Lacson Vs. Perez357 SCRA 756 G.R. No.

147780
May 10, 2001
Facts:
President Macapagal-Arroyo declared a State of Rebellion (Proclamation
No. 38) onMay 1, 2001 as well as General Order No. 1 ordering the AFP
and the PNP to suppress therebellion in the NCR. Warrantless arrests of
several alleged leaders and promoters of the
rebellion wer
e thereafter effected. Petitioner filed for prohibition, injunction,
mandamus andhabeas corpus with an application for the issuance of
temporary restraining order and/or writ ofpreliminary injunction.
Petitioners assail the declaration of Proc. No. 38 and the
warrantlessarrests allegedly effected by virtue thereof. Petitioners
furthermore pray that the appropriatecourt, wherein the information
against them were filed, would desist arraignment and trial untilthis
instant petition is resolved. They also contend that they are allegedly
faced with impendingwarrantless arrests and unlawful restraint being
that hold departure orders were issued againstthem.
Issue:
Whether or Not Proclamation No. 38 is valid, along with the warrantless
arrests and holddeparture orders allegedly effected by the same.
Held:
President Macapagal-Arroyo ordered the lifting of Proc. No. 38 on
May 6, 2006,accordingly the instant petition has been rendered moot and
academic. Respondents havedeclared that the Justice Department and the
police authorities intend to obtain regular warrantsof arrests from the
courts for all acts committed prior to and until May 1, 2001. Under
Section 5,Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, authorities may only resort to
warrantless arrests of persons suspected of rebellion in suppressing the
rebellion if the circumstances so warrant, thus the
warrantless arrests are not based on Proc. No. 38. Petitioners prayer
for mandamus and
prohibition is improper at this time because an individual warrantlessly
arrested has adequateremedies in law: Rule 112 of the Rules of Court,
providing for preliminary investigation, Article125 of the Revised Penal
Code, providing for the period in which a warrantlessly arrestedperson
must be delivered to the proper judicial authorities, otherwise the
officer responsible forsuch may be penalized for the delay of the same.
If the detention should have no legal ground,the arresting officer can
be charged with arbitrary detention, not prejudicial to claim of
damagesunder Article 32 of the Civil Code. Petitioners were neither
assailing the validity of the subjecthold departure orders, nor were
they expressing any intention to leave the country in the nearfuture. To

declare the hold departure orders null and void ab initio must be made
in the proper
proceedings initiated for that purpose. Petitioners prayer for relief
regarding their alleged
impending warrantless arrests is premature being that no complaints have
been filed againstthem for any crime, furthermore, the writ of habeas
corpus is uncalled for since its purpose is torelieve unlawful restraint
which Petitioners are not subjected to.Petition is dismissed.
Respondents, consistent and congruent with their undertaking
earlieradverted to, together with their agents, representatives, and all
persons acting in their behalf,are hereby enjoined from arresting
Petitioners without the required judicial warrants for all actscommitted
in relation to or in connection with the May 1, 2001 siege of
Malacaang.