F.

Military Powers
The Commander-in-chief Clause


48. Lacson v. Perez., G.R. No. 147780, 10 May 2001

FACTS:
On May 1, 2001, President Macapagal-Arroyo, faced by an “angry and violent mob armed with
explosives, firearms, bladed weapons, clubs, stones and other deadly weapons” assaulting and
attempting to break into 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 Region. Warrantless arrests of several alleged leaders and
promoters of the “rebellion” were thereafter effected.

Aggrieved by the warrantless arrests, and the declaration of a “state of rebellion,” which
allegedly gave a semblance of legality to the arrests, the following four related petitions were
filed before the Court. Prior to resolution, the “state of rebellion” was lifted in Metro Manila.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Proclamation No 38 and General Order No 1 are constitutional.

RULING:
Section 18 grants the President, as Commander-in-Chief, the power to call out the armed forces
in cases of (1) lawless violence, (2) rebellion and (3) invasion.9 In the latter two cases, i.e.,
rebellion or invasion, the President may, when public safety requires, also (a) suspend the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or (b) place the Philippines or any part thereof under
martial law

Decision: Petitions are dismissed. The instant petitions have been rendered moot and academic
as Gloria Arroyo ordered the lifting of the declaration of a state of rebellion on 06 May 2001.

49. Sanlakas v. Reyes, G.R. No. 159085, et. al., 3 February 2004

FACTS:
On July 27, 2003, some 300 junior officers and enlisted men of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines stormed into the Oakwood Premiere apartments in Makati City. Bewailing the
corruption in the AFP, the soldiers demanded, among other things, the resignation of President
Gloria Arroyo, Secretary of Defense Angelo Reyes, and PNP Chief Hermogenes Ebdane.

In the wake of the Oakwood occupation, the President issued later in the day Proclamation No.
427 ("Declaring a State of Rebellion") and General Order No. 4 ("Directing the AFP and the PNP
to Suppress the Rebellion"), both declaring “a state of rebellion” and calling out the Armed Forces
to suppress the rebellion.

By the evening of July 27, 2003, the Oakwood occupation had ended. After hours-long
negotiations, the soldiers agreed to return to barracks. The President, however, did not
immediately lift the declaration of a state of rebellion and did so only on August 1, 2003, through
Proclamation No. 435 ("Declaring that the State of Rebellion Has Ceased to Exist").

Subsequently, several petitions have been filed challenging the constitutionality of the President
Arroyo's declaration of state of rebellion.

Party-list organizations Sanlakas and Partido ng Manggagawa (PM), contend that Section 18,
Article VII of the Constitution does not require the declaration of a state of rebellion to call out
the armed forces. They further submit that, because of the cessation of the Oakwood occupation,
thereexists no sufficient factual basis for the proclamation by the President of a state of rebellion
for an indefinite period.


Issue:
Whether or not Section 18, Art. VII of the 1987 Constitution grants the President the power to
declare a state of rebellion.

Ruling:
Yes, the Court held that it is within her prerogative as Chief Executive for the President to
declare a state of rebellion. For the fact is, the Constitution vests the President not only with
Commander-in-Chief powers but, first and foremost, with Executive powers.

It is equally true that Section 18, Article VII does not expressly prohibit the President from
declaring a state of rebellion. The President’s authority to declare a state of rebellion springs in
the main from her powers as chief executive and, at the same time, draws strength from her
Commander-in-Chief powers


50. Jamar Kulayan v. Gov. Abdusakur Tan, G.R. No. 187298, 3 July 2012

FACTS:
Three members from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) were kidnapped in
the vicinity of the Provincial Capitol in Patikul by members of the Abu Sayyaf Group. Sulu Crisis
Management Committee (Committee) was then formed to investigate the kidnapping incident
under respondent Abdusakur Mahail Tan, the Provincial Governor of Sulu. Governor Tan issued
Proclamation No. 1, Series of 2009, declaring a state of emergency in the province of Sulu.

The Proclamation cited the kidnapping incident as a ground for the said declaration, describing
it as a terrorist act pursuant to the Human Security Act (R.A. 9372). In the Proclamation, Tan
called upon the PNP and the Civilian Emergency Force (CEF) to set up checkpoints and
chokepoints, conduct general search and seizures including arrests, and other actions necessary
to ensure public safety.

Petitioners, Jamar Kulayan, et al. claimed that Proclamation No. 1-09 was issued ultra vires, and
thus null and void, for violating Sections 1 and 18, Article VII of the Constitution, which grants
the President sole authority to exercise emergency powers and calling-out powers as the chief
executive of the Republic and commander-in-chief of the armed forces.

ISSUE: Can a governor exercise the calling-out powers of a President?

RULING: NO.
It has already been established that there is one repository of executive powers, and that is the
President of the Republic. This means that when Section 1, Article VII of the Constitution speaks
of executive power, it is granted to the President and no one else. Corollarily, it is only the
President, as Executive, who is authorized to exercise emergency powers as provided under
Section 23, Article VI, of the Constitution, as well as what became known as the calling-out
powers under Section 7, Article VII thereof. Springing from the well-entrenched constitutional
precept of One President is the notion that there
are certain acts which, by their very nature, may only be performed by the president as the
Head of the State. One of these acts or prerogatives is the bundle of Commander-in-Chief
powers to which the “calling-out”
powers constitutes a portion.