SANLAKAS vs Executive Secretary

FACT: Petitioners claims that the issuance of Proclamation No.

427 and General Order No. 4, both declaring a state of rebellion
and calling out the Armed Forces to suppress the rebellion had no
Constitutional basis under sec 18 Art VII. This rebellion was the
Oakwood Mutiny incited by Trillanes where some 200 hundred
junior officers of AFP stormed Oakwood Premiere apartments in
Makati City in the wee hours of July 27, 2007. The soldiers protest
the the rampant corruption in the AFP and demanded the
resignation of the President, the Secretary of defence, and the
PNP Chief.
Issue: The validity of Proclamation No. 427 and General Order No.
4

Held: The court believes that the lifting of the declaration had
rendered the case moot but to prevent similar questions from
reemerging, the court decided to tackle the case to finally lay to
rest the validity of the declaration of a state of rebellion in the
exercise of the President’s calling out power. The case is capable
of repetition yet evading review.

In the case, the court ruled that the President has the authority to
declare a state of rebellion which springs from the powers as Chief
Executive and at the same time draws strength from the power as
Commander-in-Chief under sec 1 & 18 Art VII of the
Constitution..The statutory authority to declare such declaration
may be found in Sec 4 Chapter 2 Book III of the Revised
Administrative Code of 1987 stating:
Sec 4.Proclamation. Acts of the President fixing a date or declaring
a status or condition of public moment or interest, upon the
existence of which the operation of a specific law or regulation is
made to depend, shall be promulgated in proclamations which
shall have the force of a executive order.



Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in the President of
the Philippines.
Section 18. 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.

The argument that the declaration of a state of rebellion amounts

to a declaration of martial law is a leap of logic as the mere
declaration of a state of rebellion cannot diminish or violate
constitutionally protected rights. There was no indication that the
President has exercised judicial and legislative powers nor
attempted to exercise martial law powers. No indication that
military authorities has taken over the function of civil government.
It did not show that the President had exercised emergency power
pursuant to Sec 32 (2) Art VI of the Constitution.

Ruling: Dismissed