0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)
418 просмотров1 страница
1. President Arroyo issued a proclamation declaring a state of rebellion in response to the Oakwood Mutiny and directed the armed forces to suppress it. Several petitions challenged the proclamation.
2. The Supreme Court ruled that the president has the power as commander-in-chief to declare a state of rebellion and call out the armed forces whenever necessary based on the constitution.
3. It also found that the proclamation did not amount to martial law as civil rights were not curtailed and the president did not exercise legislative or judicial powers beyond her role as chief executive. The petitions were dismissed.
Исходное описание:
SANLAKAS v. Executive Secretary DIGEST (Constitutional Law 1/ Legislative)
1. President Arroyo issued a proclamation declaring a state of rebellion in response to the Oakwood Mutiny and directed the armed forces to suppress it. Several petitions challenged the proclamation.
2. The Supreme Court ruled that the president has the power as commander-in-chief to declare a state of rebellion and call out the armed forces whenever necessary based on the constitution.
3. It also found that the proclamation did not amount to martial law as civil rights were not curtailed and the president did not exercise legislative or judicial powers beyond her role as chief executive. The petitions were dismissed.
1. President Arroyo issued a proclamation declaring a state of rebellion in response to the Oakwood Mutiny and directed the armed forces to suppress it. Several petitions challenged the proclamation.
2. The Supreme Court ruled that the president has the power as commander-in-chief to declare a state of rebellion and call out the armed forces whenever necessary based on the constitution.
3. It also found that the proclamation did not amount to martial law as civil rights were not curtailed and the president did not exercise legislative or judicial powers beyond her role as chief executive. The petitions were dismissed.
Facts 1. President Arroyo issued Proclamation 427 both declaring a state of rebellion and calling out the Armed forces to suppress the rebellion. Some of the AFP armed with firearms and explosives seized Oakwood Premiere Apartments, they put bombs in the area and publicly declared withdrawal of support to the government. 2. General Order 04 was issued (was similarly worded as the proclamation) directing the armed forces of the Philippines and the Philippine nation police to suppress rebellion 3. July 27, 2003 Oakwood occupation ended, the soldiers agreed to return but the President however did not immediately lift declaration of state of rebellion. The proclamation was only lifted on August 1, 2003 4. Several cases were filed challenging validity proclamation 427 and general order 4. The summary of the petitioners contentions are as follows: a) there exists no sufficient factual basis for the proclamation by the president of a state of rebellion for an indefinite period. b) Section 18 article 6 of the constitution does not authorize declaration of a state of rebellion. c) Presidential issuances cannot be construed as an exercise of emergency powers as congress has not delegated power to the president. d) the presidential issuances are unwarranted, illegal and abusive exercise of martial law power Issue/s 1. WON the Proclamation 427 and General Order 04 are valid 2. WON President committed GADALEJ Ruling 1. The court only recognized three issues a) the extent of the powers of the congress b) act of the executive injures the congress causing a derivative but substantial injury and c) the declaration of a state of rebellion by the president is tantamount to an exercise of congress’ emergency powers, thus impairing legislative powers 2. Article VI Section 18 of the Constitution grants the President, as Commander-in-Chief, a sequence of graduated power that includes the calling out power. The Constitution requires an actual invasion or rebellion and if public safety requires it but jurisprudence provides that these conditions are not required in the exercise of the calling out power. The only criterion is that 'whenever it becomes necessary' 3. The argument that the declaration of a state of rebellion amounts to a declaration of martial law is invalid. There is no indication the military authorities have taken over the functions of civil government. There is no allegation of curtailment of civil or political rights. There is no indication that the President has exercised judicial and legislative powers. 4. The petitions failed to prove a specific instance where the President has attempted to or has exercised powers beyond her powers as Chief Executive or as Commander-in-Chief. The President, in declaring a state of rebellion and in calling out the armed forces, was merely exercising a wedding of her Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief powers. These are purely executive powers, vested on the President by Sections 1 and 18, Article VII, as opposed to the delegated legislative powers contemplated by Section 23 (2) 5. DISMISSED Doctrine/Syllabus DOCTRINE: - Unstated residual powers are implied from the grant of executive power and which are necessary for her to comply with her duties under the Constitution. The powers of the President are not limited to what are expressly enumerated in the article on the Executive. Department and in scattered provisions of the Constitution. (Marcos v. Maglapus) SYLLABUS: DECLARATION OF THE EXISTENCE OF A STATE OF WAR AND DELEGATION OF EMERGENCY POWERS– Art VI Sec 23 (2): In times of war or other national emergency, the Congress may, by law, authorize the President, for a limited period and subject to such restrictions as it may prescribe, to exercise powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy. Unless sooner withdrawn by resolution of the Congress, such powers shall cease upon the next adjournment thereof.