Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • David Vs Arroyo

    Uploaded by

    Philip Vistal
    40 views2 pages
    The document discusses President Arroyo's issuance of Proclamation No. 1017 declaring a state of national emergency in response to alleged attempts to overthrow the government. It summarizes the legal challenges to the proclamation and the Supreme Court's ruling that the proclamation and its implementing order were constitutional exercises of the president's emergency powers and did not impose martial law. The court found that the proclamation invoked the president's authority to call upon the military to maintain law and order during a rebellion and did not override civilian rule.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    David vs Arroyo

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The document discusses President Arroyo's issuance of Proclamation No. 1017 declaring a state of national emergency in response to alleged attempts to overthrow the government. It summarizes the legal challenges to the proclamation and the Supreme Court's ruling that the proclamation and its implementing order were constitutional exercises of the president's emergency powers and did not impose martial law. The court found that the proclamation invoked the president's authority to call upon the military to maintain law and order during a rebellion and did not override civilian rule.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    40 views2 pages

    David Vs Arroyo

    Uploaded by

    Philip Vistal
    The document discusses President Arroyo's issuance of Proclamation No. 1017 declaring a state of national emergency in response to alleged attempts to overthrow the government. It summarizes the legal challenges to the proclamation and the Supreme Court's ruling that the proclamation and its implementing order were constitutional exercises of the president's emergency powers and did not impose martial law. The court found that the proclamation invoked the president's authority to call upon the military to maintain law and order during a rebellion and did not override civilian rule.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    David vs.

    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:

    Whether or not PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5 are unconstitutional.

    Held:

    No, the PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5 are not unconstitutional.

    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.”

    You might also like