The Earliest Opportunity, Constitutional Issue Is "Lis Mota" To The Case

REQUISITES FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW: Actual case/ controversy, Locus standi, Raised at
the earliest opportunity, Constitutional issue is “lis mota” to the case
DAVID vs. ARROYO G.R. No. 171396, May 3, 2006
FACTS:
These seven (7) consolidated petitions for certiorari and prohibition allege that in issuing
Presidential Proclamation No. 1017 (PP 1017) and General Order No. 5 (G.O. No. 5), President
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo committed grave abuse of discretion. Petitioners contend that
respondent officials of the Government, in their professed efforts to defend and preserve
democratic institutions, are actually trampling upon the very freedom guaranteed and protected
by the Constitution. Hence, such issuances are void for being unconstitutional.
On February 24, 2006, as the nation celebrated the 20th Anniversary of the EDSA
People Power I, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, in a move to suppress alleged plans to
overthrow the government, issued Presidential Proclamation No. 1017 (PP 1017), declaring a
state of national emergency.
She issued General Order No. 5 (G.O. No. 5) setting the standards which the Armed
Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the Philippine National Police (PNP) should follow in the
suppression and prevention of acts of lawless violence.
Professor Randolf David, Akbayan party-list president Ronald Llamas, and members of
the KMU and NAFLU-KMU were arrested without a warrant.
In the early morning of February 25, 2006, operatives of the Criminal Investigation and
Detection Group (CIDG) raided the Daily Tribune offices in Manila and confiscated news stories,
documents, pictures, and mock-ups of the Saturday issue.
On March 3, 2006, exactly one week from the declaration of a state of national
emergency and after all the present petitions had been filed, President Arroyo issued
Presidential Proclamation No. 1021 (PP 1021), declaring that the state of national emergency
has ceased to exist and lifting PP1017.
Arguments and Counter Arguments
Randolf David, et. al. Arroyo, et. al.
G.R. No. 171396 Consolidated comment:
Petitioner Randolf S. David, Lorenzo Tanada, et. al. 1.) The petition should be dismissed for being
 The government had engaged in a moot and academic
warrantless arrest, search and seizure 2.) Petitioners have no legal stand
(unconstitutional) 3.) It is not necessary for petitioners to implead
 Locus standi: direct and personally affected President Arroyo as respondent
party (deprived of a right) 4.) PP1017 has Constitutional and legal basis
5.) PP1017 does not violate people’s
G.R. No. 171485 constitutional right to free expression and
Petitioners herein are Representative Francis Joesph G. redress of grievances
Escudero, and twenty one (21) other members of the 6.) President has legislative authority as
House of Representatives. emergency powers
 They asserted that P.P. 1017 and G.O. No. 5
constitute “usurpation of legislative powers” Section 17 Article VII
 Locus standi: as taxpayers and citizens -The President shall have control of all the executive
departments, bureaus, and offices. He shall ensure
G.R. No. 171400 that the laws be faithfully executed.
Petitioner: Alternative Law Groups Inc. (ALGI)
Section 7. Article XII

- In times of national emergency, the Congress may,
by law, authorize the President, for a limited period
and subject to restriction as it may prescribe, to
exercise powers necessary and proper to carry out a
declared national policy. Unless sooner withdrawn by
Resolution of Congress, such powers shall cease upon
next adjournment thereof.
ISSUES:
1.) Whether or not PP1017 and G.O. No. 5 are constitutional.
2.) Whether or not the petitioners have met the requirements for judicial review.
HELD:
1.) Yes. They are both Constitutional but only partially so.
The Court rules 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. 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 without prior legislation.
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.
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
2.) Yes.
The petitioners have locus standi. There is an actual case or controversy. The case is not
moot despite the claims of the respondents. There is a constitutional violation of rights: (i)
deprivation of liberty from warrantless arrest; and (ii) deprivation of right to privacy and property
from warrantless search and seizure.
However, other than this declaration of invalidity, this Court cannot impose any civil criminal
or administrative sanctions on the individual police officers concerned. They have not been
individually identified.
RATIONALE:
Judicial Review
Courts may exercise power of judiciary review only when the following requisites are
present: first, there must be an actual case or controversy; second, petitioners have to raise a
question of constitutionality; third, the constitutional question must be raised at the earliest
opportunity; and fourth, the decision of the constitutional question must be necessary to the
determination of the case itself.
Following the cardinal precept that the acts of the executive are presumed constitutional
is the equally important doctrine that to warrant unconstitutionality, there must be a clear and
unequivocal breach of the Constitution, not a doubtful and argumentative implication. Also well-
settled as a rule of construction is that where there are two possible constructions of law or
executive issuance one of which is in harmony with the Constitution, that construction should be
preferred. The concerns raised by the majority relating to PP 1017 and General Order Nos. 5
can be easily disquieted by applying this well-settled principle. (See R. Agpalo, id., at 266)

The Earliest Opportunity, Constitutional Issue Is "Lis Mota" To The Case

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Earliest Opportunity, Constitutional Issue Is "Lis Mota" To The Case

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

The Earliest Opportunity, Constitutional Issue Is "Lis Mota" To The Case

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REQUISITES FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW: Actual case/ controversy, Locus standi, Raised at

the earliest opportunity, Constitutional issue is “lis mota” to the case

DAVID vs. ARROYO G.R. No. 171396, May 3, 2006

Section 7. Article XII

The Court rules that PP 1017 is CONSTITUTIONAL insofar as it constitutes a call by

You might also like