View full case

PROF. RANDOLF S. DAVID v. GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO

FACTS:

On February 24, 2006, amidst the 20th Anniversary celebrations of Edsa People Power I, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued Presidential Proclamation No. 1017 (PP 1017), declaring a state of national emergency. Citing her authority under Section 18, Article 7 of the Philippine Constitution, which permits the President to call out the armed forces to prevent or suppress rebellion, she commanded the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) to maintain law and order across the country. President Arroyo further justified the proclamation by highlighting conspiracies involving political opposition, military adventurists, and leftist insurgents aimed at destabilizing and overthrowing her government. Concurrently, General Order No. 5 (G.O. No. 5) was issued to implement PP 1017, directing the AFP and the Philippine National Police (PNP) to prevent and suppress acts of lawless violence and terrorism. Following these announcements, police actions against protesters and media outlets ensued, including the arrest of individuals like Professor Randolf S. David and the raid on the offices of the "Daily Tribune." One week later, on March 3, 2006, President Arroyo lifted the state of emergency by issuing Proclamation No. 1021, citing the effective suppression of lawless violence and rebellion by the AFP and PNP. However, various petitions were subsequently filed challenging the constitutionality of PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5, arguing that these executive actions violated constitutional rights and principles. The Supreme Court then turned to examine the factual bases of President Arroyo's proclamations and their subsequent implementation.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether Presidential Proclamation No. 1017 (PP 1017) and General Order No. 5 (G.O. No. 5) are constitutional.

  2. Whether the issuance of Proclamation No. 1021, which lifted PP 1017, renders the petitions moot and academic.

  3. Whether the President has the authority to declare a "state of national emergency" without Congress and whether such declaration allows the President to take over privately-owned public utility or business affected with public interest without prior legislation.

  4. Whether petitioners' rights were violated through warrantless arrests, dispersal of rallies, and media censorship under PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5.

RULING:

  1. Constitutionality of PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5

    • PP 1017 is constitutional insofar as it constitutes a call for the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) to prevent or suppress lawless violence.

    • Provisions in PP 1017 commanding the AFP to enforce laws not related to lawless violence, and issuing decrees, are unconstitutional.

    • G.O. No. 5 is constitutional, providing it mandates only necessary and appropriate actions to suppress lawless violence. However, any reference to "acts of terrorism" is unconstitutional as it has not been legally defined.

  2. Mootness of the Petitions

    • The issuance of Proclamation No. 1021 did not moot the cases as issues of constitutional violations under PP 1017 occur during its operative period and there is a possibility of reissuance of a similar proclamation.

  3. Authority to Declare "State of National Emergency"

    • The President has constitutional authority to declare a "state of national emergency" independent of Congress.

    • The exercise of emergency powers, such as taking over privately-owned public utility or business, requires legislative delegation.

  4. Violation of Petitioners' Rights

  • Warrantless arrests of Randolf S. David and Ronald Llamas, the dispersal of rallies, and media censorship were unconstitutional acts not authorized under PP 1017 or G.O. No. 5.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Calling-Out Power The President's calling-out power (Section 18, Article VII) allows summoning of armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion, or rebellion. However, the exercise of this power must not violate constitutional guarantees.

  • Emergency Powers and Constitutional Limits During emergencies, the President cannot assume legislative powers or take over businesses affected with public interest without Congress's authorization (Section 17, Article XII).

  • Facial Challenge and Overbreadth Doctrine The overbreadth doctrine applies primarily to free speech statutes and is not a valid framework to challenge PP 1017, which is aimed at preventing lawlessness.

  • Due Process and Military Authority Even during declared national emergencies, actions taken must comply with constitutional protections such as those against unreasonable search and seizure and unwarranted arrests.

  • Freedom of Assembly and Media Cancellation of rally permits and media censorship without due process or clear legislative authority are unconstitutional. The right to peaceful assembly and freedom of the press are protected rights under the Constitution.

This partial digest highlights the core issues and rulings of the case, along with fundamental legal principles addressed by the court.