489 SCRA 160 Political Law The Executive Branch PresidentialProclamation1017 Take Care Clause Take Over Power Calling Out PowerBill of Rights Freedom of Speech OverbreadthIn February 2006, due to the escape of some Magdalo members and the discovery of a plan (Oplan Hackle I) to assassinate the president, then president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (GMA) issuedPresidentialProclamation1017 (PP1017) and is to 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 DailyTribune, which Cacho-Olivares is the editor, was raided by the CIDG and they seized and confiscated anti-GMA 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 emergencies 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 ofthe liftingof 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 ofthe liftingof 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 declarationThe 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. Petitioners presented nothing to refute such events. 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 TheoryFirst 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 DoctrineOn 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 DoctrinePursuant to the 2ndsentence 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 DoctrineThe president cannot validly order the taking over of private corporations or institutions such as the DailyTribunewithout 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 DeclarationThe 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.

David vs. Arroyo G.R. No. 171396 May 3, 2006Facts of the case:

During the celebration of People Power I, President Arroyo issued Presidential Proclamation 1017 (PP 1017 for brevity) declaring a state of national emergency. The President also issued General Order (G.O.) No. 5 implementing PP 1017.

The President stated that over the past months, elements in political opposition have conspired with extreme left represented by NDF- CCP- NPA and military adventurists, which caused her to declare such order. The President considered aims to oust the President and take- over reigns of government as clear and present danger.

On March 3, President Arroyo lifted PP 1017.

Solicitor General argued that the basis of declaring PP 1017 was that the intent of the Constitution is to give full discretionary powers to the President in determining the necessity of calling out the AFP.

However despite the contentions of the Solicitor General, the Magdalo group indicted the Oakwood mutiny and called to wear red bands on their left arms to show disgust.

At the same time Oplan Hackle I was discovered, which constitutes plans of bombings and attacks on PMA Alumni Homecoming in Baguio, the same event where the President was invited. The next morning after the alumni homecoming celebration, a bomb was found inside the campus.

PNP Chief Arturo Lomibao also intercepted information that PNP- SAF members are planning to defect from the administration, while on the same view Congressman Peping Cojuanco plotted moves to bring down the Arroyo Administration.

Huge number of soldiers joined the rallies to provide critical mass and armed component to Anti- Arroyo protests.

Bombings of telephone communication towers and cell sites in Bulacaan and Bataan was also considered as an additional factual basis after the issuance of PP 1017 and GO 5.

Because of these incidental series of events which clearly presents a critical situation, President Arroyo cancelled all activities related to EDSA People Power I. Mike Arroyo, then Executive Secretary, announced that warrantless arrest and takeover of facilities can be implemented.

Succeeding this announcement was the arrest of Randy David, a Filipino journalist and UP professor due to a mistake of fact that he was actually involved in the street rallies. Seizure of Daily Tribune, Malaya and Abante-- all local news publication, took place which, according to the PNP, was meant to show a strong presence to tell the media outlets not to connive or do anything that would help rebels in bringing down the government. Police also arrested Congressman Crispin Beltran, who then represented the Anakpawis Party.

Issue:

Whether or not the issuance of Presidential Proclamation PP 1017 is unconstitutional? Whether or not the arrest of Randy David and the seizure of Daily Tribune et. al., is unconstitutional?

Ruling of the court:

Respondents claim that such petition is moot and academic based on the issuance of PP 1017, but the Court rejects such contention. A moot and academic case is one that ceases to present a justiciable controversy. In this case, the Court is convinced that the President was justified in issuing PP 1017 which calls for military aid.

Most people then equate it to martial law, but such case is different wherein the basis then was the 1973 Constitution. Under the present 1987 Constitution, the President may summon armed forces to aid him in supporting lawless violence.

The President's declaration of state rebellion was merely an act declaring a status or conduction of a public moment of interest. State of national emergency, however, is the prerogative of the President. Her exercise of emergency powers such as the taking over of privately owned utility requires delegation from the Congress, which is entirely different from the martial law.

As to the seizure of the Daily Tribune and the arrest of Randy David, the Court considers those actions unlawful based on the fact that it violates the constitutional mandate of freedom of expression.