Facts: 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. Publicly, they complained of the corruption in the AFP and declared their withdrawal of su pport for the government, demanding the resignation of the President, Secretary of Defense and the PNP Chief. These acts constitute a violation of Article 134 o f the Revised Penal Code, and by virtue of Proclamation No. 427 and General Orde r No. 4, the Philippines was declared under the State of Rebellion. Negotiations took place and the officers went back to their barracks in the evening of the s ame day. On August 1, 2003, both the Proclamation and General Orders were lifted , and Proclamation No. 435, declaring the Cessation of the State of Rebellion wa s issued. In the interim, however, the following petitions were filed: (1) SANLAKAS AND PA RTIDO 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 procl amation. (2)SJS Officers/Members v. Hon. Executive Secretary, et al, petitioners contending that the proclamation is a circumvention of the report requirement u nder the same Section 18, Article VII, commanding the President to submit a repo rt to Congress within 48 hours from the proclamation of martial law. Finally, th ey 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. (3) Rep. Suplico et al. v. President Macapagal-Arroyo and Executive Secretary R omulo, petitioners contending that there was usurpation of the power of Congress granted by Section 23 (2), Article VI of the Constitution. (4) Pimentel v. Romu lo, 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. Issue: Whether or Not Proclamation No. 427 and General Order No. 4 are constitutional? Whether or Not the petitioners have a legal standing or locus standi to bring su it? Held: The Court rendered that the both the Proclamation No. 427 and General Orde r No. 4 are constitutional. Section 18, Article VII does not expressly prohibit declaring state or rebellion. The President in addition to its Commander-in-Chie f Powers is conferred by the Constitution executive powers. It is not disputed t hat the President has full discretionary power to call out the armed forces and to determine the necessity for the exercise of such power. While the Court may e xamine whether the power was exercised within constitutional limits or in a mann er constituting grave abuse of discretion, none of the petitioners here have, by way of proof, supported their assertion that the President acted without factua l basis. The issue of the circumvention of the report is of no merit as there wa s no indication that military tribunals have replaced civil courts or that milit ary authorities have taken over the functions of Civil Courts. The issue of usur pation of the legislative power of the Congress is of no moment since the Presid ent, in declaring a state of rebellion and in calling out the armed forces, was merely exercising a wedding of her Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief powers . These are purely executive powers, vested on the President by Sections 1 and 1 8, Article VII, as opposed to the delegated legislative powers contemplated by S ection 23 (2), Article VI. The fear on warrantless arrest is unreasonable, since any person may be subject to this whether there is rebellion or not as this is a crime punishable under the Revised Penal Code, and as long as a valid warrantl ess arrest is present. Legal standing or locus standi has been defined as a personal and substantial in

terest in the case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct inju ry as a result of the governmental act that is being challenged. The gist of the question of standing is whether a party alleges "such personal stake in the out come of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens th e presentation of Issue upon which the court depends for illumination of difficu lt constitutional questions. Based on the foregoing, petitioners Sanlakas and PM , and SJS Officers/Members have no legal standing to sue. Only petitioners Rep. Suplico et al. and Sen. Pimentel, as Members of Congress, have standing to chall enge the subject issuances. It sustained its decision in Philippine Constitution Association v. Enriquez, that the extent the powers of Congress are impaired, s o is the power of each member thereof, since his office confers a right to parti cipate in the exercise of the powers of that institution.