Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 5K views

    David V Arroyo, GR 171396, May3'06 - Digest

    Uploaded by

    Kyle Gwapo
    The Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of Proclamation No. 1017 issued by President Arroyo declaring a state of national emergency. The proclamation led to the cancellation of EDSA anniversary events and warrantless arrests. While generally allowing the President to call on the military to prevent lawless violence, the Court found several provisions of the proclamation and related orders unconstitutional. It held that President Arroyo did not have the authority to take over private businesses or impose media standards without prior legislation from Congress. The warrantless arrest of the petitioner and dispersal of rallyists also violated the Constitution. However, the Court did not invalidate the entire proclamation due to the possibility of constitutional applications.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    David V Arroyo, GR 171396, May3'06 - Digest

    Uploaded by

    Kyle Gwapo
    5K views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of Proclamation No. 1017 issued by President Arroyo declaring a state of national emergency. The proclamation led to the cancellation of EDSA anniversary events and warrantless arrests. While generally allowing the President to call on the military to prevent lawless violence, the Court found several provisions of the proclamation and related orders unconstitutional. It held that President Arroyo did not have the authority to take over private businesses or impose media standards without prior legislation from Congress. The warrantless arrest of the petitioner and dispersal of rallyists also violated the Constitution. However, the Court did not invalidate the entire proclamation due to the possibility of constitutional applications.

    Original Title

    David v Arroyo, GR 171396, May3'06 - digest

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of Proclamation No. 1017 issued by President Arroyo declaring a state of national emergency. The proclamation led to the cancellation of EDSA anniversary events and warrantless arrests. While generally allowing the President to call on the military to prevent lawless violence, the Court found several provisions of the proclamation and related orders unconstitutional. It held that President Arroyo did not have the authority to take over private businesses or impose media standards without prior legislation from Congress. The warrantless arrest of the petitioner and dispersal of rallyists also violated the Constitution. However, the Court did not invalidate the entire proclamation due to the possibility of constitutional applications.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    5K views2 pages

    David V Arroyo, GR 171396, May3'06 - Digest

    Uploaded by

    Kyle Gwapo
    The Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of Proclamation No. 1017 issued by President Arroyo declaring a state of national emergency. The proclamation led to the cancellation of EDSA anniversary events and warrantless arrests. While generally allowing the President to call on the military to prevent lawless violence, the Court found several provisions of the proclamation and related orders unconstitutional. It held that President Arroyo did not have the authority to take over private businesses or impose media standards without prior legislation from Congress. The warrantless arrest of the petitioner and dispersal of rallyists also violated the Constitution. However, the Court did not invalidate the entire proclamation due to the possibility of constitutional applications.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    David v Arroyo

    GR No. 171396, May 3, 2006

    Facts:
    As the nation celebrated EDSA’s 20th anniversary, President Arroyo issued PP 1017 declaring a
    state of national emergency and thereby commanded the AFP and PNP to immediately carry
    out necessary and appropriate actions and measures to suppress and prevent acts of terrorism
    and lawless violence.
    This declaration led to cancellation of all programs and activities related to the EDSA People
    Power I celebration. Rally permits were revoked and warrantless arrests and take-over of
    facilities, including the media, were implemented. Assemblies and rallyists were dispersed.
    Along with the dispersal, petitioner was arrested without warrant.
    A week after PP 1017, PP1021 was issued lifting the state of emergency.

    Issue:
    Whether or not there is an actual controversy or case subject for judicial review.
    Whether or not there petition is with legal standing particularly on his qualification to sue.

    Ratio Decidendi:
    The Solicitor General’s refute that the case has been moot and academic was not upheld by the
    Court. According to the Supreme Court, courts will decide cases otherwise found moot and
    academic if: there is grave Constitutional violation, the situation’s exceptional character and
    paramount public interest involved, issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to
    guide the bench, bar and public, and lastly it is capable of repetition yet evading review.
    Petitioner was found to be of legal standing on the grounds that his personal rights were
    involved. The petitioner qualifies under the direct injury test. The personal and substantial
    interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain direct injury qualifies him to
    impugn the validity of the statute. To wit some of these direct injuries he sustained are the illegal
    arrest and unlawful search he experienced. Given this fact, the court entertained his petition as
    he has adequately shown that he entitled to judicial protection.
    However, the court does not liberally declare statutes as invalid although they may be abused
    and misabused and may afford an opportunity for abuse in the manner of application. The
    validity of a statute or ordinance is to be determined from its general purpose and its efficiency
    to accomplish the end desired, not from its effects in a particular case.
    The Court ruled that the assailed PP 1017 is unconstitutional insofar as it grants President
    Arroyo the authority to promulgate decrees, taking into consideration that legislative power is
    vested only in congress.
    The Court partly grants the petitions. PP 1017 is constitutional insofar as it allows the President
    to call the AFP to prevent or suppress lawless violence. However, commanding the AFP to
    enforce laws not related to lawless violence are declared unconstitutional. Such proclamation
    does not also authorize the President to take over privately-owned public utilities or business
    affected with public interest without prior legislation. General Order No. 5 is constitutional as it is
    a standard on how the AFP and PNP would implement PP1017, but portion where “acts of
    terrorism” has not been defined and punishable by congress is held unconstitutional.
    Furthermore, the following acts of the government were held unconstitutional: warrantless arrest
    of the petitioner, dispersal and warrantless arrests of rallyists in the absence of proof that said
    petitioners were committing acts constituting lawless violence, invasion or rebellion, or violating
    BP 800; imposition of media standards and any form of prior restraint on the press, as well as
    warrantless search of the Tribune Offices and whimsical seizure of its articles for publication
    and other materials.

    You might also like