You are on page 1of 3

Professor Randolf S. David, et. al. vs. Macapagal-Arroyo, et. al.

G.R. No. 171396 03 May 2006 Ponente: Sandoval-Gutierrez, J.



OVERVIEW:
This is a case of seven consolidated petitions for certiorari and prohibition alleging that in
issuing Presidential Proclamation No. 1017 and General Order No. 5, President Arroyo
committed grave abuse of discretion.

FACTS:
On February 24, 2006, President Arroyo issued PP1017 declaring a State of National
Emergency invoking Section 18, Article 7 of the 1987 Constitution. On the same day,
she also issued GO no. 5 AFP and PNP to immediately carry out appropriate actions to
suppress and prevent the lawless violence by invoking Section 4, Article 2 of the same.
She did so citing the following bases:
The elements of the elements of the Extreme Left (NDF-CPP-NPA) and Extreme Right
are now in alliance threatening to bring down the President;
Being magnified by the media, said acts are adversely affecting the economy thus
representing clear and present danger to the safety and integrity of the State
A week later, the President lifted PP1017 via PP1021. It must be noted that before the
said proclamations, the following course of events ensued:
February 17, 2006 : authorities got hold of a document entitled Oplan Hackle I detailing
the plans for bombing more particularly that which was to occur in the PMA
Homecoming in Baguio City which the President was to attend.
February 21, 2006 : Lt. San Juan recaptured a communist safehouse where 2 flash
disks containing information that Magdalos D-Day would be on February 24, 2006, the
20th Anniversary of Edsa I.
February 23, 2006 : PNP Chief Lomibao intercepted information that members of the
PNP-SAF were planning to defect. Also, it was discovered that B/Gen. Danilo Lim and
Col. Ariel Querubin were plotting to break the AFP chain of command for a movement
against the Arroyo administration. The two were later taken into custody by Gen. Senga.
However, statements were being released from the CPP-NPA and NDF on the
increasing number of anti-Arroyo groups within the police and military.
The bombing of telecommunication towers and cell sites in Bulacan and Bataan.
The effects of PP1017 and GO No. 5 are as follows:
Protest by the KMU, NAFLU-KMU despite the cancellation of programs and activities for
the 20th celebration of Edsa I as well as revocation of rally permits resulting in the
violent disposal of the said groups and warrantless arrest of petitioner Randolf David and
Ronald Llamas.
Raid of the Daily Tribune, Malaya and Abante offices and confiscation of news stories
and various documents
Arrest of Congressman Crispin Beltran (Anakpawis Party) by the police showing a 1985
warrant from the Marcos regime and attempts on the arrest of Satur Ocampo, Rafael
Mariano, et. al.
The petitioners assail that various rights stated in Article III of the 1987 Constitution have
been violated, thus the case at hand.

ISSUES:
Whether PP 1021 in lifting PP 1017 renders the petitions moot and academic;
Whether the Court may review the factual bases of PP1017 on the petitioners
contention that the said proclamation has none of it;
Whether PP 1017 and GO no. 5 are unconstitutional for their insofar as it allegedly
violates the right of the people against unreasonable search and seizures, the right
against warrantless arrest, the freedom of speech, of expression, of the press, and to
peaceably assemble.

HELD:
The court held that President Arroyos issuance of PP 1021 did not render the present
petitions moot and academic. During the eight days that PP 1017 was operative, the
police officers committed illegal acts implementing it. There is no question that the
issues being raised affect the publics interest involving as they do the peoples basic
rights to freedom of expression, of assembly and of the press. An otherwise moot case
may still be decided provided that the party raising it continues to be prejudiced or
damaged as a direct result of its issuance (Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary) which is
applicable in the present case.
Yes, the Court may do so. As to how the Court may inquire into the Presidents exercise
of power, it must be proven that the President did not act arbitrarily. It is incumbent upon
the petitioner to show that the Presidents decision is totally bereft of factual basis as the
Court cannot undertake an independent investigation beyond the pleadings. This,
however, was something that the petitioners failed to prove.
Since there is no law defining acts of terrorism, it is President Arroyo alone, under G.O.
No. 5 who has the discretion to determine what acts constitute terrorism, without
restrictions. Certainly, the effects which may be implicated by such violate the due
process clause of the Constitution. Thus, the acts of terrorism portion of G.O. No. 5 is
unconstitutional. The plain import of the language of the Constitution provides that
searches, seizures and arrests are normally unreasonable without a search warrant or
warrant of arrest. A warrantless arrest shall only be done if the offense is committed in
ones presence or it has just been committed based on personal knowledge both of
which are not present in Davids warrantless arrest. This being done during the
dispersal and arrest of the members of KMU, et. al. is also violative of the right of the
people to peaceably assemble. The wholesale cancellation of all permits to rally is a
blatant disregard of the principle that freedom of assembly is not to be limited, much
less denied, except on a showing of a clear and present danger of a substantive evil that
the State has a right to prevent. Revocation of such permits may only be done after
due notice and hearing. In the Daily Tribune case, the search and seizure of materials
for publication, the stationing of policemen in the vicinity of The Daily Tribune offices,
and the arrogant warning of government officials to media are plain censorship. It is that
officious functionary of the repressive government who tells the citizen that he may
speak only if allowed to do so, and no more. When in implementing its provisions,
pursuant to G.O. No. 5, the military and the police committed acts which violate the
citizens rights under the Constitution, the Court has to declare such acts
unconstitutional and illegal.

You might also like