Philippine e-Legal Forum

The hope is to make the Law Central, Philippines a comprehensive collection of legal tools, information and resources for the Philippines. This endeavor is made easier by the fact that helpful resources and sites are already online.

This is also intended to be partly driven by all users. There is a "submit" or "add" link in some menu items, i.e., new entries for law firms, law schools, blawgs and the Philippine Online Law Dictionary. The other items, however, are not yet available for general use. Please use the Contact Us menu should you want to submit other helpful resources, primarily books and journals. Submissions in the directories and resources, as well as comments and suggestions, are most welcome.

This is a spin-off from the Atty-at-Work. See also Philippine Online Law Dictionary.

Definition of terms and phrases used in the legal system of the Philippines. Go here to view the Philippine Online Law Dictionary.

In a previous case arising from the 2003 "Oakwood mutiny", Pres. Arroyo issued Proclamation 427, declaring a "state of rebellion" and calling out the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) to quell it.  Proclamation 427 pertinently reads:

WHEREAS, under Section 18, Article VII of the present Constitution, whenever it becomes necessary, the President, as the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, may call out such Armed Forces to suppress the rebellion;

The basis of said Proclamation is Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution, which pertinently reads:

Sec. 18.  The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion.  In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law.  xxx (Underscoring supplied)

These are the Commander-in-Chief powers of the President, which provides a "sequence" of "graduated powers".  From the most to the least benign, these are: the calling out power, the power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, and the power to declare martial law.  In the exercise of the latter two powers, the Constitution requires the concurrence of two conditions, namely, an actual invasion or rebellion, and that public safety requires the exercise of such power.  However, these conditions are not required in the exercise of the calling out power.  The only criterion is that "whenever it becomes necessary," the President may call the armed forces "to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion."

What’s the significance of the declaration of a "state of rebellion"?  The Supreme Court said:

The foregoing discussion notwithstanding, in calling out the armed forces, a declaration of a state of rebellion is an utter superfluity. At most, it only gives notice to the nation that such a state exists and that the armed forces may be called to prevent or suppress it. Perhaps the declaration may wreak emotional effects upon the perceived enemies of the State, even on the entire nation.  But this Court’s mandate is to probe only into the legal consequences of the declaration.  This Court finds that such a declaration is devoid of any legal significance.  For all legal intents, the declaration is deemed not written.

The right against deprivation of liberty is guaranteed by no less than the Constitution, which states that “[n]o person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law xxx” (Article 3, Section 1) and that “[n]o search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.” (Art. 3, Sec. 2)

This right has been characterized by the Supreme Court as “a most basic and fundamental” right that has been “often violated and so deserving of full protection”. As a rule, no arrest may be made without a warrant of arrest. The exceptions (”warrantless arrests“) under the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure (Rule 113, Sec. 5) are arrests made by a peace officer or a private person:

Sec. 5 (a) is also referred to as arrests in flagrante delicto, wherein two elements must exist: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer. For an extended legal discussion on in flagrante delicto and “hot pursuit” arrests, click here, here or here.

On the other hand, Section 5 (b) refers to arrests made in “hot pursuit”, wherein two requisites must exist: (1) an offense has in fact just been committed; and (2) the arresting officer has probable cause based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances indicating that the person to be arrested committed the offense.