DAVID VS MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, GR No.

171396, May 2006

(Section 17. Temporary Take-Over)
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, thus:
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, President of the Republic of the
Philippines and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, by virtue of
the powers vested upon me by Section 18, Article 7 of the Philippine Constitution which
states that: The President. . . whenever it becomes necessary, . . . may call out (the)
armed forces to prevent or suppress. . .rebellion. . ., and in my capacity as their
Commander-in-Chief, do hereby command the Armed Forces of the Philippines, to
maintain law and order throughout the Philippines, prevent or suppress all forms of
lawless violence as well as any act of insurrection or rebellion and to enforce obedience
to all the laws and to all decrees, orders and regulations promulgated by me personally
or upon my direction; and as provided in Section 17, Article 12 of the Constitution do
hereby declare a State of National Emergency.
On the same day, the President issued G. O. No. 5 implementing PP 1017.
Respondents stated that the proximate cause behind the executive issuances was the
conspiracy among some military officers, leftist insurgents of the New Peoples Army
(NPA), and some members of the political opposition in a plot to unseat or assassinate
President Arroyo. They considered the aim to oust or assassinate the President and
take-over the reigns of government as a clear and present danger.
ISSUE: Whether or not PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5 are unconstitutional
HELD: Yes, it is unconstitutional.
The pertinent provision of PP 1017 states:
x x x and to enforce obedience to all the laws and to all decrees, orders, and regulations
promulgated by me personally or upon my direction; and as provided in Section 17,
Article XII of the Constitution do hereby declare a state of national emergency.
In which, Section 17, Article XII of the 1987 constitution state:
In times of national emergency, when the public interest so requires, the State may,
during the emergency and under reasonable terms prescribed by it, temporarily take
over or direct the operation of any privately-owned public utility or business affected with
public interest.

Petitioners, particularly the members of the House of Representatives, claim that

President Arroyos inclusion of Section 17, Article XII in PP 1017 is an encroachment on
the legislatures emergency powers.
A distinction must be drawn between the Presidents authority to declare a state of
national emergency and to exercise emergency powers. To the first, as elucidated by
the Court, Section 18, Article VII grants the President such power, hence, no legitimate
constitutional objection can be raised. But to the second, manifold constitutional issues
arise.
In times of war or other national emergency, the Congress may, by law, authorize the
President, for a limited period and subject to such restrictions as it may prescribe, to
exercise powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy. Unless
sooner withdrawn by resolution of the Congress, such powers shall cease upon the next
adjournment thereof.
It may be pointed out that the second paragraph of the above provision refers not only
to war but also to other national emergency. President Arroyo could validly declare the
existence of a state of national emergency even in the absence of a Congressional
enactment.
But the exercise of emergency powers, such as the taking over of privately owned
public utility or business affected with public interest, is a different matter. This requires
a delegation from Congress.
Section 17, Article XII must be understood as an aspect of the emergency powers
clause. The taking over of private business affected with public interest is just
another facet of the emergency powers generally reposed upon Congress. Thus,
Section 17 refers to Congress, not the President. Now, whether or not the President
may exercise such power is dependent on whether Congress may delegate it to him
pursuant to a law prescribing the reasonable terms thereof.
In Araneta v. Dinglasan, the Supreme Court emphasized that legislative power, through
which extraordinary measures are exercised, remains in Congress even in times of
crisis.
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.