LACSON vs.

PEREZ
May 10, 2001
EN BANC
[G.R. No. 147780. May 10, 2001]
PANFILO LACSON, MICHAEL RA !. A"#INO a$% CESAR O. MANCAO, petitioners, vs.
SECRE&AR HERNAN'O PEREZ, P('IREC&OR LEAN'RO MEN'OZA, a$% P(SR. S#P&.
RENAL'O !ERROA, respondents.
[G.R. No. 147781. May 10, 2001]
MIRIAM 'EFENSOR)SAN&IAGO, petitioner, vs. ANGELO REES, S*+,*-a,y o. Na-/o$a0 '*.*$s*, *- a0.,
respondents.
[G.R. No. 147711. May 10, 2001]
RONAL'O A. L#M!AO, petitioner, vs. SECRE&AR HERNAN'O PEREZ, GENERAL 'IOME'IO
2ILLAN#E2A, P('IR. LEAN'RO MEN'OZA a$% P(SR. S#P&. RENAL'O !ERROA,
respondents.
[G.R. No. 147810. May 10, 2001]
&HE LA!AN NG 'EMO3RA&I3ONG PILIPINO, petitioner, vs. &HE 'EPAR&MEN& OF 4#S&ICE,
SECRE&AR HERNAN'O PEREZ, &HE ARME' FORCES OF &HE PHILIPPINES,
GENERAL 'IOME'IO 2ILLAN#E2A, &HE PHILIPPINE NA&IONAL POLICE, a$%
'IREC&OR GENERAL LEAN'RO MEN'OZA, respondents.
R E S O L # & I O N
MELO, J.5
On May 1, 2001, President Macapagal-Arroyo, faced by an angry and iolent !ob ar!ed "it# e$plosies,
firear!s, bladed "eapons, cl%bs, stones and ot#er deadly "eapons& assa%lting and atte!pting to brea' into
Malaca(ang, iss%ed Procla!ation No) *+ declaring t#at t#ere "as a state of rebellion in t#e National Capital
,egion) -#e li'e"ise iss%ed .eneral Order No) 1 directing t#e Ar!ed /orces of t#e P#ilippines and t#e
P#ilippine National Police to s%ppress t#e rebellion in t#e National Capital ,egion) 0arrantless arrests of seeral
alleged leaders and pro!oters of t#e rebellion& "ere t#ereafter effected)
Aggrieed by t#e "arrantless arrests, and t#e declaration of a state of rebellion,& "#ic# allegedly gae a
se!blance of legality to t#e arrests, t#e follo"ing fo%r related petitions "ere filed before t#e Co%rt-
112 .),) No) 1344+0 for pro#ibition, in5%nction, mandamus, and habeas corpus 1"it# an %rgent application
for t#e iss%ance of te!porary restraining order and6or "rit of preli!inary in5%nction2 filed by Panfilo M) 7acson,
Mic#ael ,ay B) A8%ino, and Ce9ar O) Mancao: 122 .),) No) 1344+1 for mandamus and6or reie" of t#e fact%al
basis for t#e s%spension of t#e priilege of t#e "rit of habeas corpus, "it# prayer for a te!porary restraining order
filed by Miria! ;efensor--antiago: 1*2 .),) No) 1344<< for pro#ibition and in5%nction "it# prayer for a "rit of
preli!inary in5%nction and6or restraining order filed by ,olando A) 7%!bao: and 132 .),) No) 134+10 for
LACSON vs. PEREZ
May 10, 2001
certiorari and pro#ibition filed by t#e political party Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino)
All t#e foregoing petitions assail t#e declaration of a state of rebellion by President .loria Macapagal-
Arroyo and t#e "arrantless arrests allegedly effected by irt%e t#ereof, as #aing no basis bot# in fact an in la")
-ignificantly, on May =, 2001, President Macapagal-Arroyo ordered t#e lifting of t#e declaration of a state of
rebellion& in Metro Manila) Accordingly, t#e instant petitions #ae been rendered !oot and acade!ic) As to
petitioner>s clai! t#at t#e procla!ation of a state of rebellion& is being %sed by t#e a%t#orities to 5%stify
"arrantless arrests, t#e -ecretary of ?%stice denies t#at it #as iss%ed a partic%lar order to arrest specific persons in
connection "it# t#e rebellion)& @e states t#at "#at is e$tant are general instr%ctions to la" enforce!ent officers
and !ilitary agencies to i!ple!ent Procla!ation No) *+) Andeed, as stated in respondents> ?oint Co!!entsB
[I]- /s a0,*a%y -6* %*+0a,*% /$-*$-/o$ o. -6* 47s-/+* '*8a,-9*$- a$% 8o0/+* a7-6o,/-/*s -o o:-a/$ ,*;70a,
<a,,a$-s o. a,,*s-s .,o9 -6* +o7,-s .o, a00 a+-s +o99/--*% 8,/o, -o a$% 7$-/0 May 1, 2001 <6/+6 9*a$s -6a-
8,*0/9/$a,y /$v*s-/;a-o,s </00 6*$+*.o,-6 :* +o$%7+-*%.
