David v. Arroyo G.R. No. 171396, May 3, 2006 Facts:: Tribune's Offices Conducted Pursuant To PP 1017 Valid?

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 3

David v. Arroyo G.R. No.

171396, May 3, 2006 Petitioners David and Llamas were arrested without
warrants on February 24, 2006 on their way to EDSA.
FACTS: Meanwhile, the offices of the newspaper Daily Tribune,
which was perceived to be anti-Arroyo, was searched
On February 24, 2006, as the Filipino nation celebrated the
without warrant at about 1:00 A.M. on February 25, 2006.
20th Anniversary of the EDSA People Power I, President
Seized from the premises – in the absence of any official of
Arroyo issued PP 1017, implemented by G.O. No. 5,
the Daily Tribune except the security guard of the building –
declaring a state of national emergency, thus:
were several materials for publication. The law enforcers, a
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, President of composite team of PNP and AFP officers, cited as basis of
the Republic of the Philippines and Commander-in-Chief of the warrantless arrests and the warrantless search and
the Armed Forces of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers seizure was Presidential Proclamation 1017 issued by then
vested upon me by Section 18, Article 7 of the Philippine President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in the exercise of her
Constitution which states that: “The President. . . whenever constitutional power to call out the Armed Forces of the
it becomes necessary, . . . may call out (the) armed forces Philippines to prevent or suppress lawless violence.
to prevent or suppress. . .rebellion. . .,” and in my capacity
ISSUE:
as their Commander-in-Chief, do hereby command the
Armed Forces of the Philippines, to maintain law and order 1.    Were the warrantless arrests of petitioners David, et
throughout the Philippines, prevent or suppress all forms of al., made pursuant to PP 1017, valid?
lawless violence as well as any act of insurrection or
2.    Was the warrantless search and seizure on the Daily
rebellion and to enforce obedience to all the laws and to all
Tribune’s offices conducted pursuant to PP 1017 valid?
decrees, orders and regulations promulgated by me
personally or upon my direction; and as provided in Section RULING:
17, Article 12 of the Constitution do hereby declare a State
of National Emergency. [The Court partially GRANTED the petitions.]

In their presentation of the factual bases of PP 1017 and 1.    NO, the warrantless arrests of petitioners David, et al.,
G.O. No. 5, respondents stated that the proximate cause made pursuant to PP 1017, were NOT valid.
behind the executive issuances was the conspiracy among
[S]earches, seizures and arrests are normally unreasonable
some military officers, leftist insurgents of the New People’s
unless authorized by a validly issued search warrant or
Army, and some members of the political opposition in a
warrant of arrest. Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules
plot to unseat or assassinate President Arroyo. They
on Criminal Procedure provides [for the following
considered the aim to oust or assassinate the President and
circumstances of valid warrantless arrests]:
take-over the reins of government as a clear and present
danger.
Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. - A peace determined personally by the judge after examination under
officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he
person: may produce. Section 8 mandates that the search of a
house, room, or any other premise be made in the presence
(a)   When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has
of the lawful occupant thereof or any member of his family
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
or in the absence of the latter, in the presence of two (2)
commit an offense.
witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the
(b)   When an offense has just been committed and he has same locality. And Section 9 states that the warrant must
probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of direct that it be served in the daytime, unless the property
facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has is on the person or in the place ordered to be searched, in
committed it; and which case a direction may be inserted that it be served at
any time of the day or night. All these rules were violated
x x x. by the CIDG operatives.
Neither of the [provisions on in flagrante nor hot pursuit
warrantless arrests] justifies petitioner David’s warrantless
arrest. During the inquest for the charges of inciting to Sanidad v. COMELEC G.R. No. L-44640, October 12,
sedition and violation of BP 880, all that the arresting 1976
officers could invoke was their observation that some
rallyists were wearing t-shirts with the invective “Oust Chavez v. Judicial and Bar Council G.R. No. 202242, April
Gloria Now” and their erroneous assumption that petitioner 16, 2013
David was the leader of the rally. Consequently, the Inquest
Prosecutor ordered his immediate release on the ground of FACTS:
insufficiency of evidence. He noted that petitioner David was In 1994, instead of having only seven members, an eighth
not wearing the subject t-shirt and even if he was wearing member was added to the JBC as two representatives from
it, such fact is insufficient to charge him with inciting to Congress began sitting in the JBC – one from the House of
sedition. Representatives and one from the Senate, with each having
2.    NO, the warrantless search and seizure on the Daily one-half (1/2) of a vote. Then, the JBC En Banc, in separate
Tribune’s offices conducted pursuant to PP 1017 was NOT meetings held in 2000 and 2001, decided to allow the
valid. representatives from the Senate and the House of
Representatives one full vote each. Senator Francis Joseph
[T]he search [and seizure in the Daily Tribune premises] is G. Escudero and Congressman Niel C. Tupas, Jr.
illegal. Rule 126 of The Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure (respondents) simultaneously sit in the JBC as
lays down the steps in the conduct of search and seizure. representatives of the legislature. It is this practice that
Section 4 requires that a search warrant be issued upon petitioner has questioned in this petition. it should mean
probable cause in connection with one specific offence to be one representative each from both Houses which comprise
the entire Congress. Respondent contends that the phrase “ entire legislative department. The Constitution mandates
a representative of congress” refers that both houses of that the JBC be composed of seven (7) members only.
congress should have one representative each, and that
these two houses are permanent and mandatory
components of “congress” as part of the bicameral system FALLO:
of legislature. Both houses have their respective powers in The motion was denied.
performance of their duties. Art VIII Sec 8 of the
constitution provides for the component of the JBC to be 7
members only with only one representative from congress.
Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, 235 SCRA 630
ISSUE:
Whether the JBC’s practice of having members from the
Senate and the House of Representatives making 8 instead https://www.scribd.com/doc/33750369/Sanidad-vs-Comelec-CASE-
of 7 sitting members to be unconstitutional as provided in DIGEST
Art VIII Sec 8 of the constitution.

RULING:
https://www.scribd.com/document/384564184/Tolentino-vs-
Yes. The practice is unconstitutional; the court held that the
Secretary-of-Finance-235-SCRA-630-1994
phrase “a representative of congress” should be construed
as to having only one representative that would come from
either house, not both. That the framers of the constitution
only intended for one seat of the JBC to be allotted for the <iframe id="ssIFrame_google" sandbox="allow-scripts
legislative. allow-same-origin" aria-hidden="true" frame-border="0"
src="https://accounts.google.com/o/oauth2/iframe#origin=
It is evident that the definition of “Congress” as a bicameral https%3A%2F
body refers to its primary function in government – to %2Fwww.scribd.com&amp;rpcToken=496673754.4997058"
legislate. In the passage of laws, the Constitution is explicit style="position: absolute; width: 1px; height: 1px; left:
in the distinction of the role of each house in the process. -9999px; top: -9999px; right: -9999px; bottom: -9999px;
The same holds true in Congress’ non-legislative powers. An display: none;"></iframe>
inter-play between the two houses is necessary in the
realization of these powers causing a vivid dichotomy that
the Court cannot simply discount. This, however, cannot be
"http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml
said in the case of JBC representation because no liaison
between the two houses exists in the workings of the JBC. <link rel="alternate" hreflang="x-default"
Hence, the term “Congress” must be taken to mean the href="https://www.scribd.com/doc/33750369/Sanidad-vs-
Comelec-CASE-DIGEST">

You might also like