DAVID V.

ARROYO
FACTS: In February 2006, due to the escape of some Magdalo
members and the discovery of a plan (Oplan Hackle I) to assassinate
the

president,

then

issued Presidential

president

Proclamation

Gloria
1017

Macapagal-Arroyo

(GMA)

(PP1017)

to

and

is

be

implemented by General Order No. 5 (GO 5). The said law was aimed
to suppress lawlessness and the connivance of extremists to bring
down the government.
Pursuant to such PP, GMA cancelled all plans to celebrate EDSA
I and at the same time revoked all permits issued for rallies and other
public organization/meeting. Notwithstanding the cancellation of their
rally permit, Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU)

head Randolf David

proceeded to rally which led to his arrest.

Later that day, the Daily Tribune, which Cacho-Olivares is the
editor, was raided by the CIDG and they seized and confiscated antiGMA articles and write ups. Later still, another known anti-GMA news
agency (Malaya) was raided and seized. On the same day, Beltran of
Anakpawis, was also arrested. His arrest was however grounded on a
warrant of arrest issued way back in 1985 for his actions against
Marcos. His supporters cannot visit him in jail because of the current
imposition of PP 1017 and GO 5.
In March, GMA issued PP 1021 which declared that the state of
national emergency ceased to exist. David and some opposition
Congressmen averred that PP1017 is unconstitutional for it has no
factual basis and it cannot be validly declared by the president for
such power is reposed in Congress. Also such declaration is actually a

declaration of martial law. Olivares-Cacho also averred that the

emergency contemplated in the Constitution are those of natural
calamities and that such is an overbreadth. Petitioners claim that PP
1017 is an overbreadth because it encroaches upon protected and
unprotected rights. The Sol-Gen argued that the issue has become
moot and academic by reason of the lifting of PP 1017 by virtue of the
declaration of PP 1021. The Sol-Gen averred that PP 1017 is within
the presidents calling out power, take care power and take over
power.
ISSUE: Whether or not PP 1017 and GO 5 is constitutional.
HELD: PP 1017 and its implementing GO are partly constitutional
and partly unconstitutional.
The issue cannot be considered as moot and academic by reason
of the lifting of the questioned PP. It is still in fact operative because
there are parties still affected due to the alleged violation of the said
PP. Hence, the SC can take cognition of the case at bar. The SC ruled
that PP 1017 is constitutional in part and at the same time some
provisions of which are unconstitutional. The SC ruled in the following
way;
Resolution by the SC on the Factual Basis of its declaration
The petitioners were not able to prove that GMA has no factual
basis in issuing PP 1017 and GO 5. A reading of the Solicitor
Generals Consolidated Comment and Memorandum shows a detailed
narration of the events leading to the issuance of PP 1017, with
supporting reports forming part of the records. Mentioned are the

escape of the Magdalo Group, their audacious threat of the Magdalo

D-Day, the defections in the military, particularly in the Philippine
Marines, and the reproving statements from the communist leaders.
There was also the Minutes of the Intelligence Report and Security
Group of the Philippine Army showing the growing alliance between
the NPA and the military.
such events.

Petitioners presented nothing to refute

Thus, absent any contrary allegations, the Court is

convinced that the President was justified in issuing PP 1017 calling

for military aid. Indeed, judging the seriousness of the incidents, GMA
was not expected to simply fold her arms and do nothing to prevent or
suppress what she believed was lawless violence, invasion or
rebellion.

However, the exercise of such power or duty must not

stifle liberty.
Resolution by the SC on the Overbreadth Theory
First and foremost, the overbreadth doctrine is an analytical tool
developed for testing on their faces statutes in free speech cases.
The 7 consolidated cases at bar are not primarily freedom of speech
cases. Also, a plain reading of PP 1017 shows that it is not primarily
directed to speech or even speech-related conduct. It is actually a call
upon the AFP to prevent or suppress all forms of lawless violence.
Moreover, the overbreadth doctrine is not intended for testing the
validity of a law that reflects legitimate state interest in maintaining
comprehensive control over harmful, constitutionally unprotected
conduct. Undoubtedly, lawless violence, insurrection and rebellion
are considered harmful and constitutionally unprotected conduct.
Thus, claims of facial overbreadth are entertained in cases involving
statutes which, by their terms, seek to regulate only spoken words

and again, that overbreadth claims, if entertained at all, have been

curtailed when invoked against ordinary criminal laws that are sought
to be applied to protected conduct. Here, the incontrovertible fact
remains that PP 1017 pertains to a spectrum of conduct, not free
speech, which is manifestly subject to state regulation.
Resolution by the SC on the Calling Out Power Doctrine
On the basis of Sec 17, Art 7 of the Constitution, GMA declared
PP 1017. The SC considered the Presidents calling-out power as a
discretionary power solely vested in his wisdom, it stressed that this
does not prevent an examination of whether such power was
exercised within permissible constitutional limits or whether it was
exercised in a manner constituting grave abuse of discretion. The SC
ruled that GMA has validly declared PP 1017 for the Constitution
grants

the

President,

as

Commander-in-Chief, a

sequence of

graduated powers. From the most to the least benign, these are: the
calling-out power, the power to suspend the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus, and the power to declare Martial Law. The only
criterion for the exercise of the calling-out power is that whenever it
becomes necessary, the President may call the armed forces to
prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. And such
criterion has been met.
Resolution by the SC on the Take Care Doctrine
Pursuant to the 2nd sentence of Sec 17, Art 7 of the Constitution
(He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed.) the president
declared PP 1017. David et al averred that PP 1017 however violated
Sec 1, Art 6 of the Constitution for it arrogated legislative power to

the President. Such power is vested in Congress. They assail the

clause to enforce obedience to all the laws and to all decrees, orders
and regulations promulgated by me personally or upon my direction.
The SC noted that such provision is similar to the power that granted
former President Marcos legislative powers (as provided in PP 1081).
The SC ruled that the assailed PP 1017 is unconstitutional insofar as it
grants GMA the authority to promulgate decrees. Legislative power
is peculiarly within the province of the Legislature. Sec 1, Article 6
categorically states that [t]he legislative power shall be vested in the
Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and a
House of Representatives. To be sure, neither Martial Law nor a
state of rebellion nor a state of emergency can justify GMA[s exercise
of legislative power by issuing decrees. The president can only take
care of the carrying out of laws but cannot create or enact laws.
Resolution by the SC on the Take Over Power Doctrine
The president cannot validly order the taking over of private
corporations or institutions such as the Daily Tribune without any
authority from Congress. On the other hand, the word emergency
contemplated in the constitution is not limited to natural calamities
but rather it also includes rebellion. The SC made a distinction; the
president can declare the state of national emergency but her
exercise of emergency powers does not come automatically after it for
such exercise needs authority from Congress. The authority from
Congress must be based on the following:
(1) There must be a war or other emergency.
(2) The delegation must be for a limited period only.

(3)

The delegation must be subject to such restrictions as the

Congress may prescribe.

(4) The emergency powers must be exercised to carry out a national
policy declared by Congress.

Resolution by the SC on the Issue that PP 1017 is a Martial Law

Declaration
The SC ruled that PP 1017 is not a Martial Law declaration and
is not tantamount to it. It is a valid exercise of the calling out power of
the president by the president.
By: AGRAVANTE, Mary Grace