Case Digest (G.R. No. 171396)
Facts:
Prof. Randolf S. David et al. v. Gloria Macapagal‑Arroyo et al., G.R. Nos. 171396, 171409, 171485, 171483, 171400, 171489, 171424, May 03, 2006, Supreme Court En Banc, Sandoval‑Gutierrez, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners (professors, legislators, labor groups, media owners and other civil‑society actors) challenged Presidential Proclamation No. 1017 (PP 1017) and General Order No. 5 (G.O. No. 5) issued by President Gloria Macapagal‑Arroyo on February 24, 2006, alleging grave abuse of discretion and unconstitutional curtailment of fundamental rights. Respondents were the President (some petitions), the Executive Secretary, the Secretaries of National Defense and the Interior, the AFP Chief of Staff and the PNP Chief.On February 24, 2006 President Arroyo issued PP 1017 declaring a state of national emergency and directing the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) to “maintain law and order…prevent or suppress all forms of lawless violence…as well as any act of insurrection or rebellion,” citing alleged plots, defections, bombings and other security threats; the President issued G.O. No. 5 the same day implementing PP 1017 and directing the AFP and PNP “to prevent and suppress acts of terrorism and lawless violence.” Petitioners alleged that these issuances were a subterfuge for martial law, encroached on legislative powers, and violated freedoms of speech, press and assembly; some petitioners also alleged illegal, warrantless arrests and searches carried out pursuant to PP 1017/G.O. No. 5 (notably arrests of Randolf David and Ronald Llamas, dispersal of labor rallies, and the CIDG raid of the Daily Tribune).
While these petitions were pending, President Arroyo issued Proclamation No. 1021 on March 3, 2006 declaring that the state of national emergency had ceased to exist. The petitions, however, proceeded to the Supreme Court: the seven matters were consolidated as petitions for certiorari and prohibition (and related reliefs). The Solicitor General filed a consolidated comment, raising mootness and standing objections and defending the constitutional basis of PP 1017/G.O. No. 5; oral argument was h...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Are the consolidated petitions moot and academic in view of Proclamation No. 1021?
- Do the petitioners have legal standing (locus standi) to challenge PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5?
- May the Court review the factual bases asserted by the President in issuing PP 1017?
- Are PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5 facially unconstitutional (overbreadth or vagueness)?
- Are PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5 constitutional in their substantive scope — specifically (a) as an exercise of the President’s calling‑out power (Section 18, Article VII), (b) insofar as PP 1017 refers to the President’s enactment/promulgation of “decrees,” and (c) insofar as PP 1017 invokes Section 17, Article XII (taking‑over power)?
- Were the specific acts taken under PP 1017/G.O. No. 5 (warrantless arrests, warrantless searches/seizur...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)