Professional Documents
Culture Documents
David Vs Arroyo
David Vs Arroyo
Macapagal-Arroyo
G.R. No. 171396 G.R. No. 171485 160 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
David vs. Macapagal-Arroyo . May 3, 2006.
On February 24, 2006, President Arroyo issued PP 1017 declaring a state of national emergency.
She Called out the Armed Forces of the Philippines to maintain law and order throughout the
Philippines, prevent or suppress all forms of lawless violence as well as any act of insurrection or
rebellion and to enforce obedience to all the laws and to all decrees. On the same day, the
President issued G.O. No. 5 implementing PP 1017.
She cited that in the previous months elements in the political opposition have conspired with
authoritarians of the extreme Left, represented by the NDF-CPP-NPA and the extreme Right,
represented by military adventurists to topple down the legitimate government.
On the following days the Army and Police have captured some of the people involved including
some politicians, some members of the army and from the communist insurgents in the
conspiracy to overthrow the government and in the process gain access to a number evidences to
support their arrest such as documents and weapons.
Following the arrests, the GO no 5 and PP 1017 have been questioned by the different
individuals in court citing that these issuances are in violation of the constitution such as
violation of the freedom of the press, the imposition of martial law without the constitutional
requirement and it encroaches on the emergency powers of Congress.
Issues:
Held:
President Arroyo’s declaration of a “state of rebellion” was merely an act declaring a status or
condition of public moment or interest, a declaration allowed under Section 4 cited above. Such
declaration, in the words of Sanlakas, is harmless, without legal significance, and deemed not
written. In these cases, PP 1017 is more than that. 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.
Some of the maintain that PP 1017 is actually a declaration of Martial Law. It is no so. What
defines the character of PP 1017 are its wordings. It is plain therein that what the President
invoked was her calling-out power. The declaration of Martial Law is a “warn[ing] to citizens
that the military power has been called upon by the executive to assist in the maintenance of law
and order, and that, while the emergency lasts, they must, upon pain of arrest and punishment,
not commit any acts which will in any way render more difficult the restoration of order and the
enforcement of law.”