Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 9

CASE: Lacson v. Perez (2001), G.R. No. 147780 Ponente: Justice Melo [concurring: C.J.

Davide; Bellosillo, Puno, Mendoza, Panganiban, GonzagaReyes] 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.) FACTS: After the arrest of former President Estrada, crowds gathered at the EDSA Shrine to show their support for Estrada, including prominent figures like Senators Enrile, Santiago, Honasan and Lacson. 1 May 2001 The pro-Estrada crowd at EDSA decided to march to Malacanang Palace. The marchers were able to penetrate the barriers put up by the police and 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: 1. Enrile (later released on cash bond) 2. Maceda (temporarily released upon recognizance) Others were ordered arrested, but evaded apprehension: (Hmm Sinu-sino kaya?)

1. Lacson 2. Honasan 6 May 2001 President Macapagal-Arroyo ordered the lifting of the State of Rebellion in Metro Manila. ISSUES: Biggest issue: Can the Supreme Court look into the constitutionality of a Proclamation [issued by the President] that has already been lifted? Ruling: NO. Since Proclamation No. 38 has already been lifted, assessing its constitutionality/legality would only be an academic exercise. The declaration of the State of Rebellion had been lifted by 6 May 2001.

Biggest issue # 2 : Whether the arrests made were indeed warrantless arrests. Ruling: NO. The Secretary of Justice denies that is has issued an order to arrest specific persons in connection with the rebellion. The arrests made were circumstances of continuing crimes under Section 5 Rule 113 of the Rules of Court not based on the declaration of a state of rebellion.

DECISION The petition is dismissed and respondents are hereby enjoined from arresting the petitioners without the required judicial warrant for all acts in relation with the May 1 siege of Malacanang.. OTHER ISSUES: (1) Petitioners claim: Extraordinary remedies of Mandamus and Prohibition necessary because of imminent danger of being arrested without warrant. Justice Melo: Those subjected to warrantless arrests can avail of other remedies so the prayer for prohibition and mandamus is improper at the time. (Section 2 and 3 Rule 65 Rules of Court) 1. Preliminary investigation Rule 112 (Rules of Court); 2. Submit to inquest proceedings to determine whether or not he/she should remain in custody; 3. 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.

(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): The complaint is premature as 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 (ex abundante ad cautelam / as a precaution / with extreme caution).

Justice Melo: Not called for: purpose of writ is to relieve petitioners from unlawful restraint which remains a 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.

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 In the exercise of power to call, on-the-spot decisions may be necessary in emergency situations to avert great loss of human lives and mass destruction of property.

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.

(7) Does petitioner Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino have legal standing? Justice Melo: A party must show a personal interest in the outcome of the case or an injury to himself that needs to be redressed. o LDP is just a juridical person it cannot be subject to arrests, much less warrantless arrests. Nor can it be alleged that its members are being threatened by warrantless arrest.

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 seige of Malacanang.]

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.

Dissent: KAPUNAN (on Santiago, Lumbao, and LDP cases) Warrantless arrest is in violation of the Bill of Rights.

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. Limited to sixty days Submit a report to Congress within 48 hour Proclamation is subject to review by Congress Sufficiency of factual basis is subject to review by the SC

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. Some of the respondents were arrested days after delivering allegedly seditious speeches

DISSENTING Sandoval-Guitterez Disagree with the majority opinion that the instant petitions have been rendered moot and academic with the lifting of the declaration of state of rebellion. There are grave implications involving basic human rights and civil liberties Courts will decide on a moot and academic question if it is capable of repetiion, yet evading review. (Salva v Makalintal)

Declaration has no justification The President placed the Philippines under Martial Law without a declaration it as such and without observing the proper procedure Sets a bad precedent

Warrantless arrest premised on the declaration of a state of rebellion is unconstitutional and contrary to existing laws. A mere declaration of state of rebellion cannot suspend the operation of the Constitution or of the writ of habeas corpus. Sec. 5, Rule 113 (Rules of Court) is not applicable as at the time of their arrest, a long interval of time had already passed and hence it cannot be said that they had just committed a crime

Moreover, two elements of crime of rebellion are missing:

a. There was no taking of arms against the government; b. Purpose of Estrada loyalists were neither to (a) remove from the allegiance to the govt or its laws (1) the territory of the Philippines or any part thereof, or (2) any part of land, naval or other armed forces (b) or deprive President or Congress of their powers. Justice votes to give due course to the petitions and to enjoin the respondents from arresting the petitioners without corresponding warrants.

Warrantle

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.