1Co!!ent, .),) No) 1344+0, p) 2+: .),) No)
1344+1, p) 1+: .),) No) 1344<<, p) 1=: .),)
No) 134+10, p) 232
0it# t#is declaration, petitioners> appre#ensions as to "arrantless arrests s#o%ld be laid to rest)
An 8%elling or s%ppressing t#e rebellion, t#e a%t#orities !ay only resort to "arrantless arrests of persons
s%spected of rebellion, as proided %nder -ection C, ,%le 11* of t#e ,%les of Co%rt, if t#e circ%!stances so
"arrant) D#e "arrantless arrest feared by petitioners is, t#%s, not based on t#e declaration of a state of rebellion)&
Moreoer, petitioners> contention in .),) No) 1344+0 1Lacson Petition2, 1344+1 1Defensor-Santiago
Petition2, and 1344<< 1Lumbao Petition2 t#at t#ey are %nder i!!inent danger of being arrested "it#o%t "arrant
do not 5%stify t#eir resort to t#e e$traordinary re!edies of mandamus and pro#ibition, since an indiid%al
s%b5ected to "arrantless arrest is not "it#o%t ade8%ate re!edies in t#e ordinary co%rse of la") -%c# an indiid%al
!ay as' for a preli!inary inestigation %nder ,%le 112 of t#e ,%les of co%rt, "#ere #e !ay add%ce eidence in
#is defense, or #e !ay s%b!it #i!self to in8%est proceedings to deter!ine "#et#er or not #e s#o%ld re!ain %nder
c%stody and correspondingly be c#arged in co%rt) /%rt#er, a person s%b5ect of a "arrantless arrest !%st be
deliered to t#e proper 5%dicial a%t#orities "it#in t#e periods proided in Article 12C of t#e ,eised Penal Code,
ot#er"ise t#e arresting officer co%ld be #eld liable for delay in t#e deliery of detained persons) -#o%ld t#e
detention be "it#o%t legal gro%nd, t#e person arrested can c#arge t#e arresting officer "it# arbitrary detention) All
t#is is "it#o%t pre5%dice to #is filing an action for da!ages against t#e arresting officer %nder Article *2 of t#e
Ciil Code) Eerily, petitioners #ae a s%rfeit of ot#er re!edies "#ic# t#ey can aail t#e!seles of, t#ereby
!a'ing t#e prayer for pro#ibition and mandamus i!proper at t#is ti!e 1-ections 2 and *, ,%le =C, ,%les of
Co%rt2)
Aside fro! t#e foregoing reasons, seeral considerations li'e"ise ineitably call for t#e dis!issal of t#e
petitions at bar)
G.R. No. 14!"
