David vs Macapagal-Arroyo Case Digest PDF

Preview

Summary

David v. Mcapagal-Arroyo G. No. 171396 - 3 May 2006 SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.TOPIC: Take-over PowerSUMMARY: President Arroyo issued PP1017 declaring a state of national emergency. This case covers the seven consolidated petitions for certiorari assailing the constitutionality of PP1017 and General Orde...

Description

David v. Mcapagal-Arroyo G.R. No. 171396 - 3 May 2006 SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. TOPIC: Take-over Power SUMMARY: President Arroyo issued PP1017 declaring a state of national emergency. This case covers the seven consolidated petitions for certiorari assailing the constitutionality of PP1017 and General Order No. 5 implementing the former. It is alleged that in doing so, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo committed grave abuse of discretion and are actually trampling upon the very freedom guaranteed and protected by the constitution. They also alleged that PP 1017 granted 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, which is a power reserved by the Section 17, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution to the Congress. The Court agreed with the Petitioners as to that aspect. The Proclamation does not authorize the President during the emergency to temporarily take over or direct the operation of any privately owned public utility or business affected with public interest without authority from Congress. While the President alone can declare a state of national emergency, however, without legislation, he has no power to take over privately-owned public utility or business affected with public interest. DOCTRINE: The taking over of private business affected with public interest is another facet of the emergency powers generally reposed upon Congress. It allows the State to temporarily take over or direct the operation of any privately owned public utility or business affected with public interest in times of national emergency, when the public interest so requires. FACTS: 

On February 24, 2006, as the nation celebrated the 20th Anniversary of the Edsa People Power I, President Arroyo issued PP No. 1017 declaring a state of emergency o She cited as bases:  political opposition having conspired with authoritarians of the extreme Left represented by the NDF-CPP-NPA and the extreme Right, represented by military adventurists in a plot to unseat or assassinate President Arroyo



On the same day, PGMA issued G.O. No. 5 implementing PP1017, directing 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." o Presidential Chief of Staff Michael Defensor announced that "warrantless arrests and take-over of facilities, including media, can already be implemented



One week after the declaration of a state of national emergency, the President lifted PP 1017. o She issued Proclamation No. 1021 declaring that the state of national emergency has ceased to exist.



But before it was lifter, Petitioners David, et al. assailed PP 1017 on the grounds that: o it encroaches on the emergency powers of Congress; o it is a subterfuge to avoid the constitutional requirements for the imposition of martial law; and o it violates the constitutional guarantees of freedom of the press, of speech and of assembly. o They alleged “direct injury” resulting from “illegal arrest” and “unlawful search” committed by police operatives pursuant to PP 1017. They alleged that: o Immediately after the said proclamation, the Office of the President announced the cancellation of all programs and activities related to the 20th anniversary celebration of Edsa People Power I; and revoked the permits to hold rallies issued earlier by the local governments o But even though rallies were not allowed, groups of protesters marched from various parts of Metro Manila with the intention of converging at the EDSA shrine o The police dispersed the rallyists along EDSA and arrested, without warrant, petitioner Randolf S. David o Police also took over various facilities, including media and press





On the other hand, Respondent argued that: o President Arroyo’s declaration of a "state of rebellion" was merely an act declaring a status or condition of public moment or interest. o Such declaration is harmless, without legal significance, and deemed not written.

o In declaring a state of national emergency, President Arroyo did not only rely on Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution, a provision calling on the AFP to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion.  She also relied on Section 17, Article XII, a provision on the State’s extraordinary power to take over privately-owned public utility and business affected with public interest.

ISSUES: (skip 1-3) 1) W/N the issuance of PP 1021 renders the petitions moot and academic --- NO.  The court holds that the issuance of PP 1021 did not render the present petitions moot and academic. o exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest is involved; 2) W/N the petitioners have legal standing in questioning the constitutionality of the said proclamation --- YES.  In view of the question of the validity of PP 1017 and GO No. 5, the Court rules that it is a judicial question which is important for the Filipino People. 3) W/N there was factual basis of PP 1017 --- YES.  Respondents provided factual bases and the petitioners failed to show that President’s Arroyo’s exercise of calling-out power is totally bereft of factual basis.  Petitioners also presented nothing to refute the events presented by the Respondents.  Thus, the Court is convinced that the President was justified in issuing PP 1017 calling for military aid.  Also, judging from the seriousness of the incidents, people cannot expect the President to simply sit back and relax to prevent what she believed was lawless violence, invasion, or rebellion. 4) W/N PP 1017 and GO No. 5 are constitutional --- PARTLY.  The issuance of PP 1017 and GO No. 5 is constitutional insofar that according to Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution, the President

can call-out to armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion, or rebellion.  



However, there were other acts that were made but were not part of her power as the President. Such acts include: o the arrest of David, et al. without any search warrant o the dispersal of organizations such a KMU and NAFLU-KMU o the cancellation of all permits to rally prohibited them in exercising their rights to assembly o and the search and seizure of media offices such as Daily Tribune which violated the freedom of the press. These acts go beyond the “calling-out” power of the President and is therefore unconstitutional.

[RELEVANT PORTION] On 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 privatelyowned public utility or business affected with public interest.  This is pursuant to Section 17, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution: o In times of national emergency, when the public interest so requires, the State may… temporarily take over or direct the operation of any privately owned public utility or business affected with public interest. 

The Court ruled that Section 17, Article XII must be understood as an aspect of the emergency powers clause. o The taking over of private business affected with public interest is just another facet of the emergency powers generally reposed upon Congress. o Thus, the section refers to Congress, not the President. o Absent any law delegating the same to the President, then the President cannot exercise the power provided in Section 17



Moreover, exercise of such power is limited to “national emergency” o According to the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission, national emergency does not include strikes and riots





o it only refers to military national emergency or economic emergency In this case, the Respondent confuses “national emergency” as a status or condition with the power to declare “state of emergency” o The President cannot decide whether exceptional circumstances exist warranting the take over of privatelyowned public utility or business affected with public interest. THUS, the Proclamation does not authorize the President during the emergency to temporarily take over or direct the operation of any privately owned public utility or business affected with public interest without authority from Congress o While the President alone can declare a state of national emergency, however, without legislation, he has no power to take over privately-owned public utility or business affected with public interest

RULING: Granted “PP 1017 declaring national emergency under Section 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.”...