David vs.

Arroyo

Facts:

In February 2006, then president Gloria Macapagal- Arroyo (GMA) issued Presidential
Proclamation 1017, to call upon the AFP and PNP prevent and suppress acts of terrorism and
lawless violence. On the same day, she also issued General Order No.5 for implementing the
Presidential Proclamation declaring a State of National emergency. This was due to the discovery
of a plan to assassinate the president (Oplan Hackle I), and the escape of some Magdalo members
from prison.

Pursuant to Presidential Proclamation, GMA cancelled all plans to celebrate EDSA I and at
the same time revoked all permits issued for rallies and other public meetings or assemblies.
Notwithstanding the cancellation of their rally permit, Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU) head Randolf
David proceeded to rally which led to his arrest. Later on the same day, The Daily Tribune (news
agency) and sister company, Malaya, was raided by the CIDG and they seized and confiscated
anti-GMA articles and write-ups.

Exactly one week after the declaration of a State of National emergency and after the
filing of seven (7) petitions challenging the constitutionality of PP 1017, GMA issued Presidential
Proclamation 1021 lifting said PP stating that the AFP and PNP have effectively prevented and
suppressed the acts of lawless violence.

David and some opposition Congressmen averred that PP 1017 is unconstitutional

contending that it has no factual basis, that the emergency contemplated in the Constitution are
those of natural calamities, and that it is actually a declaration of Matial Law. Petitioners also
claim that PP is an “overbreadth” because it encroaches upon protected and unprotected rights
under Sec. 4 Article III of the Constitution. The Sol-Gen argued that the issue has become moot
and academic by reason of the lifting of PP 1017 by virtue of declaration of PP 1021.

Issue:

WON PP 1017 and GO 5 is constitutional

Held:

PP 1017 and its implementing GO 5 are partly constitutional and partly unconstitutional.

The issue cannot be considered as moot and academic by reason of the lifting of PP because there
are parties still affected due to the alleged violation of said PP. Hence, SC can take cognition of
the case at bar.

SC ruled that PP 1017 is in part constitutional and in part unconstitutional in the following ways:
1. That PP 1017 is CONSTITUTIONAL insofar as it constitutes a call by President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo on the AFP to prevent or suppress lawless violence. However, the
provisions of PP 1017 commanding the AFP to enforce laws not related to lawless
violence, as well as decrees promulgated by the President, are
declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

2. In addition, the provision in PP 1017 declaring national emergency under Section

17, Article VII of the Constitution is CONSTITUTIONAL, but such declaration does not
authorize the President to take over privately-owned public utility or business affected
with public interest like the Daily Tribune and Malaya news agencies without prior
legislation.

3. G.O. No. 5 is CONSTITUTIONAL since it provides a standard by which the AFP and the PNP
should implement PP 1017, i.e. whatever is necessary and appropriate actions and
measures to suppress and prevent acts of lawless violence. Considering that acts of
terrorism have not yet been defined and made punishable by the Legislature, such portion
of G.O. No. 5 is declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

4. The warrantless arrest of Randolf S. David and Ronald Llamas; the dispersal and
warrantless arrest of the KMU and NAFLU-KMU members during their rallies, in the
absence of proof that these petitioners were committing acts constituting lawless
violence, invasion or rebellion and violating BP 880; the imposition of standards on media
or any form of prior restraint on the press, as well as the warrantless search of
the Tribune offices and whimsical seizure of its articles for publication and other
materials, are declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL.