One dissenting opinion stated that the “state of rebellion” can be used to “skirt
the constitutional safeguards” of civil liberties and thus “partakes the nature of
martial law without declaring it as such.” It was effectively a “subterfuge” to avoid
procedural safeguards:
It is a truism that a law or rule may itself be fair or innocuous on its
face, yet, if it is applied and administered by public authority with an
evil eye so as to practically make it unjust and oppressive, it is within
the prohibition of the Constitution. In an ironic sense, a “state of
rebellion” declared as a subterfuge to effect warrantless arrest and
detention for an unbailable offense places a heavier burden on the
people’s civil liberties than the suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus and the declaration of martial law because in the latter
case, built-in safeguards are automatically set in motion.^15
Another dissent noted President Arroyo’s “deviation from the concise and plain”
language of the Constitution and her failure to follow the proper procedure.
To accept the theory that the President could disregard the applicable
statutes...on the mere declaration of a “state of rebellion” isin effect
to place the Philippines under martial law without a declaration of the
executive to that effectand without observing the proper procedure.
16Significantly, the dissenting justice derided the president’s pre-emption of judicial
review by mooting the case.
The second time, President Arroyo still called it a state of rebellion but the court
applied the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception to standing
doctrine. The court held that the declaration was “utter superfluity” which was
“devoid of any legal significance” and is “deemed not written.” The dissenting
opinion called it a “constitutional shortcut,” noting that nowhere does the Consti-
tution grant “the executive the power to declare a ‘state of rebellion’, much more to
exercise on the basis of such declaration the prerogatives which a president may
validly do under a state of martial law.” When the president resorts to an “unortho-
dox measure...unbounded and not canalized by the language of the Consti-
tution” and “not subject to clear legal restraints,”
The purpose of the Constitution is not only to grant power, but to keep it
from getting out of hand...[A]dopting an unorthodox measure
unbounded and not canalized by the language of the Constitution is
dangerous. It leaves the people at her mercy and that of the military.^17
The third state of emergency was declared during the coup attempt of February 2006 ,
the culmination of popular protests after President Arroyo was caught in the Garci
(^15) Lacsonv.Perez, G.R. No 147780 (May 10 , 2001 ) (Kapunan J dissenting).
(^16) Ibid.(Sandoval-Gutierrez J dissenting), emphasis added.
(^17) Sanlakasv.Reyes, G.R. No 159085 (February 3 , 2004 ) (Sandoval-Gutierrez J dissenting).