David v.

Arroyo
GR No. 171396
May 3, 2006
Article 3 Section 4: No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the
press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of
grievances.

FACTS:
On February 24, 206, Former President Gloria Arroyo issued PP1017 declaring a state of national
emergency and commanding the Armed Forces of the Philippines “to maintain law and order
throughout the Philippines, prevent or supress all forms of lawless violence as well as any act of
insurrection or rebellion and to enforce obedience to all laws and to all decrees, orders and
regulations promulgated by me personally or upon my direction…”. As basis for declaring a state of
national emergency, the former president cited the following facts:
 That the political opposition have conspired with authoritarians of the extreme Left (NDF-CPP-
NPA) and the extreme right (military adventurists) to bring down the duly constituted
government of the Philippines.
 National media has recklessly magnified the claims of the opposition.
 The actions of the opposition is hurting the Philippine State by hindering the economic growth
and sabotaging the people’s confidence in government.
On the same day, the Former President issued G.O. No. 5 implementing PP 1017 directing the Chief
of Staff of the AFP and the Chief of the PNP, as well as the officers and men of the AFP and PNP, “to
immediately carry out the necessary and appropriate action and measures to suppress and prevent
acts of terrorism and lawless violence”. By March 3, 2006, the Former President lifted PP1017 by
issuing Proclamation No. 1021.
During the oral arguments held on March 7, 2006, the SG specified the facts that lead to issuance of
PP1017 and G.O. No. 5 that had no refutation from petitioner’s counsels. The following facts are:
 On January 17, 2006, Members of the Magdalo Group indicted in the Oakwood Mutinee
escaped their detention from Fort Bonifacio. They released a public statement that they remain
defiant from the government and that they call on the people to ally with them.
 February 17, 2006, authorities got hold of a document which presented detailed plans of
assassinating some Cabinet members and the President at the Philippine Military Alumni
Homecoming in Baguio. On the day of the event, a bomb was found and detonated.
 February 23, 2006, the government received news that members of the PNP and the Military
were Anti-Arroyo and that they we planning to bring down the administration alongside Peping
Cojuanco, brother of Pres. Cory.
 The declarations of the CPP-NPA (Leftists) for intensification of political and revolutionary
work within the military and police were called to forge alliances.
 Further, bombing of telecommunications in Bulacan and Bataan were also considered as
movement against the administration.
On the part of the Petitioners, after the issuance of PP1017 and G.O. No. 5, PGMA canceled the
celebration of the 20th celebration of EDSA People Power. Permits to hold rallied were revoked, but the
group of Kilusang Mayo Uno still marched to EDSA and were violently dispersed by Anti-Riot Police.
During the dispersal, the police arrested Randy David, a columnist, and Ronald Llamas president of
Akbayan Party-list.
In the early morning of February 25, 2006, Criminal Investigation and Detection group of the PP
raided the Daily Tribune on the basis of PP1017 and G.O. No. 5. They confiscated news stories,

Prepared by: Janine Tutanes

documents, pictures and mock-ups of the Saturday issue. A few minutes after the search and seizure of
the Daily Tribune, PNP surrounded another pro-opposition paper, Malaya, and its sister publication
tabloid Abante. According to the Pres Chief of Staff, the raid was meant to show a strong presence to tall
the media not to connive with the rebels in bringing down the government.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the issuances are unconstitutional on the basis of Section 4 of Article III of the 1987
Constitution.
HELD:

The petitioner contend that PP 1017 is void on its face because of its “overbreadth”, claims that it
encroaches on their rights under Section 4 Article III of the constitution, and sent a “chilling effect” to the
citizens.
The Court disagrees. The overbreadth doctrine is an analytical tool made for testing ‘on their faces’
statutes in free speech cases. In the case, the issuances were not directed to speech-related conduct, but all
forms of lawless violence. Furthermore, the doctrine is not meant to test a law that reflect legitimate state
interest, because lawless violence, insurrection and rebellion are harmful and constitutional unprotected
conduct.
On the matter of rights to assemble and free speech, there must be a clear and present danger to limit
these rights. The issuance of permit or authorization from government authorities is only required when
the assembly will be held in a public space.
On the case of the arrest of David and Kilusang Mayo Uno, the Court declared that David, et al were
arrested while they were exercising their right to peacefully assembly. They were not committing any
crime, neither was there a showing of a clear and present danger that warranted the limitation of that right.

