DAVID vs ARROYO

Gr. No. 171396

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. Thereafter, the
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 reins of
government as a clear and present danger.

Issue: Whether or not the issuance of PP 1021 renders the petitions moot and academic.

Held: The Court holds that President Arroyos issuance of PP 1021 did not render the present
petitions moot and academic. During the eight (8) days that PP 1017 was operative, the police
officers, according to petitioners, committed illegal acts in implementing it.

All the foregoing exceptions are present here and justify the Supreme Courts assumption of
jurisdiction over the instant petitions. Petitioners alleged that the issuance of PP 1017 and G.O.
No. 5 violates the Constitution. There is no question that the issues being raised affect the
publics interest, involving as they do the peoples basic rights to freedom of expression, of
assembly and of the press. Moreover, the Court has the duty to formulate guiding and
controlling constitutional precepts, doctrines or rules. It has the symbolic function of educating
the bench and the bar, and in the present petitions, the military and the police, on the extent of
the protection given by constitutional guarantees. And lastly, respondents contested actions are
capable of repetition. Certainly, the petitions are subject to judicial review.