David v.

Mcapagal-Arroyo
G.R. No. 171396 - 3 May 2006
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
TOPIC: Take-over Power
SUMMARY: President Arroyo issued PP1017 declaring a state of national emergency. This
case covers the seven consolidated petitions for certiorari assailing the constitutionality of
PP1017 and General Order No. 5 implementing the former. It is alleged that in doing so,
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo committed grave abuse of discretion and are actually
trampling upon the very freedom guaranteed and protected by the constitution. They also
alleged that PP 1017 granted the President, without any authority or delegation from Congress,
to take over or direct the operation of any privately-owned public utility or business affected
with public interest, which is a power reserved by the Section 17, Article XII of the 1987
Constitution to the Congress.

The Court agreed with the Petitioners as to that aspect. The Proclamation does not authorize
the President during the emergency to temporarily take over or direct the operation of any
privately owned public utility or business affected with public interest without authority from
Congress. While the President alone can declare a state of national emergency, however,
without legislation, he has no power to take over privately-owned public utility or business
affected with public interest.

DOCTRINE: The taking over of private business affected with public interest is another facet
of the emergency powers generally reposed upon Congress. It allows the State to temporarily
take over or direct the operation of any privately owned public utility or business affected with
public interest in times of national emergency, when the public interest so requires.

FACTS:
 On February 24, 2006, as the nation celebrated the 20th Anniversary of the Edsa People
Power I, President Arroyo issued PP No. 1017 declaring a state of emergency
o She cited as bases:
 political opposition having conspired with authoritarians of the extreme
Left represented by the NDF-CPP-NPA and the extreme Right,
represented by military adventurists in a plot to unseat or assassinate
President Arroyo

 On the same day, PGMA issued G.O. No. 5 implementing PP1017, directing the
members of the AFP and PNP "to immediately carry out the necessary and appropriate
actions and measures to suppress and prevent acts of terrorism and lawless violence."
o Presidential Chief of Staff Michael Defensor announced that "warrantless
arrests and take-over of facilities, including media, can already be
implemented
  One week after the declaration of a state of national emergency, the President lifted PP
1017.
o She issued Proclamation No. 1021 declaring that the state of national emergency
has ceased to exist.

 But before it was lifter, Petitioners David, et al. assailed PP 1017 on the grounds that:
o it encroaches on the emergency powers of Congress;
o it is a subterfuge to avoid the constitutional requirements for the imposition of
martial law; and
o it violates the constitutional guarantees of freedom of the press, of speech and of
assembly.
o They alleged “direct injury” resulting from “illegal arrest” and “unlawful search”
committed by police operatives pursuant to PP 1017.
 They alleged that:
o Immediately after the said proclamation, the Office of the President announced
the cancellation of all programs and activities related to the 20th anniversary
celebration of Edsa People Power I; and revoked the permits to hold rallies issued
earlier by the local governments
o But even though rallies were not allowed, groups of protesters marched from
various parts of Metro Manila with the intention of converging at the EDSA
shrine
o The police dispersed the rallyists along EDSA and arrested, without warrant,
petitioner Randolf S. David
o Police also took over various facilities, including media and press

 On the other hand, Respondent argued that:

o President Arroyo’s declaration of a "state of rebellion" was merely an act
declaring a status or condition of public moment or interest.
o Such declaration is harmless, without legal significance, and deemed not written.
o 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.

ISSUES: (skip 1-3)

1) W/N the issuance of PP 1021 renders the petitions moot and academic --- NO.
 The court holds that the issuance of PP 1021 did not render the present petitions moot
and academic.
 o exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest is
involved;

2) W/N the petitioners have legal standing in questioning the constitutionality of the said
proclamation --- YES.
 In view of the question of the validity of PP 1017 and GO No. 5, the Court rules that
it is a judicial question which is important for the Filipino People.

3) W/N there was factual basis of PP 1017 --- YES.

 Respondents provided factual bases and the petitioners failed to show that President’s
Arroyo’s exercise of calling-out power is totally bereft of factual basis.
 Petitioners also presented nothing to refute the events presented by the Respondents.
 Thus, the Court is convinced that the President was justified in issuing PP 1017
calling for military aid.
 Also, judging from the seriousness of the incidents, people cannot expect the
President to simply sit back and relax to prevent what she believed was lawless
violence, invasion, or rebellion.

4) W/N PP 1017 and GO No. 5 are constitutional --- PARTLY.

 The issuance of PP 1017 and GO No. 5 is constitutional insofar that according to
Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution, the President can call-out to armed forces
to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion, or rebellion.

 However, there were other acts that were made but were not part of her power as the
President.
 Such acts include:
o the arrest of David, et al. without any search warrant
o the dispersal of organizations such a KMU and NAFLU-KMU
o the cancellation of all permits to rally prohibited them in exercising their
rights to assembly
o and the search and seizure of media offices such as Daily Tribune which
violated the freedom of the press.
 These acts go beyond the “calling-out” power of the President and is therefore
unconstitutional.

[RELEVANT PORTION] On power to take-over

 During the existence of the state of national emergency, PP 1017 purports to grant the
President, without any authority or delegation from Congress, to take over or direct
the operation of any privately-owned public utility or business affected with public
interest.
  This is pursuant to Section 17, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution:
o In times of national emergency, when the public interest so requires, the State
may… temporarily take over or direct the operation of any privately
owned public utility or business affected with public interest.

 The Court ruled that Section 17, Article XII must be understood as an aspect of the
emergency powers clause.
o The taking over of private business affected with public interest is just another
facet of the emergency powers generally reposed upon Congress.
o Thus, the section refers to Congress, not the President.
o Absent any law delegating the same to the President, then the President cannot
exercise the power provided in Section 17

 Moreover, exercise of such power is limited to “national emergency”

o According to the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission, national
emergency does not include strikes and riots
o it only refers to military national emergency or economic emergency
 In this case, the Respondent confuses “national emergency” as a status or condition
with the power to declare “state of emergency”
o The President cannot decide whether exceptional circumstances exist
warranting the take over of privately-owned public utility or business affected
with public interest.

 THUS, the Proclamation does not authorize the President during the emergency to
temporarily take over or direct the operation of any privately owned public utility or
business affected with public interest without authority from Congress
o While the President alone can declare a state of national emergency, however,
without legislation, he has no power to take over privately-owned public
utility or business affected with public interest

RULING: Granted
“PP 1017 declaring national emergency under Section 17, Article VII of the Constitution is
CONSTITUTIONAL, but such declaration does not authorize the President to take over
privately-owned public utility or business affected with public interest without prior legislation.”