An connection "it# t#eir alleged i!pending "arrantless arrest, petitioners 7acson, A8%ino, and Mancao
pray t#at t#e appropriate co%rt before "#o! t#e infor!ations against petitioners are filed be directed to desist
fro! arraigning and proceeding "it# t#e trial of t#e case, %ntil t#e instant petition is finally resoled)& D#is relief
is clearly pre!at%re considering t#at as of t#is date, no co!plaints or c#arges #ae been filed against any of t#e
petitioners for any cri!e) And in t#e eent t#at t#e sa!e are later filed, t#is co%rt cannot en5oin cri!inal
prosec%tion cond%cted in accordance "it# t#e ,%les of Co%rt, for by t#at ti!e any arrest "o%ld #ae been in
p%rs%ance of a d%ly iss%ed "arrant)
As regards petitioner>s prayer t#at t#e #old depart%re orders iss%ed against t#e! be declared n%ll and oid
ab initio, it is to be noted t#at petitioners are not directly assailing t#e alidity of t#e s%b5ect #old depart%re orders
in t#eir petition) D#e are not een e$pressing intention to leae t#e co%ntry in t#e near f%t%re) D#e prayer to set
aside t#e sa!e !%st be !ade in proper proceedings initiated for t#at p%rpose)
LACSON vs. PEREZ
May 10, 2001
Anent petitioner>s allegations e# abundante ad cautelam in s%pport of t#eir application for t#e iss%ance of a
"rit of #abeas corp%s, it is !anifest t#at t#e "rit is not called for since its p%rpose is to reliee petitioners fro!
%nla"f%l restraint 1Nga$a-an %. &al'eg, 200 -C,A 13< F1<<1G2, a !atter "#ic# re!ains spec%latie %p to t#is
ery day)
G.R. No. 14!1
D#e petition #erein is deno!inated by petitioner ;efensor--antiago as one for mandamus. At is basic in
!atters relating to petitions for mandamus t#at t#e legal rig#t of t#e petitioner to t#e perfor!ance of a partic%lar
act "#ic# is so%g#t to be co!pelled !%st be clear and co!plete) (andamus "ill not iss%e t#e rig#t to relief is
clear at t#e ti!e of t#e a"ard 1Palileo %. Rui) *astro, +C P#il) 2422) Hp to t#e present ti!e, petitioner ;efensor-
-antiago #as not s#o"n t#at s#e is in i!!inent danger of being arrested "it#o%t a "arrant) An point of fact, t#e
a%t#orities #ae categorically stated t#at petitioner "ill not be arrested "it#o%t a "arrant)
G.R. No. 14++
Petitioner 7%!bao, leader of t#e People>s Moe!ent against Poerty 1PMAP2, for #is part, arg%es t#at t#e
declaration of a state of rebellion& is iolatie of t#e doctrine of separation of po"ers, being an encroac#!ent on
t#e do!ain of t#e 5%diciary "#ic# #as t#e constit%tional prerogatie to deter!ine or interpret& "#at too' place on
May 1, 2001, and t#at t#e declaration of a state of rebellion cannot be an e$ception to t#e general r%le on t#e
allocation of t#e goern!ental po"ers)
0e disagree) Do be s%re, section 1+, Article EAA of t#e Constit%tion e$pressly proides t#at FtG#e President
s#all be t#e Co!!ander-in-C#ief of all ar!ed forces of t#e P#ilippines and "#eneer it beco!es necessary, #e
!ay call o%t s%c# ar!ed forces to preent or s%ppress la"less iolence, inasion or rebellionI& t#%s, "e #eld in
Antegrated Bar of t#e P#ilippines ) @on) Ja!ora, 1.),) No) 1312+3, A%g%st 1C, 20002B
$$$ D#e fact%al necessity of calling o%t t#e ar!ed forces is not easily 8%antifiable and cannot be ob5ectiely
establis#ed since !atters considered for satisfying t#e sa!e is a co!bination of seeral factors "#ic# are not
al"ays accessible to t#e co%rts) Besides t#e absence of test%al standards t#at t#e co%rt !ay %se to 5%dge necessity,
infor!ation necessary to arrie at s%c# 5%dg!ent !ig#t also proe %n!anageable for t#e co%rts) Certain pertinent
