Scribd
Upload
2K views2 pages

Lacson Vs Perez GR No 147780 (Powers of President - Military Power-Digest)

The Supreme Court ruled that while the Court may review the factual basis for a President's declaration of a state of rebellion, it could not do so in this case since the proclamation had already been lifted. The Court also ruled that the President's declaration did not justify warrantless arrests on its own, but only if circumstances independently warranted such arrests under the Rules of Court for rebellion. The Court acknowledged that the President, as Commander-in-Chief, relies on intelligence that may not constitute technical proof but is still relevant to decisions needing to be made urgently in emergencies to protect lives and property.

Uploaded by

Concon Fabricante
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
2K views2 pages

Lacson Vs Perez GR No 147780 (Powers of President - Military Power-Digest)

The Supreme Court ruled that while the Court may review the factual basis for a President's declaration of a state of rebellion, it could not do so in this case since the proclamation had already been lifted. The Court also ruled that the President's declaration did not justify warrantless arrests on its own, but only if circumstances independently warranted such arrests under the Rules of Court for rebellion. The Court acknowledged that the President, as Commander-in-Chief, relies on intelligence that may not constitute technical proof but is still relevant to decisions needing to be made urgently in emergencies to protect lives and property.

Uploaded by

Concon Fabricante
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

TOPIC: Powers of the President- Military Power

G.R. No. 147780 : May 10, 2001

PANFILO LACSON, MICHAEL RAY B. AQUINO and CESAR O. MANCAO, petitioners,


vs. SECRETARY HERNANDO PEREZ, P/DIRECTOR LEANDRO MENDOZA, and
P/SR. SUPT. REYNALDO BERROYA, Respondents.

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:

Is the act of President Macapagal-Arroyo of declaring a state of rebellion and the


warrantless arrests valid?

Ruling:

The Supreme Court ruled that, in a proper case, the Court may look into the sufficiency
of the factual basis of the exercise of this power. However, this is no longer feasible at this time,
Proclamation No. 38 having been lifted.

As to petitioners claim that the proclamation of a state of rebellion is being used by the
authorities to justify warrantless arrests, the Secretary of Justice denies that it has issued a
particular order to arrest specific persons in connection with the rebellion. He states that what is
extant are general instructions to law enforcement officers and military agencies to implement
Proclamation No. 38.

With this declaration, petitioner’s apprehensions as to warrantless arrests should be laid


to rest.

In quelling or suppressing the rebellion, the authorities may only resort to warrantless
arrests of persons suspected of rebellion, as provided under Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of
Court, if the circumstances so warrant. The warrantless arrest feared by petitioners is, thus, not
based on the declaration of a state of rebellion.

It is to be noted that in many instances, the evidence upon which the President might
decide that there is a need to call out the armed forces may be of a nature not constituting
technical proof.

The President as Commander-in-Chief has a vast intelligence network to gather


information, some of which may be classified as highly confidential or affecting the security of
the state. In the exercise of the power to call, on-the-spot decisions may be imperatively
necessary in emergency situations to avert great loss of human lives and mass destruction of
property.

You might also like