David v. Arroyo

On February 24, 2006, citing a conspiracy among military adventurists, the NPA and parts of the political opposition to bring down the government, President Arroyo issued Proclamation No. 1017 (PP 1017). It called out the AFP under Section 18, Article VII to suppress lawless violence and rebellion and "to enforce obedience to all the laws and to all decrees, orders and regulations promulgated by me". It also declared a state of national emergency under Section 17, Article XII. General Order No. 5 (G.O. No. 5) directed the AFP and PNP to suppress "acts of terrorism and lawless violence." Rally permits were revoked and the KMU marches were violently dispersed. Professor Randolf David and Ronald Llamas were arrested without warrant. Police raided the Daily Tribune offices without a warrant, and officials warned that media outlets could be taken over. On March 3, 2006, PP 1021 lifted the emergency. Seven petitions for certiorari and prohibition challenged PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5. The OSG argued that the petitions were moot and that several petitioners lacked standing.

1. 1Whether the lifting of PP 1017 made the petitions moot, and whether the petitioners had standing
2. 2Whether the Court may review the factual bases of PP 1017
3. 3Whether PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5 are constitutional

The petitions were partly granted. The case was not moot: illegal acts were allegedly done under PP 1017 while it was in force, and the issues were capable of repetition. On standing, the Court summarized the rules for taxpayers, voters, concerned citizens and legislators, then applied transcendental importance to hold that all petitioners had locus standi. It added that the sitting President may not be impleaded. Following Lansang and IBP v. Zamora, the standard of review is arbitrariness, not correctness. Petitioners did not show that PP 1017 was totally bereft of factual basis. A facial challenge for overbreadth or vagueness failed because PP 1017 regulates conduct, not speech. PP 1017 is not martial law but an exercise of the calling-out power under Section 18, Article VII. However, "neither Martial Law nor a state of rebellion nor a state of emergency can justify President Arroyo's exercise of legislative power by issuing decrees" (Section 1, Article VI). The AFP may be called out only to enforce laws related to lawless violence. The President may declare a state of national emergency without a law from Congress. But taking over businesses under Section 17, Article XII is an emergency power that, read with Section 23(2), Article VI, requires delegation by Congress. G.O. No. 5 was valid except for the phrase "acts of terrorism", which no law then defined. The warrantless arrests, the dispersals, the prior restraint on media and the Tribune search were unconstitutional. No sanctions were imposed on individual officers, who had not had their day in court. Disposition: PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5 were upheld in part and struck down in part, as stated.