SANLAKAS v.

Executive Secretary
Mootness| February 3. 2004| TINGA, J.

FACTS:
- Armed with high-powered ammunitions and explosives, some three hundred junior
officers and enlisted men of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) stormed into the
Oakwood Premiere apartments in Makati City in the wee hours of 27 July 2003.
- Bewailing the corruption in the AFP, the soldiers demanded, among other things, the
resignation of the President, the Secretary of Defense and the Chief of the Philippine National
Police (PNP).
- In the wake of the Oakwood occupation, the President issued later in the day
Proclamation 427 and General Order 4, both declaring “a state of rebellion” and calling out the
Armed Forces to suppress the rebellion.
- By the evening of 27 July 2003, the Oakwood occupation had ended. After hours-
long negotiations, the soldiers agreed to return to barracks. The President, however, did not
immediately lift the declaration of a state of rebellion and did so only on 1 August 2003, through
Proclamation 435.
- In the interim, several petitions were filed before the Supreme Court challenging the
validity of Proclamation 427 and General Order 4.

ISSUE/S & RATIO:

1. Whether or not the petitions have been rendered moot by the lifting of the declaration.

Held/Ratio Decidendi:
1. NO. The Court agrees with the Solicitor General that the issuance of Proclamation 435,
declaring that the state of rebellion has ceased to exist, has rendered the case moot. As a rule,
courts do not adjudicate moot cases, judicial power being limited to the determination of “actual
controversies.” Nevertheless, courts will decide a question, otherwise moot, if it is “capable of
repetition yet evading review.” The present case is one such case. Once before, the President on
1 May 2001 declared a state of rebellion and called upon the AFP and the PNP to suppress the
rebellion through Proclamation 38 and General Order 1. On that occasion, “‘an angry and
violent mob armed with explosives, firearms, bladed weapons, clubs, stones and other deadly
weapons’ assaulted and attempted to break into Malacañang.” Petitions were filed before the
Supreme Court assailing the validity of the President’s declaration. Five days after such
declaration, however, the President lifted the same. The mootness of the petitions in Lacson v.
Perez and accompanying cases precluded the Court from addressing the constitutionality of the
declaration. To prevent similar questions from reemerging, the Supreme Court seized the
opportunity to finally lay to rest the validity of the declaration of a state of rebellion in the
exercise of the President’s calling out power, the mootness of the petitions notwithstanding.