Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
ISSUE
WON
FACTS
1)
During the wee hours of July 27, 2003, some three-hundred junior officers
and enlisted men of the AFP, acting upon instigation, command and
direction of known and unknown leaders have seized the Oakwood
Building in Makati.
2)
Publicly, they complained of the corruption in the AFP and declared their
withdrawal of support for the government, demanding the resignation of
the President, Secretary of Defense and the PNP Chief.
3)
These acts constitute a violation of Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code,
and by virtue of Proclamation No. 427 and General Order No. 4, the
Philippines was declared under the State of Rebellion.
4)
Negotiations took place and the officers went back to their barracks in the
evening of the same day.
5)
On August 1, 2003, both the Proclamation and General Orders were lifted,
and Proclamation No. 435, declaring the Cessation of the State of
Rebellion was issued.
6)
In the interim, however, the following petitions were filed:
a)
ANLAKAS AND PARTIDO NG MANGGAGAWA VS. EXECUTIVE
SECRETARY, petitioners contending that Sec. 18 Article VII of the
Constitution does not require the declaration of a state of rebellion
to call out the AFP, and that there is no factual basis for such
proclamation.
b)
SJS Officers/Members v. Hon. Executive Secretary, et al, petitioners
contending that the proclamation is a circumvention of the report
requirement under the same Section 18, Article VII, commanding
the President to submit a report to Congress within 48 hours from
the proclamation of martial law. Finally, they contend that the
presidential issuances cannot be construed as an exercise of
emergency powers as Congress has not delegated any such power to
the President.
c)
Rep. Suplico et al. v. President MacapagalArroyo and Executive
Secretary Romulo, petitioners contending that there was usurpation
of the power of Congress granted by Section 23 (2), Article VI of the
Constitution.
d)
(4) Pimentel v. Romulo, et al, petitioner fears that the declaration of
a state of rebellion "opens the door to the unconstitutional
implementation of warrantless arrests" for the crime of rebellion.
7)
Only the suit of the members of Congress had standing to file suit.
8)
Petitioners argue that the declaration of the state of rebellion is a
superfluity and is actually an exercise of emergency powers. Such
exercise, it is contended, amounts to a usurpation of the power of
Congress granted by Section 23(2), Article 6 of the constitution.
DECISION
NO
Nevertheless, it is equally true that Section 18, Article VII does not
expressly prohibit the President from declaring a state of rebellion. Note
that the Constitution vests the President not only with Commander-inChief powers but, first and foremost, with Executive powers.
NOTES