NOTES:

1.) NO, the issuances PP1017 and G.O. No. 5 has factual basis.

According to IBP vs Zamora, the ‘calling out’ power given to the President is a discretionary power
solely vested in his wisdom, but the Court also stressed that “this does not prevent an examination of
whether such power was exercised within permissible constitutional limits or whether it was exercised in
a manner a constituting grave abuse of discretion”. The Court is allowed to inquire not to correct but to
determine if the President acted arbitrarily. Also, the Court cannot undertake an independent
investigation. A petitioner must present a case and such has the burden to prove that the President acted
bereft of factual basis.
In this case, the Petitioner failed to show that the issuance of PP1017 and G.O. No. 5 is bereft of
factual basis. The SG was able to present events that lead to the decision to issue PP1017 and the
petitioners did not refute such events.

2) NO, the issuances PP1017 and G.O. No. 5 are constitutional

a) Constitutional Basis

PP 1017 may be divided into 3 important provisions:

Prepared by: Janine Tutanes

 1st: “by virtue of the power vested upon me by Sec. 18, Article VII… do hereby command the Armed
Forces of the Philippines, to maintain law and order throughout the Philippines, prevent or suppress all
forms of lawless violence as well any act of insurrection or rebellion”

The first provision pertains to the President’s calling-out power. Under this power, the President
may summon the armed forces to aid her in suppressing lawless violence, invasion and rebellion.
It is clear that PP 1017 is not a declaration of Martial Law. It is merely an exercise of PGMA’s
calling-out power for the armed forces to assist her in preventing or suppressing lawless violence.

2nd: ”and to enforce obedience to all the laws and to all decrees, orders and regulations promulgated by
me personally or upon my direction;”

The second provision pertains to the President’s power to ensure that laws be faithfully executed.
This is based on Sec. 17 of Article VII of the Constitution.
PGMA has no authority to enact decrees. It follows that these decrees are void and, therefore,
cannot be enforced. With respect to “laws,” she cannot call the military to enfore or implement certain
laws, such as customs laws, laws governing family and property relations, laws on obligations and
contracts and the like. She can only order the military, under PP 1017, to enforce laws pertinent to its duty
to suppress lawless violence.

3rd: “as provided in Sec. 17, Article XII of the Constitution do hereby declare a State of National
Emergency”

The third provision pertains to the President’s power to take over.

During the existence of the state of national emergency, PP 1017 purports to grant the President,
without any authority or delegation from Congress, to take over or direct the operation of any privately-
owned public utility or business affected with public interest.
While the President alone can declare a state of national emergency, without legislation she has no
power to take over privately-owned public utility or business affected with public interest. She cannot
decide whether exceptional circumstances exist warranting the take over of privately-owned public utility
or business affected with public interest nor can he determine when such exceptional circumstances have
ceased.
Without legislation, the President has no power to point out the types of businesses affected with
public interest that should take over.
The President has no absolute authority to exercise all the powers of the State under Sec. 17, Article
VII in the absence of an emergency powers act passed by Congress.

b) As Applied Challenge
PP 1017 is merely an invocation of the President’s calling-out power. Its general purpose is to command
the AFP to suppress all forms of lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. It has accomplished the end desired
which prompted PGMA to issue PP 1021. There is nothing in PP 1017 allowing the police, expressly or
impliedly to conduct illegal arrest, search or violate the citizens’ constitutional rights.
Petitions are PARTLY GRANTED.
- PP 1017 is CONSTITUTIONAL insofar as it constitutes a call by PGMA on the AFP to prevent or
suppress lawless violence.

Prepared by: Janine Tutanes

  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.
 Provision in PP 1017 declaring national emergency under Sec. 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.

- GO No. 5 is CONSTITUTIONAL since it provides a standard by which the AFP and the PNP should
implement PP 1017
 Considering the “acts of terrorism” have not yet been defined and made punishable by the
Legislature, such portion of GO No. 5 is declared unconstitutional.
- The warrantless arrest of David, Llamas, KMU and NAFLU-KMU members (during their rallies), the
warrantless search of Tribune offices and seizure of articles are declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Prepared by: Janine Tutanes