EN BANC

[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.

[G.R. No. 147781.  May 10, 2001]

MIRIAM DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO, petitioner, vs. ANGELO REYES, Secretary of National Defense, et al., respondents.

[G.R. No. 147799.  May 10, 2001]

RONALDO A. LUMBAO, petitioner, vs. SECRETARY HERNANDO PEREZ, GENERAL DIOMEDIO VILLANUEVA, P/DIR. LEANDRO MENDOZA and P/SR. SUPT. REYNALDO BERROYA, respondents.

[G.R. No. 147810.  May 10, 2001]

THE LABAN NG DEMOKRATIKONG PILIPINO, petitioner, vs. THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, SECRETARY HERNANDO PEREZ, THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES, GENERAL DIOMEDIO VILLANUEVA, THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, and DIRECTOR GENERAL LEANDRO MENDOZA, respondents.

R E S O L U T I O N

MELO, J.:

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-

(1) G.R. No. 147780 for prohibition, injunction, mandamus, and habeas corpus (with an urgent application for the issuance of temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction) filed by Panfilo M. Lacson, Michael Ray B. Aquino, and Cezar O. Mancao; (2) G.R. No. 147781 for mandamus and/or review of the factual basis for the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, with prayer for a temporary restraining order filed by Miriam Defensor-Santiago; (3) G.R. No. 147799 for prohibition and injunction with prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction and/or restraining order filed by Rolando A. Lumbao; and (4) G.R. No. 147810 for certiorari and prohibition filed by the political party Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino.

All the foregoing petitions assail the declaration of a state of rebellion by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and the warrantless arrests allegedly effected by virtue thereof, as having no basis both in fact an in law.  Significantly, on May 6, 2001, President Macapagal-Arroyo ordered the lifting of the declaration of a “state of rebellion” in Metro Manila.  Accordingly, the instant petitions have been rendered moot and academic.  As to petitioner’s 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.  Indeed, as stated in respondents’ Joint Comments:

[I]t is already the declared intention of the Justice Department and police authorities to obtain regular warrants of arrests from the courts for all acts committed prior to and until May 1, 2001 which means that preliminary investigators will henceforth be conducted.

(Comment, G.R. No. 147780, p. 28; G.R. No. 147781, p. 18; G.R. No. 147799, p. 16; G.R. No. 147810, p. 24)

With this declaration, petitioners’ 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.”

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).

Aside from the foregoing reasons, several considerations likewise inevitably call for the dismissal of the petitions at bar.

G.R. No. 147780

In connection with their alleged impending warrantless arrest, petitioners Lacson, Aquino, and Mancao pray that the “appropriate court before whom the informations against petitioners are filed be directed to desist from arraigning and proceeding with the trial of the case, until the instant petition is finally resolved.” This relief is clearly premature considering that as of this date, no complaints or charges have been filed against any of the petitioners for any crime.  And in the event that the same are later filed, this court cannot enjoin criminal prosecution conducted in accordance with the Rules of Court, for by that time any arrest would have been in pursuance of a duly issued warrant.

As regards petitioner’s prayer that the hold departure orders issued against them be declared null and void ab initio, it is to be noted that petitioners are not directly assailing the validity of the subject hold departure orders in their petition.  The are not even expressing intention to leave the country in the near future.  The prayer to set aside the same must be made in proper proceedings initiated for that purpose.

Anent petitioner’s allegations ex abundante ad cautelam in support of their application for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, it is manifest that the writ is not called for since its purpose is to relieve petitioners from unlawful restraint (Ngaya-an v. Balweg, 200 SCRA 149 [1991]), a matter which remains speculative up to this very day.

G.R. No. 147781

The petition herein is denominated by petitioner Defensor-Santiago as one for mandamus.  It is basic in matters relating to petitions for mandamus that the legal right of the petitioner to the performance of a particular act which is sought to be compelled must be clear and complete.  Mandamus will not issue the right to relief is clear at the time of the award (Palileo v. Ruiz Castro, 85 Phil. 272).  Up to the present time, petitioner Defensor-Santiago has not shown that she is in imminent danger of being arrested without a warrant.  In point of fact, the authorities have categorically stated that petitioner will not be arrested without a warrant.

G.R. No. 147799

Petitioner Lumbao, leader of the People’s Movement against Poverty (PMAP), for his part, argues that the declaration of a “state of rebellion” is violative of the doctrine of separation of powers, being an encroachment on the domain of the judiciary which has the constitutional prerogative to “determine or interpret” what took place on May 1, 2001, and that the declaration of a state of rebellion cannot be an exception to the general rule on the allocation of the governmental powers.

We disagree.  To be sure, section 18, Article VII of the Constitution expressly provides that “[t]he President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion…” thus, we held in Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Hon. Zamora, (G.R. No. 141284, August 15, 2000):

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 testual 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.

On the other hand, 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. xxx

                                                                                                                                               (at pp. 22-23)

The Court, in a proper case, 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.

G.R. No. 147810

Petitioner Laban ng Demoktratikong Pilipino is not a real party-in-interest.  The rule requires that a party must show a personal stake in the outcome of the case or an injury to himself that can be redressed by a favorable decision so as to warrant an invocation of the court’s jurisdiction and to justify the exercise of the court’s remedial powers in his behalf (KMU Labor Center v. Garcia, Jr., 239 SCRA 386 [1994]).  Here, petitioner has not demonstrated any injury to itself which would justify resort to the Court.  Petitioner is a juridical person not subject to arrest.  Thus, it cannot claim to be threatened by a warrantless arrest.  Nor is it alleged that its leaders, members, and supporters are being threatened with warrantless arrest and detention for the crime of rebellion.  Every action must be brought in the name of the party whose legal right has been invaded or infringed, or whose legal right is under imminent threat of invasion or infringement.

At best, the instant petition may be considered as an action for declaratory relief, petitioner claiming that its right to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly is affected by the declaration of a “state of rebellion” and that said proclamation is invalid for being contrary to the Constitution.

However, to consider the petition as one for declaratory relief affords little comfort to petitioner, this Court not having jurisdiction in the first instance over such a petition.  Section 5[1], Article VIII of the Constitution limits the original jurisdiction of the Court to cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petitions are hereby DISMISSED.  However, in G.R. No. 147780, 147781, and 147799, respondents, consistent and congruent with their undertaking earlier adverted to, together with their agents, representatives, and all persons acting for and in their behalf, are hereby enjoined from arresting petitioners therein without the required judicial warrant for all acts committed in relation to or in connection with the May 1, 2001 siege of Malacañang.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Puno, Mendoza, Panganiban, and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur.

Vitug, J., see separate opinion.

Kapunan, and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., see dissenting opinion.

Pardo, J., join the dissent of J. Kapunan.

Quisumbing, Buena, Ynares-Santiago, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., on leave.