In 2001, the Supreme Court addressed several petitions challenging President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s declaration of a state of rebellion and subsequent warrantless arrests following a protest that attempted to enter Malacañang Palace. The Court ultimately dismissed the petitions as moot after the President lifted the declaration. However, it emphasized that even in a state of rebellion, constitutional rights must be protected. While acknowledging the President’s power to call out the armed forces, the Court underscored that this power does not supersede the fundamental rights of citizens, including the right against unreasonable searches and seizures. This case highlights the delicate balance between national security concerns and the preservation of individual liberties under the Philippine Constitution.

When is a “State of Rebellion” Not a Martial Law? EDSA III Protests and Executive Power

The consolidated petitions before the Supreme Court stemmed from the events of May 1, 2001, when supporters of former President Joseph Estrada marched to Malacañang Palace, leading to clashes with authorities. President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, citing the violence and the attempt to seize power, issued Proclamation No. 38, declaring a “state of rebellion” in Metro Manila. This declaration was followed by General Order No. 1, directing the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police to suppress the rebellion. Subsequently, several individuals, including prominent political figures, were arrested without warrants, leading to legal challenges questioning the legality of the arrests and the declaration itself.

The petitioners argued that the declaration of a state of rebellion was unconstitutional, as it effectively allowed the President to exercise powers akin to those granted under martial law without adhering to the constitutional safeguards required for such a declaration. They further contended that the warrantless arrests violated their constitutional rights to due process and protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. The core legal question was whether the President’s actions, taken in response to the protests, exceeded her constitutional authority and infringed upon the fundamental rights of the citizens.

In resolving the matter, the Supreme Court acknowledged the President’s power, as Commander-in-Chief, to call out the armed forces to suppress rebellion, as provided under Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution. The Court quoted its earlier ruling in Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Hon. Zamora, emphasizing the President’s broad discretion in exercising this power, particularly in emergency situations where on-the-spot decisions are necessary to avert great loss of human lives and mass destruction of property. However, the Court also cautioned that this power is not unlimited and is subject to constitutional constraints.

xxx The factual necessity of calling out the armed forces is not easily quantifiable and cannot be objectively established since matters considered for satisfying the same is a combination of several factors which are not always accessible to the courts. Besides the absence of textual standards that the court may use to judge necessity, information necessary to arrive at such judgment might also prove unmanageable for the courts.  Certain pertinent information necessary to arrive at such judgment might also prove unmanageable for the courts.  Certain pertinent information might be difficult to verify, or wholly unavailable to the courts.  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.

Despite recognizing the President’s authority to address rebellion, the Court stressed that such actions must be carried out with due regard for constitutional rights. The Court highlighted that the declaration of a “state of rebellion” does not suspend the operation of the Constitution or authorize the violation of fundamental rights, such as the right against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Court underscored that even in quelling a rebellion, authorities must adhere to the rules of procedure governing arrests, searches, and seizures.

The Court referred to Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, which outlines the circumstances under which warrantless arrests are permissible. The Court emphasized that warrantless arrests are justified only when the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense in the presence of the arresting officer, or when an offense has just been committed and the arresting officer has probable cause to believe, based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances, that the person to be arrested has committed it. In this regard, the Court rejected the notion that the declaration of a “state of rebellion” could be used to justify indiscriminate warrantless arrests without adhering to these established legal standards.

The dissenting opinions further elaborated on the importance of safeguarding civil liberties, even in times of crisis. Justice Kapunan, for example, emphasized that the right against unreasonable searches and seizures is an indispensable freedom, and that uncontrolled search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every arbitrary government. Justice Sandoval-Gutierrez cautioned against allowing the declaration of a “state of rebellion” to become a pretext for circumventing constitutional safeguards and paving the way for authoritarian rule.

The ponente Justice Melo stated that the petitioners had other remedies to avail of stating that:

Moreover, petitioners’ contention in G.R. No. 147780 (Lacson Petition), 147781 (Defensor-Santiago Petition), and 147799 (Lumbao Petition) that they are under imminent danger of being arrested without warrant do not justify their resort to the extraordinary remedies of mandamus and prohibition, since an individual subjected to warrantless arrest is not without adequate remedies in the ordinary course of law.  Such an individual may ask for a preliminary investigation under Rule 112 of the Rules of court, where he may adduce evidence in his defense, or he may submit himself to inquest proceedings to determine whether or not he should remain under custody and correspondingly be charged in court.  Further, a person subject of a warrantless arrest must be delivered to the proper judicial authorities within the periods provided in Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, otherwise the arresting officer could be held liable for delay in the delivery of detained persons.  Should the detention be without legal ground, the person arrested can charge the arresting officer with arbitrary detention. All this is without prejudice to his filing an action for damages against the arresting officer under Article 32 of the Civil Code.  Verily, petitioners have a surfeit of other remedies which they can avail themselves of, thereby making the prayer for prohibition and mandamus improper at this time (Sections 2 and 3, Rule 65, Rules of Court).

Although the Court ultimately dismissed the petitions as moot due to the lifting of the declaration of a “state of rebellion,” the decision serves as an important reminder of the delicate balance between national security and individual liberties. The Court’s emphasis on the need to uphold constitutional rights, even in times of crisis, reaffirms the fundamental principles of Philippine democracy and underscores the importance of judicial review in safeguarding against potential abuses of executive power.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether President Arroyo’s declaration of a “state of rebellion” and the subsequent warrantless arrests violated the petitioners’ constitutional rights.
Did the Supreme Court rule on the constitutionality of the declaration?	The Court initially dismissed the petitions as moot because the declaration had been lifted. However, the Court still addressed the limits of executive power in times of rebellion.
What did the Court say about warrantless arrests?	The Court emphasized that even during a state of rebellion, warrantless arrests must comply with the Rules of Court. They cannot be arbitrary or based solely on the declaration itself.
Can the President suspend the Constitution during a “state of rebellion”?	No, the Court made it clear that a declaration of a “state of rebellion” does not suspend the Constitution or authorize the violation of fundamental rights.
What is the President’s power to call out the armed forces?	The President, as Commander-in-Chief, can call out the armed forces to suppress rebellion. However, this power is not unlimited and is subject to constitutional constraints.
What remedies are available to individuals arrested without a warrant?	Individuals arrested without a warrant can ask for a preliminary investigation, submit to inquest proceedings, and charge the arresting officer with arbitrary detention if the detention is illegal.
What was the main argument of the dissenting justices?	The dissenting justices argued that the declaration of a “state of rebellion” should not be used as a pretext to circumvent constitutional safeguards and allow for unwarranted arrests.
What is the significance of this case?	The case is significant because it reaffirms the importance of upholding constitutional rights, even in times of crisis, and underscores the limits of executive power in the Philippines.

The Supreme Court’s resolution in these consolidated cases serves as a crucial reminder of the balance between executive action and the protection of civil liberties in times of national unrest. The ruling reinforces the principle that constitutional rights are not suspended during a declared state of rebellion and that the President’s powers are subject to constitutional limitations. By upholding these fundamental principles, the Court safeguards individual freedoms and prevents potential abuses of power, ensuring a just and democratic society.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Lacson vs. Perez, G.R. Nos. 147780, 147781, 147799 & 147810, May 10, 2001