Lacson Vs. Perez357 SCRA 756 G.R. No. 147780May 10, 2001Facts:President Macapagal-Arroyo declared a State of Rebellion (Proclamation No. 38) onMay 1, 2001 as well as General Order No. 1 ordering the AFP and the PNP to suppress therebellion in the NCR. Warrantless arrests of several alleged leaders and promoters of therebellion were thereafter effected. Petitioner filed for prohibition, injunction, mandamus andhabeas corpus with an application for the issuance of temporary restraining order and/or writ ofpreliminary injunction. Petitioners assail the declaration of Proc. No. 38 and the warrantlessarrests allegedly effected by virtue thereof. Petitioners furthermore pray that the appropriatecourt, wherein the information against them were filed, would desist arraignment and trial untilthis instant petition is resolved. They also contend that they are allegedly faced with impendingwarrantless arrests and unlawful restraint being that hold departure orders were issued againstthem.Issue:Whether or Not Proclamation No. 38 is valid, along with the warrantless arrests and holddeparture orders allegedly effected by the same.Held:President Macapagal-Arroyo ordered the lifting of Proc.No. 38 on May6, 2006,accordingly the instant petition has been rendered moot and academic. Respondents havedeclared that the Justice Department and the police authorities intend to obtain regular warrantsof arrests from the courts for all acts committed prior to and until May 1, 2001. Under Section 5,Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, authorities may only resort to warrantless arrests of persons suspected of rebellion in suppressing the rebellion if the circumstances so warrant, thus thewarrantless arrests are not based on Proc. No. 38. Petitioners prayer for mandamus andprohibition is improper at this time because an individual warrantlessly arrested has adequateremedies in law: Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, providing for preliminary investigation, Article125 of the Revised Penal Code, providing for the period in which a warrantlessly arrestedperson must be delivered to the proper judicial authorities, otherwise the officer responsible forsuch may be penalized for the delay of the same. If the detention should have no legal ground,the arresting officer can be charged with arbitrary detention, not prejudicial to claim of damagesunder Article 32 of the Civil Code. Petitioners were neither assailing the validity of the subjecthold departure orders, nor were they expressing any intention to leave the country in the nearfuture. To declare the hold departure orders null and void ab initio must be made in the properproceedings initiated for that purpose. Petitioners prayer for relief regarding their allegedimpending warrantless arrests is premature being that no complaints have been filed againstthem for any crime, furthermore, the writ of habeas corpus is uncalled for since its purpose is torelieve unlawful restraint which Petitioners are not subjected to.Petition is dismissed. Respondents, consistent and congruent with their undertaking earlieradverted to, together with their agents, representatives, and all persons acting in their behalf,are hereby enjoined from arresting Petitioners without the required judicial warrants for all actscommitted in relation to or in connection with the May 1, 2001 siege of Malacaang.