power: no longer feasible since Proc. No. 38 has already been lifted. (MOOT-ang ina nga, ang kulet!)

7. Does petitioner Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino have legal standing? Justice Melo: A party must show a personal stake in the outcome of the case: every action must be brought in the name of the party whose legal right has been invaded/infringed, or is under imminent threat for such. LDP is just a juridical person it cannot be subject to arrests, much less warrantless arrests.

Ruling:
NO. Since Proclamation No. 38 has already been lifted, assessing its constitutionality/legality would only be an academic exercise.

Ratio Decidendi:
[Dodots note: the reason is similar to the mootness ruling of the SC in Planas v. Comelec an issue is only justiciable if it meets the four conditions (1) Case/Controversy, (2) Legal Standing of Petitioners, (3) RIPENESS (i.e. not premature, not moot), (4) Constitutionality is the center of argument. The issue raised no longer meets the third criteria since Proc. No. 38 had already been lifted. As an added note, one of the petitioners did not even meet the condition of having legal standing in the case: LDP. LDP is just a juridical person thus, it is not even subject to arrest, much less warrantless arrests.]

Courts Decision:
Petitions DISMISSED. *Also, respondents 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 Malacanang.a+

Separate Opinion/s:
Concur and dissent: VITUG (on Lacson and Santiago cases) Concurs with the decision vis--vis warrantless arrests. Dissents with the dismissal of the petitions for being said to be moot and academic. Said that important constitutional issues were raises and should be fully addressed. [But Justice did not expound on this fully. *FACESLAP!*] Dissent: KAPUNAN (on Santiago, Lumbao, and LDP cases) Among deprivation of rights, none is so effective in cowing a population... *as unreasonable searches and seizures.] Proc. No. 38 supposedly based on Sec. 18, Article VII Sec. 18 grants the President the power to call out the armed forces: Lawless violence

Rebellion (may suspend writ of habeas corpus, or place [part of or whole] Philippines under Martial Law) Invasion (may suspend writ of habeas corpus, or place [part of or whole] Philippines under Martial Law) The term state of rebellion has no legal significance. It is vague and amorphous and does not give the President more power than what the Constitution says. Cannot violate constitutionally protected rights: Due process Free speech Peaceful assembly [against] unreasonable searches and seizures There is nothing in Sec. 18 that authorizes unwarranted arrests. A declaration of a state of rebellion, at most, only gives notice to the nation that (1) it exists, and that (2) the armed forces may be called to prevent or suppress it. Such declaration does not justify any deviation from the Constitutional proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures. Sec. 5, Rule 113 (RoC) provides exceptions to the right of persons to only be arrested on the strength of a warrant of arrest issued by a judge: BUT, any exception must clearly fall within the situations. Warrantless arrests only justifiable if the arresting officer has facts and circumstances before him which would constitute adequate basis for a finding of probable cause of the commission of an offense. Respondents theory based on Umil v. Ramos, The crimes of rebellion constitute direct assault against the State and are in the nature of continuing crimes. Reliance is misplaced: those arrested had been members of CPP, NPA, etc., which were then outlawed groups under the Anti-Subversion Act. What is proof that the arrested persons were caught in the act of committing acts of rebellion? Ex. Enrile: arrested two days after delivering allegedly seditious speeches.

MOOT! Dapat hindi moot, kung hindi good luck sayo.