Sanlakas v. Reyes : 159085 : February 3, 2004 : J. Vitug : En Banc : Separate Opinion
SEPARATE OPINION
VITUG, J.:
I am in complete agreement, eloquently expressed in the ponencia, that a declaration of a state of rebellion is an utter superfluity, which, at most, merely gives notice that such a state exists and that the armed forces may be called to prevent or suppress it. I also agree that the declaration of a state of rebellion does not diminish constitutionally protected rights.
I find it necessary to emphasize, however, that while this Court considers the proclamation of the state of rebellion as being essentially devoid of any legal significance, it is not, however, to be understood as countenancing the commission of acts ostensibly in pursuance thereof but which may, in themselves, be violative of fundamental rights. Indeed, the warrantless arrests and searches, to which my colleague Mme. Justice Ynares-Santiago made reference in her dissenting opinion, may not necessarily find justification in the bare proclamation.
I vote for the dismissal of the petitions.
