Sanlakas vs. Reyes

[G.R. No. 159085. February 3, 2004.] SANLAKAS, represented by REP. J.V. Bautista, and PARTIDO NG MANGGAGAWA, represented by REP. RENATO MAGTUBO, petitioners, vs. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY ANGELO REYES, GENERAL NARCISO ABAYA, DIR. GEN. HERMOGENES EBDANE Facts: Some three hundred junior officers and enlisted men of the Armed Forces of the Philippines armed with high-powered ammunitions and explosives went into the Oakwood Premiere apartments in Makati City and demanded the resignation of the President, the Secretary of Defense and the Chief of the Philippine National Police. This led then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to issue Proclamation No. 427 and General Order No. 4, 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. The soldiers agreed to return to their barracks after hours of negotiation. The President, however, did not immediately lift the declaration of a state of rebellion and did only on August 1, 2003, through Proclamation No. 435. Several petitions were filed before the Supreme Court, challenging the validity of Proclamation No. 427 and General Order No. 4. Party-list organizations Sanlakas and Partido ng Manggagawa 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, there exists no sufficient factual basis for the proclamation by the President of a state of rebellion for an indefinite period. Issue: Whether or not the declaration of a state of rebellion is unconstitutional. Held: The Court held that the declaration of a state of rebellion is not unconstitutional. Though the declaration of a state of rebellion is superfluous as provided by Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution, it only gives notice to the nation that such a state exists and that the armed forces may be called to prevent or suppress it. 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. Statutory authority for such a declaration may be found in Section 4, Chapter 2 (Ordinance Power), Book III (Office of the President) of the Revised Administrative Code of 1987, which states that 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 an executive order. The Court also explains that the mere declaration of a state of rebellion cannot diminish or violate constitutionally protected rights. Therefore, the declaration of a state of rebellion is not unconstitutional.