PROF. RANDOLF S. DAVID, ET. AL. VS. GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, ET. AL.

G.R. No. 13196, May 3, 2006

Facts:
Seven consolidated petitions were filed against President Arroyo for alleged
commission of grave abuse of discretion due to her issuance of Presidential
Proclamation No. 1017 (PP 1017) and General Order No. 5 (G.O. No. 5) declaring
state of emergency during the 20 th anniversary celebration of the EDSA People
Power I. Respondents argue that such executive issuance was due to the
conspiracy among some military officers, leftist insurgents of the New People’s
Army (NPA), and some members of the political opposition to oust President
Arroyo. Petitioners contend that respondent government officials are trampling
upon the very freedom guaranteed and protected by the Constitution and the
former claims that the issuance of the proclamation and general order is void for
being unconstitutional.

Issue:
Whether PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5 is unconstitutional.

Ruling:
Both are partly constitutional and unconstitutional. The Court holds that PP
1017 is constitutional such that it constitutes a call by President arroyo on the AFP
to prevent or suppress lawless violence. However, the provisions of PP 1017
commanding the AFP to enforce laws not related to lawless violence, as well as
decrees promulgated by the President, are declared unconstitutional. Moreover,
the provision in 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.
G.O. No. 5 is constitutional since it provides a standard by which the AFP
and PNP should implement PP 1017, that is, whatever is necessary and
appropriate actions and measures to suppress and prevent acts of lawless
violence. Considering that acts of terrorism have not yet been defined and made
punishable by the legislature, such portion of G.O. No. 5 is declared
unconstitutional.