GR No.

171396
May 3, 2006
PROF. RANDOLF S. DAVID, et. al
vs.
GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO et. al.
Before the court is a petition for prohibition on Proclamation No. 1017 (PP 1017) and
General Order No.5 (G.O. No. 5), which, in their proclamation, President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo committed grave abuse of discretion.
Facts:
That on February 24, 2006, 20th Anniversary of the Edsa People Power I, President
Arroyo issued PP 1017 declaring a state of emergency in the Philippines. President
Arroyo cited Section 17, Article 12 of the Constitution as the legitimate provision in
declaring PP 1017.
Also on that same day, President Arroyo issued G.O. No. 5 implementing PP 1017.
The general order directs the ordering the members of the AFP and PNP "to
immediately carry out the necessary and appropriate actions and measures to
suppress and prevent acts of terrorism and lawless violence."
David, et al. questioned the constitutionality of the PP 1017 on the grounds that (1)
it encroaches on the emergency powers of Congress; (2) it is a subterfuge to avoid
the constitutional requirements for the imposition of martial law; and (3) it violates
the constitutional guarantees of freedom of the press, of speech and of assembly.
They alleged direct injury resulting from illegal arrest and unlawful search
committed by police operatives pursuant to PP 1017.
Issue:
Whether or not the issuing of G.O. No. 5 and implementation of PP 1017
constitutional.
Ruling:
The court rules that the declaration of national emergency is constitutional, but it
does not authorize the President to take over privately-owned public utility or
business affected with public interest without prior legislation. Furthermore, the
court rules that PP 1017 is Constitutional insofar as it constitutes a call by President
Arroyo to order the AFP to prevent or surpass lawless violence. Also, the provision
allowing the use of whatever necessary and appropriate actions and measures to
suppress and prevent acts of lawless violence is constitutional. However, since
acts of terrorism have not been defined and made punishable by the Legislature,
such portion og G.O. No. 5 is unconstitutional. In addition, the commanding of the
AFP to enforce laws not related to lawless violence, which is one of the provisions of
PP 1017, is deemed unconstitutional. Lastly, the warrantless arrest of Randolf S.
David and Ronald Llamas during their rallies is also unconstitutional for there are no
proofs to that these petitioners committed an act constituting lawless violence.