Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban philosophy “In cases involving liberty, the scales of 1.
1. Usurpation of legislative powers; violation of freedom of expression; and
justice should weigh heavily against government and in favor of the poor, the
oppressed, the marginalized, the dispossessed and the weak”.
Facts.
On Feb 24, 2006, during. the celebration of the 20th anniversary of People Power I,
President Arroyo issued Proclamation no 1017 declaring a State of National
emergency and issued G.O. No. 5 ordering the Armed Forces of the Philippines to
maintain law and order by preventing all forms of insurrection or rebellion. She
alleged that the political opposition have conspired with the historical enemies of the
democratic Philippine state, the extreme Left (represented by NDF-CPP-NPA) and the
extreme right (represented by military adventurist), to bring down her government.
On the same day, a rally took place and the police made efforts to disperse groups of
protesters. Subsequently, there were warrantless arrest of Randolf S. David
(petitioner), Ronald Llamas, some members of the Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU) and
National Federation of Labor Unions – Kilusang Mayo Uno (NAFLU – KMU).
The following day, Police raided the Daily Tribune. National Telecommunications’
Commissioner Ronald Solis urged television and radio networks to cooperate with
the government during the duration of the state of national emergency
On March 3, 2006, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo issued Proclamation number
1021 declaring that the state of national emergency has ceased to exist.
There are now seven (7) petitions challenging the constitutionality of PP 1017 and
G.O No.5:
G.R. No. 171396 Petitioner Randolf S. David, et al.
1. It encroaches on the emergency powers of the Congress
2. It is a subterfuge to avoid the constitutional requirements for the imposition
of martial law
3. It violates the constitutional guarantees of freedom of the press, of speech
and assembly.
G.R. No. 171409 Petitioner Niñez Cacho-Olivares and Tribune Publishing Co., Inc.
1. CIDGs act of raiding the Daily Tribune is a clear case of censorship
2. “emergency” only refers to tsunami, hurricanes and similar occurrences,
hence, there is no emergency that warrants PP 1017
G.R. No. 171485 Petitioner Representative Francis Joseph Escudero and 21 other
members of the House of Representative
declaration of martial law
2. President Arroyo gravely abused her discretion in calling out the AFP without
clear and verifiable factual basis of the possibility of lawless violence and
showing that there is necessity to do so.
G.R. No. 171483 Petitioners KMU and NAFLU – KMU
1. They arrogate unto the President Arroyo the powers to enact laws and
decrees
2. Their issuance was without factual basis
3. They violate freedom of expression and the right of the people to peaceably
assemble to redress their grievances
G.R. No, 171400 Petitioner Alternative Law Groups, Inc. (ALGI)
PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5 is unconstitutional because it violates the following:
1. Section 415 of Article II;
2. Section 116, 217, and 418 of Article III;
3. Section 2319 of Article VI; and
4. Section 1720 of Article XII of the Constitution
G.R. No. 171489 Petitioners Jose Anselmo Cadiz et al.,
1. Arbitrary and unlawful exercise by the President of martial law powers
2. It amounts to exercise of emergency powers without congressional approval
3. Goes beyond the nature and function of a proclamation as defined under
the Revised Administrative Cod
G.R. No. 171424 Petitioner Loren Legarda
1. Unconstitutional for being violative of the freedom of expression, including
its cognate rights such as freedom of press and the right to access
information on matters of public concern, all guaranteed under Article III
Section 4 of the Constitution
In Respondents Consolidated Comment, the Solicitor general countered that:
1. Petitions should be dismissed for being moot;
2. G.R. Nos 171400 (ALGI), 171424 (Legarda), 171483 (KMU, et. Al.), 171385
(Escudero et.al.), and 171489 (Cadiz, et. Al) have no legal standing;
3. It is not necessary to implead President Arroyo as respondent; and
4. PP 1017 does not violate the people’s right to free expression and redress
of grievances.
Issues. growing alliance between the NPA and the military. The court is convinced that the
President was justified in issuing PP 1017 calling for military aid.
A. PROCEDURAL
a. Whether the issuance of PP 1021 renders the petitions moot and Whether PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5 are unconstitutional
academic
b. Whether petitioners in G.R. Nos 171485, 171400, 171483, 171489, The Court finds and so holds that PP 1017 is constitutional insofar as it constitutes a.
and 171424 have legal standing (locus standi) all by the President for the AFP to prevent or suppress lawless violence. However,
B. SUBSTANTIVE the provisions of PP 1017 commanding the AFP to enforce laws not related to lawless
a. Whether the Supreme Court can review the factual bases of PP violence, as well as decrees promulgated by the President are UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
1017.
b. Whether PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5 are unconstitutional G.O. No. 5 is CONSTITUTIONAL since it provides a standard by which the AFP and the
PNP should impkement 1017, i.e. whatever is “neccessary and appropriate actions
Ruling. and mesures to suppress and prevent acts of lawless violence.” Considering that
“acts of terrorism have not yet been defined and made punishable by the Legislature,
PROCEDURAL such portion of G. O. No. 5 is declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Whether the issuance of PP 1021 renders the petitions moot and academic The warrantless arrest of Randolf S. David and Ronald Llamas, KMU and NAFLU-KMU
members as well as the warrantless search of the Tribune offices and sezure of its
No. The court holds that President Arroyos issuance of PP 1021 did not render the articles for publication and other materials, are declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
petitions moot and academic.

Whether petitioners in G.R. Nos 171485, 171400, 171483, 171489, and 171424 have
legal standing (locus standi)

Locus standi is defined as “a right of appearance in a court of justice on a given

question.” In private suits, the plaintiff’s standing is based on his own right to the
relief sought. In public suits, the Supreme Court adopted the “direct injury test.”
However, the court also adopted a rule that even when petitioners doesn’t have locus
standi, they are allowed to sue under the principle of “transcendental importance”

The stated that the whole Philippines is waiting for the ruling of this very critical
matter thus calls for the application of the principle of “transcendental importance.”
Thus, holds that all petitioners have locus standi.

SUBSTANTIVE

Whether the Supreme Court can review the factual bases of PP 1017

A reading of the Solicitor General’s Consolidated Commend and Memorandum shows

a detailed narration of the events leading to the issuance of PP 1017 with supporting
records forming part of the record. Mentioned are the escape of the Magdalo Group,
their audacious threat of the Magdala D-Day, the defections in the military, and
reproving statements from the communist leaders. There was also the Minutes of
the Intelligence Report ans Security Group of the Philippine Army showing the