Lacson Vs.

Perez

357 SCRA 756 G.R. No. 147780

May 10, 2001

Facts: President Macapagal-Arroyo declared a State of Rebellion (Proclamation No. 38) on May 1,
2001 as well as General Order No. 1 ordering the AFP and the PNP to suppress the rebellion in the
NCR. Warrantless arrests of several alleged leaders and promoters of the rebellion were thereafter
effected. Petitioner filed for prohibition, injunction, mandamus and habeas corpus with an application
for the issuance of temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction. Petitioners assail
the declaration of Proc. No. 38 and the warrantless arrests allegedly effected by virtue thereof.
Petitioners furthermore pray that the appropriate court, wherein the information against them were
filed, would desist arraignment and trial until this instant petition is resolved. They also contend that
they are allegedly faced with impending warrantless arrests and unlawful restraint being that hold
departure orders were issued against them.

Issue: Whether or Not Proclamation No. 38 is valid, along with the warrantless arrests and hold
departure orders allegedly effected by the same.

Held: President Macapagal-Arroyo ordered the lifting of Proc. No. 38 on May 6, 2006, accordingly
the instant petition has been rendered moot and academic. Respondents have declared that the
Justice Department and the police authorities intend to obtain regular warrants of 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 the warrantless arrests are not based
on Proc. No. 38. Petitioners prayer for mandamus and prohibition is improper at this time because
an individual warrantlessly arrested has adequate remedies in law: Rule 112 of the Rules of Court,
providing for preliminary investigation, Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, providing for the
period in which a warrantlessly arrested person must be delivered to the proper judicial authorities,
otherwise the officer responsible for such 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 damages under Article 32 of the Civil Code. Petitioners were neither
assailing the validity of the subject hold departure orders, nor were they expressing any intention to
leave the country in the near future. To declare the hold departure orders null and void ab initio must
be made in the proper proceedings initiated for that purpose. Petitioners prayer for relief regarding
their alleged impending warrantless arrests is premature being that no complaints have been filed
against them for any crime, furthermore, the writ of habeas corpus is uncalled for since its purpose is
to relieve unlawful restraint which Petitioners are not subjected to.

Petition is dismissed. Respondents, consistent and congruent with their undertaking earlier adverted
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 acts committed in
relation to or in connection with the May 1, 2001 siege of Malacaang.