David v. Arroyo G.R. No.

171396, May 3, 2006 Petitioners David and Llamas were arrested without
FACTS:
On February 24, 2006, as the Filipino nation celebrated the
20th Anniversary of the EDSA People Power I, President
Arroyo issued PP 1017, implemented by G.O. No. 5,
declaring a state of national emergency, thus:
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, President of
the Republic of the Philippines and Commander-in-Chief of
the Armed Forces of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers
vested upon me by Section 18, Article 7 of the Philippine
Constitution which states that: “The President. . . whenever
it becomes necessary, . . . may call out (the) armed forces
to prevent or suppress. . .rebellion. . .,” and in my capacity
as their Commander-in-Chief, do hereby command 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, orders and regulations promulgated by me
personally or upon my direction; and as provided in Section
17, Article 12 of the Constitution do hereby declare a State
of National Emergency.
warrants on February 24, 2006 on their way to EDSA.
Meanwhile, the offices of the newspaper Daily Tribune,
which was perceived to be anti-Arroyo, was searched
without warrant at about 1:00 A.M. on February 25, 2006.
Seized from the premises – in the absence of any official of
the Daily Tribune except the security guard of the building –
were several materials for publication. The law enforcers, a
composite team of PNP and AFP officers, cited as basis of
the warrantless arrests and the warrantless search and
seizure was Presidential Proclamation 1017 issued by then
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in the exercise of her
constitutional power to call out the Armed Forces of the
Philippines to prevent or suppress lawless violence.
ISSUE:
1.    Were the warrantless arrests of petitioners David, et
al., made pursuant to PP 1017, valid?
2.    Was the warrantless search and seizure on the Daily
Tribune’s offices conducted pursuant to PP 1017 valid?
RULING:
[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
officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a
person:
(a)   When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
commit an offense.
(b)   When an offense has just been committed and he has
probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of
facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has
committed it; and
x x x.
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
sedition and violation of BP 880, all that the arresting
officers could invoke was their observation that some
rallyists were wearing t-shirts with the invective “Oust
Gloria Now” and their erroneous assumption that petitioner
David was the leader of the rally. Consequently, the Inquest
Prosecutor ordered his immediate release on the ground of
insufficiency of evidence. He noted that petitioner David was
not wearing the subject t-shirt and even if he was wearing
it, such fact is insufficient to charge him with inciting to
sedition.
2.    NO, the warrantless search and seizure on the Daily
Tribune’s offices conducted pursuant to PP 1017 was NOT
valid.
[T]he search [and seizure in the Daily Tribune premises] is
illegal. Rule 126 of The Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure
lays down the steps in the conduct of search and seizure.
Section 4 requires that a search warrant be issued upon
probable cause in connection with one specific offence to be
determined personally by the judge after examination under
oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he
may produce. Section 8 mandates that the search of a
house, room, or any other premise be made in the presence
of the lawful occupant thereof or any member of his family
or in the absence of the latter, in the presence of two (2)
witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the
same locality. And Section 9 states that the warrant must
direct that it be served in the daytime, unless the property
is on the person or in the place ordered to be searched, in
which case a direction may be inserted that it be served at
any time of the day or night. All these rules were violated
by the CIDG operatives.
Sanidad v. COMELEC G.R. No. L-44640, October 12,
1976
Chavez v. Judicial and Bar Council G.R. No. 202242, April
16, 2013
FACTS:
In 1994, instead of having only seven members, an eighth
member was added to the JBC as two representatives from
Congress began sitting in the JBC – one from the House of
Representatives and one from the Senate, with each having
one-half (1/2) of a vote. Then, the JBC En Banc, in separate
meetings held in 2000 and 2001, decided to allow the
representatives from the Senate and the House of
Representatives one full vote each. Senator Francis Joseph
G. Escudero and Congressman Niel C. Tupas, Jr.
(respondents) simultaneously sit in the JBC as
representatives of the legislature. It is this practice that
petitioner has questioned in this petition. it should mean
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:
Yes. The practice is unconstitutional; the court held that the
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
legislative.
It is evident that the definition of “Congress” as a bicameral
body refers to its primary function in government – to
legislate. In the passage of laws, the Constitution is explicit
in the distinction of the role of each house in the process.
The same holds true in Congress’ non-legislative powers. An
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
said in the case of JBC representation because no liaison
between the two houses exists in the workings of the JBC.
Hence, the term “Congress” must be taken to mean the
https://www.scribd.com/document/384564184/Tolentino-vs-
Secretary-of-Finance-235-SCRA-630-1994
<iframe id="ssIFrame_google" sandbox="allow-scripts
allow-same-origin" aria-hidden="true" frame-border="0"
src="https://accounts.google.com/o/oauth2/iframe#origin=
https%3A%2F
%2Fwww.scribd.com&amp;rpcToken=496673754.4997058"
style="position: absolute; width: 1px; height: 1px; left:
-9999px; top: -9999px; right: -9999px; bottom: -9999px;
display: none;"></iframe>
"http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml
<link rel="alternate" hreflang="x-default"
href="https://www.scribd.com/doc/33750369/Sanidad-vs-
Comelec-CASE-DIGEST">