David vs.

Macapagal-Arroyo May 3, 2006 Petitioners: David, et al; Cacho-Olivares; Escudero, et al; KMU, et al; ALGI; Cadiz, et al; Legarda

I. FACTS A. On 17 January 2006, Captain Nathaniel Rabonza and First Lieutenants Sonny Sarmiento, Lawrence San Juan and Patricio Bumidang of the Magdalo Group, involved in the Oakwood mutiny, escaped from detention, and vowed to remain defiant and to elude arrest at all costs. They encouraged people to show and proclaim our displeasure at the sham regime. Let us demonstrate our disgust, not only by going to the streets in protest, but also by wearing red bands on our left arms. B. On 17 February 2006, authorities discovered a plan (Oplan Hackle 1) to bomb a PMA Alumni Homecoming and to kill the President. A bomb was found the following morning. C. On 21 February 2006, Lt. San Juan was arrested in a communist safehouse in Batangas with subversive documents and minutes of the meetings between the Magdalo Group and the NPA. Prior to his arrest, he said that Magdalos D-Day would be on February 24, 2006. D. On 23 February 2006, the President cancelled Edsa celebrations, revoked rally permits. E. On 24 February 2006, the President issued Presidential Proclamation 1017 and General Order No. 5. On the same day, protesters from Kilusang Mayo Uno and National Federation of Labor Unions-Kilusang Mayo Uno were dispersed in various parts of Metro Manila. The police along EDSA arrested Randolf David and Ronald Llamas. F. On 25 February 2006, the PNP-CIDG raided the office of the Daily Tribune with only the presence of the security guard on duty. G. On 3 March 2006, the President issued PP1021, declaring that the state of emergency has ceased. H. 7 petitions were filed on the constitutionality of PP 1017 and GO 5 I. The Solicitor-General said that: 1) the petitions should be dismissed for being moot; 2) GR 171400 (ALGI), 171424 (Legarda), 17183 (KMU), 171485 (Escudero) and 171489 (Cadiz) have no legal standing; 3) it is not necessary for the petitioners to implead the President; 4) PP1017 has constitutional and legal basis; and 5) PPP1017 does not violate the peoples right to free expression and redress grievances. II. ISSUES A. Whether the issuance of PP 1021 renders the petitions moot and academic.

B. Whether the petitioners (Escudero, ALGI, KMU, Cadiz, and Legarda) have legal standing. C. Whether PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5 are unconstitutional. III. HELD A. No. There is the claim of commission of illegal acts by the police during the enforcement of PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5. The Court decides cases if: 1) There is a grave violation of the Constitution 2) The exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest is involved 3) When the constitutional issue requires the formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the public 4) The case is capable of repetition yet evading review B. Yes. The petitioners have legal standing using the transcendental importance doctrine, due to far-reaching implications of the petition, notwithstanding its categorical statement that petitioner therein had no personality to file the suit. When petitioners have failed to show direct injury, they have been allowed to sue under the principle of transcendental importance. C. PP 1017 is constitutional in terms of its call on the AFP to prevent or suppress lawless violence. It is unconstitutional, as it orders the AFP to enforce laws unrelated to the lawless violence and to the decrees issued by the President. The declaration of emergency powers is constitutional, but the it does not authorize the takeover of businesses without the authorization of Congress. G.O. No. 5 is constitutional, because it guides the AFP and PNP on the implementation of PP 1017. It is unconstitutional in terms of its use of acts of terrorism, which has not been defined and made punishable by the Legislature. The warrantless arrest of Randolf David and Ronald Llamas and the search of the Daily Tribune are unconstitutional, so are the dispersals and arrests on KMU protestors. There is nothing about violation peoples rights were mentioned in PP 1017.