DAVID VS MACAPAGAL

The case presented is consolidated by 7 petitions for certiorari and prohibition by the following people
and parties:
- RANDOLF DDAVID ET. AL
- NUNES & TRIBUNE PUBLISHING
- FRANCIS ESCUDERO
- KMU
- ALTERNATIVE LAW GROUPS
- JOSE ANSELMO CADIX
- LOREN LEGARDA
- On February 20, 2006, PGMA promulgated the PP1071 or the State of National Emergency. The
reasons for the said decision are as follows:
1. Whereas the extreme left and right parties, considered as the historical enemies of the State are
having concerted strategies on bringing down the government.
2. Whereas the Article 4 Section 2 of the Phil. Constitution preserves the democratic nature of the
State and its institutions.
3. Whereas the recent activities of the extreme left, represented by the NPA, and the right,
represented by the military adventurists, have been magnified by the national media
4. Whereas the enemies of the state aims to bring down the president.
On the same day, the President issued G.0 no. 5 as an implementation to the PP 1017 with the
aforementioned reasons given as proofs for the issuance.
After 1 week, March 3 2006, PGMA issued PP1021, which ceased the effectivity of PP1071 and GO
no. 5
According to the petitioners, there has been a number of constitutional violations on the issuance
of PP1071 and GO no. 5 and within its duration.
7 petitions challenging the constitutionality of PP1071 and GO 5 were filed in the court against
PGMA and other respondents. 3 of these petitions named PGMA as a respondent.
G.R 171396: RANDOLF DAVID ET. AL
Assails the constitutionality of PP1017 and G0 no. 5 on the grounds that
1. It encroaches (To take another's possessions or rights gradually or stealthily) on the emergency
powers of the Congress
2. Subterfuge to avoid the constitutional requirements for the imposition of Martial Law
3. Violates the constitutional guarantee of Freedom of Speech and Expression
G.R 171409 NINEZ CACHO OLIVARES & TRIBUNE PUB
1. The CIDGs illegal confiscation of the documents and other materials of the Tribune Publishing
constitutes prior restraint
2. The term emergency refers only to tsunami, earthquake or any other natural activity. Thus, it
cannot be applied with the case
G.R. 171485: ESCUDERO, ET. AL (21)
1. PP1071 and GO5 constitutes usurpation (seizing) of legislative powers and violation of the freedom of
expression
2. The said directives is said to constitute Martial Law
3. PGMA gravely abused her discretion in calling out the military and armed forces with clear and
verifiable factual basis of the possibility of lawless violence and a necessity
G.R. 171483: KMU, NAFLU-KMU
1. The PP 1071 arrogate (seize without justification) the powers of PGMA to enact laws and decrees.
2. The directive was without factual basis
3. Violates the constitutional guarantee of Freedom of Expression and to peaceably assembly
G.R 171400 Alternative Law Groups
1. The directive violates the Section 4 of the Article 2
2. Section 1, 2 and 4 of Article 3
3. Section 23 of Article 6
4. Section 17 of Article 12
G.R no. 171489 Cadiz et. al
1. PP 1017 is an arbitrary and unlawful exercise of the President and her Martial Law powers
2. Assuming that PP1017 is not a form of declaration of Martial Law, it amounts to an exercise of the
Presidents emergency powers without conferring to the Congress in its approval.
3. PP1017 goes beyond the nature and function of a proclamation as defined in the Revised
Administrative Code.
G.R. 171424: Legarda
1. PP 1017 and GO no 5 are unconstitutional for being violative of the constitutional guarantee of the
freedom of speech and expression, right to access to information guaranteed under Article 3 Section 4
of the Phil. Constitution
SGs contention:
1. The case is considered as Moot and Academic
2. Legarda, Cadiz, Escudero have no legal standing, and its not possible to implead PGMA as
respondent
3. PP1017 has legal and factual basis
4. PP1017 doesnt violate the constitutional guarantee of Freedom of Speech and Expression.


Im an incoming freshman law here in UST, and my nerves are literally everywhere. Honestly, hindi ko
naman talaga gustong magproceed in this field. I cant imagine seeing myself defending a client on a
certain case, or debating with men just to prove a particular point. However, my parents REALLY REALLY
wanted me to become one; and I said to myself: Sayang naman yung opportunity, I can make my
parents proud, maybe in the coming years ma-enjoy ko din, etc so I took the bait. I am quite aware of
the fact (as per my intensive research) that you cant survive law school by studying hard alone.
SURVIVAL= ( Passion + Tiyaga + Friends+ Kapal ng mukha+ Apathetic attitude with profs while in recit
mode while sipsip mode during office hours + Konting romance)= SUCCESS! I think that could be a better
formula than pagsusunog ng kilay. (Pardon me seniors for portraying myself as all-knowing or feeling
experienced through formulating this formula, so please correct me if Im wrong).
I only have several questions sana just to enlighten myself (and maybe of other freshies)
1. How does the Faculty assign each freshmen into their corresponding sections? May tinatawag
bang basis kung bakit ka nilagay dun? Or mi-ni-mi-ni-mo method lang? (just curious)
2. With regards po sa grading system, ano ang karaniwang mas malaki ang percent? Recit or
Written? Im having this notion kasi that Recit has the greater value since Professors incorporate
recit with first impression since:

First impression can always last
Recit precedes written examination
Therefore Recit is the factor for the basis of First impression

The problem with this is mahina ako when it comes to recit. We had this law subject na halos
binagsak ko lahat ng recits ko yet kabaligtaran naman yun ng written ko. Im afraid na kapag
deadbol ako sa recits ko eh madamay ng prof (inadvertently) yung final grade ko.
P.S: Pagpasensyahan na sa mala-nobelang post and Maraming Salamat!
Not all beings who finished their undergraduate degrees has the value of "respect". Not all
uneducated beings, or those who were not able to finish a degree lacks/has absence of such moral
value. Being an educated person is not a magical incantation that would automatically mean that you
must bestow the value of respect unto others. Neither acquiring a certain level of education doesn't give
you an entitlement or an obligation to respect others without considering various circumstances that led
to misunderstanding or other occurrences thereof. We must believe in the principle of "Respect begets
respect", and not only depend on one agent of which you so call the "educated person".