David vs Macapagal Arroyo

Facts:
On February 24, 2006, as the nation celebrated the 20th Anniversary of the
Edsa People Power I, President Arroyo issued PP 1017 declaring a state of national
emergency. On the same day, the President issued G. O. No. 5 implementing PP
1017, calling upon the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the Philippine
National Police (PNP), to prevent and suppress acts of terrorism and lawless violence
in the country. However, on March 3, 2006, exactly one week after the declaration
of a state of national emergency and after all these petitions had been filed, the
President lifted PP 1017, issuing Proclamation No. 1021.
In the span of one week, from the time the proclamation was declared and
lifted, series of warrantless arrests and raids were made. During the dispersal of the
rallyists along EDSA, police arrested (without warrant) petitioner Randolf S. David, a
professor at the University of the Philippines and newspaper columnist. Also
arrested was his companion, Ronald Llamas, president of party-list Akbayan.
At around 12:20 in the early morning of February 25, 2006, operatives of the
Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) of the PNP, on the basis of PP
1017 and G.O. No. 5, raided the Daily Tribune offices in Manila. Also, on February 25,
2006, the police arrested Congressman Crispin Beltran, representing the Anakpawis
Party and Chairman of Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU), while leaving his farmhouse in
Bulacan.
The police showed a warrant for his arrest dated 1985. Retired Major
General Ramon Montao, former head of the Philippine Constabulary, was arrested
while with his wife and golfmates and Bayan Muna Representative Josel Virador was
arrested at the PAL Ticket Office in Davao City. All these arrests were made by virtue
of Proclamation No. 1017 and G.O No. 5.
Petitioners alleged that PGMA committed grave abuse of discretion for issuing
Proc. No. 1017 and G.O No. 5. They contended that said issuances were
unconstitutional for it encroaches on the emergency powers of Congress, it is a
subterfuge to avoid the constitutional requirements for the imposition of martial
law, and it violates the constitutional guarantees of freedom of the press, of speech
and of assembly.
In respondents consolidated comment, the Solicitor General countered that,
among others, the petitions should be dismissed for being moot. He refutes the
existence of such actual case or controversy, contending that the present petitions
were rendered moot and academic by President Arroyos issuance of PP 1021.
Issue: Whether or not the issuance of PP 1021 renders the petitions moot and
academic
Ruling:
No, the issuance of PP 1021 did not render the petitions moot and academic.
The Court held that the lifting of Proc. No. 1017 did not render it moot and academic
because during the 8 days that it was operative, the police officers already
committed acts in implementing it. The Court stressed that an unconstitutional act

is not a law, it confers no rights, it imposes no duties, it affords no protection; it is in

legal contemplation, inoperative. In this case, if Proc. No. 1017 and G.O No. 5 are
proven unconstitutional, then the acts committed by the police would be illegal.
Therefore, the is still and actual case or controversy and petitions are not moot and
academic.