David Vs Gma Immunitability Vs Impeachability

G.R. No.
171396 May 3, 2006
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
These seven (7) consolidated petitions for certiorari and prohibition allege that in issuing Presidential Proclamation No. 1017 (PP 1017)
and 5 (G.O. No. 5), President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo committed grave abuse of discretion. Hence, such issuances are void for being
unconstitutional.
FACTS:
On February 24, 2006, as the nation celebrated the 20th Anniversary of the Edsa People Power I, President Arroyo issued PP 1017
declaring a state of national emergency, as there was a clear and present danger to the safety and the integrity of the Philippine
State and of the Filipino people;
On the same day, the President issued G. O. No. 5 implementing PP 1017, ordering the (AFP) and the (PNP), to prevent and suppress
acts of terrorism and lawless violence in the country;
For their part, petitioners cited the events that followed after the issuance of PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5.
Immediately, the Office of the President announced the cancellation of all programs and activities related to the 20th anniversary
celebration of Edsa People Power I; and revoked the permits to hold rallies issued earlier by the local governments.
Presidential Chief of Staff Michael Defensor announced that " warrantless arrests and take-over of facilities, including media, can already
be implemented."
groups of protesters, marched from various parts of Metro Manila with the intention of converging at the EDSA shrine. hundreds of riot
policemen broke up an EDSA celebration rally.
During the dispersal of the rallyists along EDSA, police arrested (without warrant) petitioner Randolf S. David, a professor at the
University of the Philippines and newspaper columnist. Also arrested was his companion, Ronald Llamas, president of party-
list Akbayan.
operatives of the (CIDG), on the basis of PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5, raided the Daily Tribune offices in Manila, confiscated news stories
by reporters, documents, pictures, and mock-ups of the Saturday issue.
A few minutes after the search and seizure at the Daily Tribune offices, the police surrounded the premises of another pro-opposition
paper, Malaya, and its sister publication, the tabloid Abante.
Also, the police arrested Congressman Crispin Beltran, representing the Anakpawis Party and Chairman of (KMU).
In 2006, President Arroyo issued PP 1021 declaring that the state of national emergency has ceased to exist.
In the interim, these seven (7) petitions challenging the constitutionality of PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5 were filed with this Court against
the above-named respondents. Three (3) of these petitions impleaded President Arroyo as respondent.
on the grounds that:
it is a subterfuge to avoid the constitutional requirements for the imposition of martial law;
PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5 constitute "usurpation of legislative powers"; "violation of freedom of expression" and "a declaration
of martial law." They alleged that President Arroyo "gravely abused her discretion in calling out the armed forces without clear
and verifiable factual basis of the possibility of lawless violence and a showing that there is necessity to do so."
PP 1017 is an "arbitrary and unlawful exercise by the President of her Martial Law powers." And assuming that PP 1017 is not
really a declaration of Martial Law, petitioners argued that "it amounts to an exercise by the President of emergency powers
without congressional approval."
In respondents’ Consolidated Comment, the Solicitor General countered that: the petitions should be dismissed because:
it is not necessary for petitioners to implead President Arroyo as respondent;

PP 1017 has constitutional and legal basis.
ISSUE: Whether it is necessary for petitioners to implead President Arroyo as respondent?
HELD: No, it is not proper to implead President Arroyo as respondent. Settled is the doctrine that the President, during his tenure of
office or actual incumbency, may not be sued in any civil or criminal case, and there is no need to provide for it in the Constitution or
law. It will degrade the dignity of the high office of the President, the Head of State, if he can be dragged into court litigations while
serving as such. Furthermore, it is important that he be freed from any form of harassment, hindrance or distraction to enable him to
fully attend to the performance of his official duties and functions. Unlike the legislative and judicial branch, only one constitutes the
executive branch and anything which impairs his usefulness in the discharge of the many great and important duties imposed upon him
by the Constitution necessarily impairs the operation of the Government. However, this does not mean that the President is not
accountable to anyone. Like any other official, he remains accountable to the people but he may be removed from office only in the
mode provided by law and that is by impeachment.
In effect, GR: President, during his tenure of office or actual incumbency, may not be sued in any civil or criminal case. EX: but he may
be removed from office only by means of impeachment.

David Vs Gma Immunitability Vs Impeachability

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

David Vs Gma Immunitability Vs Impeachability

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 Vs Gma Immunitability Vs Impeachability

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

171396 May 3, 2006

on the grounds that:

it is not necessary for petitioners to implead President Arroyo as respondent;

ISSUE: Whether it is necessary for petitioners to implead President Arroyo as respondent?

You might also like

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