David Cal Digest

DAVID VS.
ARROYO
FACTS:
 7 Consolidated petitions for certiorari and prohibition

Pres. gma issued Proclamation nO. 1017 AND General Order nO. 5
and alleged that she committed grave abuse of discretion (trampled freedom guaranteed by the
COnsti)
 Proclamation 1017 date February 24, 2006 has been issued declaring a State of National
Emergency;
 On March 3, 2006, exactly one week after the declaration of a state of national emergency and
after all these petitions had been filed, the President lifted PP 1017. She issued Proclamation
No. 1021
 During the oral arguments held on March 7, 2006, the Solicitor General specified the facts
leading to the issuance of PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5.
Background:
 Jan. 17, 2006 Capt.m Rabonza and 1st. Lt. Sarmiento, San Juan and Bumidang escaped their
detention cell in Fort BOnifacio
"Magdalo + NPA" sanib pwersa daw...
made public statementssa mgatao to oust Arroyo admin
plot: assassinate selectedcabinetmembersni gma and GMA
 Feb 23 2006 PNP-Saf were planning to defect or leave as interecpted by PNP Chief LOmibao
-Businessmen and mid-level govt officialsplottedmoves to bring down GMA admin and Querubin
and Lim confided to Gen. Senga (AFP chief of staff) to join but Gen. Senga remained faithful to
GMA and the chain of command and took custody of the two.
Effects of PP1017 AND GO. NO. 5:
1. cancelled programs, activities re: EDSA
2. Cancelled Rally Permits issued by LGU
3. Michael Defensor announced "Warrantless arrest and take-over of facilities including Media
can already be implemented"
 Despite such announcement, people rallied but were later dispersed by clusters of anti-riot
police
 Warrantless arrest against DAVID UP Professor and Newspaper columnist
 Feb. 25 2006 midnight, CIDG raided Daily Tribune officesinManila, confiscated storiesabout the
issue, since MICHAELDefensor said, "To tell Media Outlets not TO CONNIVEor do anythingthat
would help the rebels in bringing downthis govt" so take-overwill be done in case of violation
ISSUES:
A. PROCEDURAL:
1) Whether the issuance of PP 1021 renders the petitions moot and academic.
2) Whether petitioners in 171485 (Escudero et al.), G.R. Nos. 171400 (ALGI), 171483 (KMU et
al.), 171489(Cadiz et al.), and 171424 (Legarda) have legal standing.
B. SUBSTANTIVE:
1) Whetherthe Supreme Court can review the factual bases of PP 1017.
2) Whether PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5 are unconstitutional.
a. Facial Challenge
b. Constitutional Basis
c. As Applied Challenge
RULING:
SUMMATION
 In sum, the lifting of PP 1017 through the issuance of PP 1021 – a supervening event –
would have normally rendered this case moot and academic. However, while PP 1017 was
still operative, illegal acts were committed allegedly in pursuance thereof. Besides, there is
no guarantee that PP 1017, or one similar to it, may not again be issued. Already, there have
been media reports on April 30, 2006 that allegedly PP 1017 would be reimposed "if the
May 1 rallies" become "unruly and violent." Consequently, the transcendental issues raised
by the parties should not be "evaded;" they must now be resolved to prevent future
constitutional aberration.
 The Court finds and so holds that PP 1017 is constitutional insofar as it constitutes a call by
the President for the AFP to prevent or suppress lawless violence. The proclamation is
sustained by Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution and the relevant jurisprudence
discussed earlier. However, PP 1017’s extraneous provisions giving the President express or
implied power (1) to issue decrees; (2) to direct the AFP to enforce obedience to all laws
even those not related to lawless violence as well as decrees promulgated by the President;
and (3) to impose standards on media or any form of prior restraint on the press, are ultra
vires and unconstitutional. The Court also rules that under Section 17, Article XII of the
Constitution, the President, in the absence of a legislation, cannot take over privately-
owned public utility and private business affected with public interest.
 In the same vein, the Court finds G.O. No. 5 valid. It is an Order issued by the President –
acting as Commander-in-Chief – addressed to subalterns in the AFP to carry out the
provisions of PP 1017. Significantly, it also provides a valid standard – that the military and
the police should take only the "necessary and appropriate actions and measures to
suppress and prevent acts of lawless violence."But the words "acts of terrorism" found in
G.O. No. 5 have not been legally defined and made punishable by Congress and should thus
be deemed deleted from the said G.O. While "terrorism" has been denounced generally in
media, no law has been enacted to guide the military, and eventually the courts, to
determine the limits of the AFP’s authority in carrying out this portion of G.O. No. 5.
On the basis of the relevant and uncontested facts narrated earlier, it is also pristine clear
that (1) the warrantless arrest of petitioners Randolf S. David and Ronald Llamas; (2) the
dispersal of the rallies and warrantless arrest of the KMU and NAFLU-KMU members; (3) the
imposition of standards on media or any prior restraint on the press; and (4) the warrantless
search of the Tribune offices and the whimsical seizures of some articles for publication and
other materials, are not authorized by the Constitution, the law and jurisprudence. Not even
by the valid provisions of PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5.
 Other than this declaration of invalidity, this Court cannot impose any civil, criminal or
administrative sanctions on the individual police officers concerned. They have not been
individually identified and given their day in court. The civil complaints or causes of action
and/or relevant criminal Informations have not been presented before this Court.
Elementary due process bars this Court from making any specific pronouncement of civil,
criminal or administrative liabilities.
 It is well to remember that military power is a means to an end and substantive civil rights
are ends in themselves. How to give the military the power it needs to protect the Republic
without unnecessarily trampling individual rights is one of the eternal balancing tasks of a
democratic state.During emergency, governmental action may vary in breadth and intensity
from normal times, yet they should not be arbitrary as to unduly restrain our people’s
liberty.
 Perhaps, the vital lesson that we must learn from the theorists who studied the various
competing political philosophies is that, it is possible to grant government the
authoritarianism, if the Supreme Court then had the moral courage to remind him
steadfastly of his mortality and the inevitable historical damnation of despots and tyrants.
Let not this Court fall into that same rut

David Cal Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

David Cal Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

David Cal Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DAVID VS.

 7 Consolidated petitions for certiorari and prohibition

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.