infor!ation necessary to arrie at s%c# 5%dg!ent !ig#t also proe %n!anageable for t#e co%rts) Certain pertinent
infor!ation !ig#t be diffic%lt to erify, or "#olly %naailable to t#e co%rts) An !any instances, t#e eidence %pon
"#ic# t#e President !ig#t decide t#at t#ere is a need to call o%t t#e ar!ed forces !ay be of a nat%re not
constit%ting tec#nical proof)
On t#e ot#er #and, t#e President as Co!!ander-in-C#ief #as a ast intelligence net"or' to gat#er infor!ation,
so!e of "#ic# !ay be classified as #ig#ly confidential or affecting t#e sec%rity of t#e state) An t#e e$ercise of t#e
po"er to call, on-t#e-spot decisions !ay be i!peratiely necessary in e!ergency sit%ations to aert great loss of
#%!an lies and !ass destr%ction of property) $$$
1at pp) 22-2*2
D#e Co%rt, in a proper case, !ay loo' into t#e s%fficiency of t#e fact%al basis of t#e e$ercise of t#is po"er)
@o"eer, t#is is no longer feasible at t#is ti!e, Procla!ation No) *+ #aing been lifted)
G.R. No. 14!1"
Petitioner Laban ng Demoktratikong Pilipino is not a real party-in-interest) D#e r%le re8%ires t#at a party
!%st s#o" a personal sta'e in t#e o%tco!e of t#e case or an in5%ry to #i!self t#at can be redressed by a faorable
decision so as to "arrant an inocation of t#e co%rt>s 5%risdiction and to 5%stify t#e e$ercise of t#e co%rt>s re!edial
po"ers in #is be#alf 1,(- Labor *enter %. Garcia. /r.. 2*< -C,A *+= F1<<3G2) @ere, petitioner #as not
de!onstrated any in5%ry to itself "#ic# "o%ld 5%stify resort to t#e Co%rt) Petitioner is a 5%ridical person not
LACSON vs. PEREZ
May 10, 2001
s%b5ect to arrest) D#%s, it cannot clai! to be t#reatened by a "arrantless arrest) Nor is it alleged t#at its leaders,
!e!bers, and s%pporters are being t#reatened "it# "arrantless arrest and detention for t#e cri!e of rebellion)
Eery action !%st be bro%g#t in t#e na!e of t#e party "#ose legal rig#t #as been inaded or infringed, or "#ose
legal rig#t is %nder i!!inent t#reat of inasion or infringe!ent)
At best, t#e instant petition !ay be considered as an action for declaratory relief, petitioner clai!ing t#at its
rig#t to freedo! of e$pression and freedo! of asse!bly is affected by t#e declaration of a state of rebellion& and
t#at said procla!ation is inalid for being contrary to t#e Constit%tion)
@o"eer, to consider t#e petition as one for declaratory relief affords little co!fort to petitioner, t#is Co%rt
not #aing 5%risdiction in t#e first instance oer s%c# a petition) -ection CF1G, Article EAAA of t#e Constit%tion
li!its t#e original 5%risdiction of t#e Co%rt to cases affecting a!bassadors, ot#er p%blic !inisters and cons%ls, and
oer petitions for certiorari, pro#ibition, mandamus, 0uo 'arranto, and habeas corpus)
=HEREFORE, pre!ises considered, t#e petitions are #ereby ;A-MA--E;) @o"eer, in .),) No)
1344+0, 1344+1, and 1344<<, respondents, consistent and congr%ent "it# t#eir %nderta'ing earlier aderted to,
toget#er "it# t#eir agents, representaties, and all persons acting for and in t#eir be#alf, are #ereby en5oined fro!
arresting petitioners t#erein "it#o%t t#e re8%ired 5%dicial "arrant for all acts co!!itted in relation to or in
connection "it# t#e May 1, 2001 siege of Malaca(ang)
SO OR'ERE'.
Da%ide. /r.. *./.. &ellosillo. Puno. (endo)a. Panganiban. and Gon)aga-Re$es. //.. conc%r)
1itug. /.. see separate opinion)
,apunan. and Sando%al-Gutierre). //.. see dissenting opinion)
Pardo. /.. 5oin t#e dissent of ?) Kap%nan)
2uisumbing. &uena. 3nares-Santiago. and De Leon. /r.. //.. on leae)