Media, Can Be Implemented"

G.R No. 171396 et al.
, May 3, 2006
PROF. RANDOLF S. DAVID et al., (respondent)

vs.
GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, AS PRESIDENT AND COMMANDER IN CHIEF et
al., (defendant)
FACTS:
- Members of Magdalo Group indicated in the Oakwood mutiny namely;
Captain Nathaniel Rabonza and First Lieutenants Sonny Sarmiento, Lawrence
San Juan and Patricio Bumidang, escaped from their detention cell, and called
upon people who are against the administration, not only to demonstrate
their disgust by doing a rally but also wear red bands on their left arms.
- On February 17, 2006, the authorities got hold of a document entitled,
“OPLAN Hackle I”, which they detailed plans for bombings and attacked
during the PMA Alumni Homecoming in Baguio City to assassinate then
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. On the day of the celebration, a bomb
was found and detonated at the PMA parade ground.
- Lt. San Juan was captured in a communist safehouse in Batangas and two
flash disks containing the minutes of the meeting of Magdalo Group and NPA.
Prior to his arrest, Lt. San Juan announced, Magdalo D-Day would be on the
20th Anniversary of EDSA 1 (February 24, 2006).
- President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued Presidential Proclamation 1017
and General Order No. 5 during the celebration of EDSA People Power I,
declaring a state of national emergency. On March 3, 2006, the Presidential
Proclamation 1017 has been lifted.
- After the declaration was made, Presidential Chief of Staff Michael Defensor
announced, “warrantless arrest and take-over of facilities, including
media, can be implemented”.
- During the implementation of said proclamation, several arrest and raid
were made including; warrantless arrest of Randolf S. David (UP Professor)
during the dispersal of the rallyists along EDSA and Congressman Beltran
(Anakpawis Party Representative and Chairman of Kilusang Mayo Uno) with
a warrant dated in 1985, and also the raid of the Daily Tribune offices in
Manila, wherein the police confiscated news stories by reporters, documents,
pictures, and mock-ups of the Saturday issue.
ARGUMENTS:
Petitioner(s)
- G.R. No. 171396 (Randolf S. David) assailed PP 1017 on the grounds that; it
encroaches on the emergency powers of Congress, it is subterfuge to avoid
the constitutional requirements for the imposition of martial law, and, it
violates the constitutional guarantees of freedom of the press, of speech and
of assembly.
- G.R. No. 171409 (Olivares and Tribune Publishing) challenged the CIDG’s
act of raiding the Daily Tribune offices as a clear case of “censorship” or
“prior resistant”. They also claimed that the term “emergency” refers only to
tsunami, typhoon, hurricane and similar occurrences, hence, there is
“absolutely no emergency” that warrants the issuance of PP 1017.
- G.R. No 171485 (Escudero et al.), G.R. No 171483 (KMU, NAFLU-KMU),
G.R. No 171400 (ALGI) , G.R. No. 171489 (Cadiz et al.), and G.R. No.
171424 (Legarda) all asserted that PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5 constitute
usurpation of legislative powers, violation of freedom of expression, and a
declaration of martial law. They alleged that President Arroyo “gravely
abused her discretion in calling out the armed forces without clear and
verifiable factual bases of the possibility of lawless violence and a showing
that there is necessity to do so.
Respondents:
- The Solicitor General countered that; first, the petitions should be dismissed
for being moot; second, petitioners in G.R. Nos 171400, 171424, 171483,
171485, and 171489 have no legal standing; third, it is not necessary for
petitioners to implead President Arroyo as respondent; fourth, PP 1017 has
constitutional and legal basis; and fifth, PP 1017 does not violate the peoples
right to free expression and redress of grievances.
ISSUE: Whether or not Presidential Proclamation 1017 and General Order No. 5 are
considered constitutional.
RULING: Yes
- The court rues that PP 1017 is Constitutional insofar as it constitutes a call by
President Arroyo on the AFP to prevent or suppress lawless violence. 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. In addition, the provision in PP 1017 declaring national
emergency under Section 17, Article VII of the Constitution is Constitutional.
- G.O. No. 5 is Constitutional since it provides a standard by which the AFP and
PNP should implement PP 1017 i.e. whatever is “necessary and appropriate actions
and measures to suppress and prevent acts of lawless violence”. Considering that
“acts of terrorism” have not yet been defined and made punishable by the
Legislature, such portion of G.O. No. 5 is declared Unconstitutional.

Media, Can Be Implemented"

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Media, Can Be Implemented"

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Media, Can Be Implemented"

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R No. 171396 et al.

PROF. RANDOLF S. DAVID et al., (respondent)

You might also like