sanlakas vs executive secretary

2
Sanlakas vs Executive Secretary Facts: Oakwood mutiny Pres. Proc No. 427 and Gen, Order 4 to suppress lawless violence and rebellion Petitioners contend: There exists no factual basis for the declaration of a state of rebellion for an indefinite period of time Proclamation is a circumvention of the report requirement to be submitted to Congress within 48 hours Decision: 1.) Legal standing a.) Members of Congress. Have legal standing since the declaration entails the usurpation of the powers of Congress b.) Sanlakas. No legal standing since it is a juridical person (Lacson vs Perez) c.) Taxpayer. No legal standing since the issue does not involve the illegal disbursement of public funds 2.) Justiciable a.) might be done in the future b.) the issue is capable of repetition yet evading review c.) usurpation of the power of Congress 3.) State of Rebellion a.) not unconstitutional (declaration of a state of rebellion is an utter superfluity) - only gives notice to the nation that such a state truly exists and armed forces could be called in order to suppress it b.) comes from the calling out powers of the Pres. (Chief Executive and Commander-in-chief) “when it is deemed necessary” (IBP vs Zamora) c.) Art. VII, Sec. 18 of the Phil. Constitution 4.) State of rebellion cannot diminish or violate constitutionally protected rights (however as cited in Lacson vs Perez) “a person may be subjected to a warrantless arrest for the crime of rebellion, whether we are in a state of emergency or not, so long as the requisites for a valid warrantless arrest are present Dissenting: 1.) Ynares-Santiago - state of rebellion does not have any legal meaning and it is not even found in the Constitution

Upload: ansis-villalon-pornillos

Post on 01-Nov-2014

121 views

Category:

Documents


7 download

DESCRIPTION

Consti 1 digests

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Sanlakas vs Executive Secretary

Sanlakas vs Executive Secretary

Facts: Oakwood mutiny Pres. Proc No. 427 and Gen, Order 4 to suppress lawless violence and rebellion

Petitioners contend: There exists no factual basis for the declaration of a state of rebellion for an indefinite period of time Proclamation is a circumvention of the report requirement to be submitted to Congress within 48 hours

Decision:1.) Legal standing

a.) Members of Congress. Have legal standing since the declaration entails the usurpation of the powers of Congress

b.) Sanlakas. No legal standing since it is a juridical person (Lacson vs Perez)c.) Taxpayer. No legal standing since the issue does not involve the illegal disbursement of public funds

2.) Justiciablea.) might be done in the futureb.) the issue is capable of repetition yet evading reviewc.) usurpation of the power of Congress

3.) State of Rebelliona.) not unconstitutional

(declaration of a state of rebellion is an utter superfluity)- only gives notice to the nation that such a state truly exists and armed forces could be called in order to

suppress itb.) comes from the calling out powers of the Pres. (Chief Executive and Commander-in-chief) “when it is deemed

necessary” (IBP vs Zamora)c.) Art. VII, Sec. 18 of the Phil. Constitution

4.) State of rebellion cannot diminish or violate constitutionally protected rights(however as cited in Lacson vs Perez)“a person may be subjected to a warrantless arrest for the crime of rebellion, whether we are in a state of emergency or not, so long as the requisites for a valid warrantless arrest are present

Dissenting:1.) Ynares-Santiago

- state of rebellion does not have any legal meaning and it is not even found in the Constitution- in the exercise of Chief Executive and Commander-in-chief powers, it does not require the declaration of a state of rebellion

2.) Sandoval-Gutierrez- state of rebellion can not be found in the Constitution- adopting an orthodox measure is dangerous concerning some constitutional guarantees might be violated:

a. the public safety requires itb. it does not exceed 60 daysc. within 48 hours a report would be submitted to Congressd. the Congress, by a vote of at least majority of all its members, may revoke such proclamation or suspension