SANLAKAS vs.

Reyes
G.R. No. 159085. February 3, 2004
Facts:
On July 27, 2003, soldiers of Armed Forces of the Philippines stormed into the Oakwood
Premiere apartments in Makati City to contest the corruption in the AFP and ask the resignation
of the President, the Secretary of Defense and the Chief of the Philippine National Police.
President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo issued Proclamation No. 427 and General Order No. 4,
declaring a state of rebellion and calling out the Armed Forces to suppress the rebellion. At the
same day by the evening, after long hours of negotiation, the soldiers returned to barracks. Only
on August 1, 2003, through Proclamation No. 435, did the President left the declaration of a
state of rebellion.
Several petitions were filed challenging the validity of Proclamation No. 427 and General Order
No. 4.
Party-list organizations Sanlakas and Partido ng Manggagawa contended that Sec. 18 Article
VII of the Constitution does not require the declaration of a state of rebellion to call out the
armed forces. They alleged that there is no sufficient factual basis for the proclamation by the
President of a state of rebellion for an indefinite period.
The petitioners in G.R. No. 159103 claims that sec. 18 Article VII of the constitution does not
authorize the declaration of a state of rebellion. They also submit that the proclamation is a
circumvention of the report requirement under the same provision, commanding the President to
submit a report to Congress within 48 hours from the proclamation. They contend that the
Congress hasnt delegated the power of emergency powers to the president.
The petitioners in G.R. No. 159185 alleged that declaration of a state of rebellion is a superfluity
and a usurpation of the power of Congress granted by sec. 23 (2) Article VI of the Constitution
The petitioner Senator in G.R. No. 159196 assails the presidential issuances as an
unwarranted, illegal, and abusive exercise of a martial law power which has no basis under the
Constitution.
The Solicitor General argues that the petitions have been rendered moot by the lifting of the
declaration.
Issue:
Whether or not the petitions are moot and academic
Whether or not sec. 18 Article VII authorize the declaration of state of rebellion

Whether or not the declaration of state of rebellion has no factual basis

Ruling:
The petitions became moot and academic on August 1, 2003 when the President lifted the state
of rebellion. Still, the court recognizes jurisdiction over cases that are capable of repetition yet
evading review, such as at the case at bar. Furthermore the petitioners have no legal standing
to sue, since they have not suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of the allegedly
illegal conduct of the government.
Sec. 18 Article VII of the Constitution grants the President as Commander in Chief, the power to
call out, to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, and to declare martial law. The
latter two powers require the concurrence of two conditions which are actual invasion or
rebellion, and that public safety requires the exercise of such power to suppress the invasion or
rebellion. For the exercise of the calling out power, such conditions are not required.
There is factual basis for the implementation of a state of rebellion under sec. 18 (3) of Art.VII of
the Constitution