SANLAKAS vs. Reyes G.R. No. 159085.

February 3, 2004 FACTS: Some three hundred junior officers and enlisted men of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) stormed into the Oakwood Premiere apartments. Bewailing the corruption in the AFP, the soldiers demanded, among other things, the resignation of the President, the Secretar of !efense and the "hief of the Philippine #ational Police (P#P). $n the wake of the Oakwood occupation, the President issued later in the da Proclamation #o. %&' and (eneral Order #o. %, )oth declaring *a state of re)ellion* and calling out the Armed Forces to suppress the re)ellion. B the e+ening of ,ul &', &--., the Oakwood occupation had ended. After hours/long negotiations, the soldiers agreed to return to )arracks. 0he President, howe+er, did not immediatel lift the declaration of a state of re)ellion and did so onl on August 1, &--., through Proclamation #o. %.2. $n the interim, se+eral petitions were filed )efore this "ourt challenging the +alidit of Proclamation #o. %&' and (eneral Order #o. %. $n G.R. No. 159085 (Sanlakas and P3 +. 45ecuti+e Secretar , et al.), & part /list organi6ations Sanlakas and Partido ng 3anggagawa (P3), contend that Section 17, Article 8$$ of the "onstitution does not re9uire the declaration of a state of re)ellion to call out the armed forces. Petitioners in G.R. No. 159103 (SJS Officers/Members P. Hon. Executive Secretary, et al .) are officers:mem)ers of the Social ,ustice Societ (S,S), *Filipino citi6ens, ta5pa ers, law professors and )ar re+iewers.* ;ike Sanlakas and P3, the claim that Section 17, Article 8$$ of the "onstitution does not authori6e the declaration of a state of re)ellion. $n G.R. No. 159185 (Rep. Suplico et al. v. President Macapa al!"rroyo and Executive Secretary Romulo ), petitioners )rought suit as citi6ens and as 3em)ers of the <ouse of =epresentati+es whose rights, powers and functions were allegedl affected ) the declaration of a state of re)ellion. 0he argue, howe+er, that the declaration of a state of re)ellion is a *superfluit ,* and is actuall an e5ercise of emergenc powers. Such e5ercise, it is contended, amounts to a usurpation of the power of "ongress granted ) Section &. (&), Article 8$ of the "onstitution. $n G.R. No. 15919 (Pimentel v. Romulo, et al.), petitioner Senator assails the su)ject presidential issuances as *an unwarranted, illegal and a)usi+e e5ercise of a martial law power that has no )asis under the "onstitution.* $n the main, petitioner fears that the declaration of a state of re)ellion *opens the door to the unconstitutional implementation of warrantless arrests* for the crime of re)ellion. =e9uired to comment, the Solicitor (eneral argues that the petitions ha+e )een rendered moot ) the lifting of the declaration. $n addition, the Solicitor (eneral 9uestions the standing of the petitioners to )ring suit.

!SS"#: >hether or not the petitions ma prosper. $#L%: 0he "ourt agrees with the Solicitor (eneral that the issuance of Proclamation #o. %.2, declaring that the state of re)ellion has ceased to e5ist, has rendered the case moot. As a rule, courts do not adjudicate moot cases, judicial power )eing limited to the determination of *actual contro+ersies.* #e+ertheless, courts will decide a 9uestion, otherwise moot, if it is *capa)le of repetition et e+ading re+iew.* 0he case at )ar is one such case. 0he mootness of the petitions in #acson v. Pere$ and accompan ing cases precluded this "ourt from addressing the constitutionalit of the declaration. 0o pre+ent similar 9uestions from reemerging, we sei6e this opportunit to finall la to rest the +alidit of the declaration of a state of re)ellion in the e5ercise of the President?s calling out power, the mootness of the petitions notwithstanding. Onl petitioners =ep. Suplico et al. and Sen. Pimentel, as 3em)ers of "ongress, ha+e standing to challenge the su)ject issuances. 0his "ourt has recogni6ed that an act of the 45ecuti+e which injures the institution of "ongress causes a deri+ati+e )ut nonetheless su)stantial injur , which can )e 9uestioned ) a mem)er of "ongress. $n such a case, an mem)er of "ongress can ha+e a resort to the courts. Petitioners Sanlakas and P3, and S,S Officers:3em)ers, ha+e no legal standing or locus standi to )ring suit. Petitioner part /list organi6ations claim no )etter right !emokratikong Pilipino, whose standing this "ourt rejected which >e ruled that petitioner has not demonstrated an would justif the resort to the "ourt. Petitioner is a juridical arrest. than the ;a)an ng in #acson v. Pere$ in injur to itself which person not su)ject to

0hat petitioner S,S officers:mem)ers are ta5pa ers and citi6ens does not necessaril endow them with standing. A ta5pa er ma )ring suit where the act complained of directl in+ol+es the illegal dis)ursement of pu)lic funds deri+ed from ta5ation. #o such illegal dis)ursement is alleged. A citi6en will )e allowed to raise a constitutional 9uestion onl when he can show that he has personall suffered some actual or threatened injur as a result of the allegedl illegal conduct of the go+ernment@ the injur is fairl tracea)le to the challenged action@ and the injur is likel to )e redressed ) a fa+ora)le action. Again, no such injur is alleged in this case. ><4=4FO=4, the petitions are here) dismissed.