David v.

Arroyo
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. On the same day, the President issued G.O. No. 5 implementing PP
1017. On March 3, 2006, exactly one week after the declaration of a state of
national emergency and after all these petitions had been led, the President lifted
PP 1017.
Petitioners cited the events that followed after the issuance of PP 1017 and G.O.
No. 5
In their presentation of the factual bases of PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5, respondents
stated that the proximate cause behind the executive issuances was the
conspiracy among some military officers, leftist insurgents of the New People's
Army (NPA), and some members of the political opposition in a plot to unseat or
assassinate President Arroyo. 44 They considered the aim to oust or assassinate
the President and take-over the reigns of government as a clear and present
danger. The Solicitor General argued that the intent of the Constitution is to give
full discretionary powers to the President in determining the necessity of calling
out the armed forces. He emphasized that none of the petitioners has shown that
PP 1017 was without factual bases.
Petitioners maintain that PP 1017 has no factual basis. Hence, it was not
"necessary" for President Arroyo to issue such Proclamation
In respondents' Consolidated Comment, the Solicitor General countered that,
among others, the petitions should be dismissed as PP 1017 has constitutional
and legal basis
Issue:
Whether or not the Supreme Court can review the factual bases of PP 1017
Held:
As to how the Court may inquire into the President's exercise of power, Lansang
adopted the test that "judicial inquiry can go no further than to satisfy the Court
not that the President's decision is correct ," but that "the President did not act
arbitrarily ." Thus, the standard laid down is not correctness, but arbitrariness. In
Integrated Bar of the Philippines, this Court further ruled that "it is incumbent
upon the petitioner to show that the President's decision is totally bereft of
factual basis and that if he fails, by way of proof, to support his assertion, then
"this Court cannot undertake tan his Court cannot undertake an independent
investigation beyond the pleadings.
Petitioners failed to show that President Arroyo's exercise of the calling-out
power, by issuing PP 1017, is totally bereft of factual basis. A reading of the
Solicitor General's Consolidated Comment and Memorandum shows a detailed
narration of the events leading to the issuance of PP 1017, with supporting
reports forming part of the records. Thus, absent any contrary allegations, the
Court is convinced that the President was justified in issuing PP 1017 calling for
military aid.