Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Digest 16. David vs. Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396

    Uploaded by

    Inez Monika Carreon Padao
    33 views1 page
    1) David vs. Arroyo involved a petition challenging the constitutionality of Presidential Proclamation 1017 and General Order 5 issued by President Arroyo declaring a state of national emergency. 2) While the state of emergency was lifted after 8 days with Proclamation 1021, the Court held the case was not moot because illegal acts may have occurred during those 8 days that need to be addressed. 3) The Court asserted its duty to determine the constitutionality of the proclamations and address violations of basic rights, as well as provide constitutional guidance for similar future situations.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) David vs. Arroyo involved a petition challenging the constitutionality of Presidential Proclamation 1017 and General Order 5 issued by President Arroyo declaring a state of national emergency. 2) While the state of emergency was lifted after 8 days with Proclamation 1021, the Court held the case was not moot because illegal acts may have occurred during those 8 days that need to be addressed. 3) The Court asserted its duty to determine the constitutionality of the proclamations and address violations of basic rights, as well as provide constitutional guidance for similar future situations.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    33 views1 page

    Digest 16. David vs. Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396

    Uploaded by

    Inez Monika Carreon Padao
    1) David vs. Arroyo involved a petition challenging the constitutionality of Presidential Proclamation 1017 and General Order 5 issued by President Arroyo declaring a state of national emergency. 2) While the state of emergency was lifted after 8 days with Proclamation 1021, the Court held the case was not moot because illegal acts may have occurred during those 8 days that need to be addressed. 3) The Court asserted its duty to determine the constitutionality of the proclamations and address violations of basic rights, as well as provide constitutional guidance for similar future situations.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    . 16. David vs. Arroyo, G.R. No.

    171396, May 3, 2006 (Functions of Judicial Review)

    DAVID VS. MACAPAGAL-ARROYO


    G.R. No. 171396, May 3 2006

    FACTS:
    On February 24, 2006, as the nation celebrated the 20th Anniversary of the Edsa People Power I, President
    Arroyo issued PresidentialProclamation No. 1017 (PP 1017) declaring a state of national emergency. On the
    same day, the President issued General Order No. 5 (G.O. No. 5) implementing PP 1017. The proximate cause
    behind the executive issuances was the conspiracy among somemilitary officers, leftist insurgents of the New
    People’s Army (NPA), and some members of the political opposition in a plot to unseat or assassinate President
    Arroyo. They considered the aim to oust or assassinate the President and take-over the reigns of government as
    a clear and present danger. All programs and activities related to the 20th anniversary celebration of Edsa
    People Power I are cancelled. Likewise, all permits to hold rallies issued earlier by the local governments are
    revoked. Justice Secretary Raul Gonzales stated that political rallies, which to the President’s mind were
    organized for purposes of destabilization, are cancelled. Presidential Chief of Staff Michael Defensor announced
    that “warrantless arrests and take-over of facilities, including media, can already be implemented.” During the
    dispersal of the rallyists along EDSA, police arrested (without warrant) petitioner Randolf S. David, a professor
    at the University of the Philippines and newspaper columnist. 

    Exactly one week after the declaration of a state of national emergency, the President lifted PP 1017 by
    issuing Proclamation No. 1021.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the issuance of PP 1021 renders the petitions moot and academic.

    HELD:
    Moot and academic case - one that ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that
    a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value. Generally, courts decline jurisdiction over such case or dismiss it on
    ground of mootness.
    The Court holds that President Arroyo’s issuance of PP 1021 did not render the present petitions moot and
    academic.   During the eight(8) days that PP 1017 was operative, the police officers, according to petitioners,
    committed illegal acts in implementing it.  Are PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5 constitutional or valid?  Do they justify
    these alleged illegal acts?  These are the vital issues that must be resolved in the present petitions.  It must be
    stressed that “an unconstitutional act is not a law, it confers no rights, it imposes no duties, it affords no
    protection; it is in legal contemplation, inoperative.”

    The “moot and academic” principle is not a magical formula that can automatically dissuade the courts in
    resolving a case.  Courts will decide cases, otherwise moot and academic, if:  first, there is a grave violation
    of the Constitution; second, the exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest is
    involved; third, when constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the
    bench, the bar, and the public; and fourth, the case is capable of repetition yet evading review.

    All the foregoing exceptions are present here and justify this Court’s assumption of jurisdiction over the instant
    petitions.  Petitioners alleged that the issuance of PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5 violates the Constitution.  There is no
    question that the issues being raised affect the public’s interest, involving as they do the people’s basic rights
    to freedom of expression, of assembly and of the press.   Moreover, the Court has the duty to formulate guiding
    and controlling constitutional precepts, doctrines or rules.  It has the symbolic function of educating the bench
    and the bar, and in the present petitions, the military and the police, on the extent of the protection given by
    constitutional guarantees. And lastly, respondents’ contested actions are capable of repetition.  Certainly, the
    petitions are subject to judicial review.

    http://whateverjuan.blogspot.com/2013/07/david-vs-macapagal-arroyo.html

    You might also like