University of the Philippines College of Law

CPE, 1-D

Topic Overbreadth Doctrine/Vagueness

Case No. GR 171396 / May 3, 2006
Case Name David vs Macapagal Arroyo
Ponente SANDOVAL-GUITIERREZ, j.

DOCTRINE
● Overbreadth doctrine is an analytical tool developed for testing ‘on their faces’ statutes in free speech
cases.
● Void for vagueness – a law is facially invalid if men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its
meaning and differ as to its application.
○ Same principles with overbreadth doctrine. [Tinga dissents this]

SUMMARY
● President Arroyo issued PP1017 declaring a state of national emergency. This case covers the seven
consolidated petitions for cetiorari assailing the constitutionality of PP1017 and General Order No. 5
implementing the former. it is alleged that in doing so, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo committed
grave abuse of discretion and that respondent officials of the Government, in their professed efforts to
defend and preserve democratic institutions are actually trampling upon the very freedom guaranteed
and protected by the constitution. Petitioner contend that PP 1017 is void on its face because of
overbreadth. SC ruled that the application of facial review using overbreadth doctrine cannot be applied
it the cases. Furthermore, SC also ruled that PP 1017 cannot be “void for vagueness” since same
principles are used for testing if it is void for vagueness and the overbreadth doctrine. Petitioners failed
to show that those principles were present in the case.

RELEVANT FACTS

● In 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) issued
Presidential Proclamation 1017 (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.

● 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.

● The Daily Tribune and Malaya, known anti-GMA news agencies, were also raided and seized. 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 emergency
 University of the Philippines College of Law
CPE, 1-D

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 of the lifting of PP
1017 by virtue of the declaration of PP 1021. The Sol-Gen averred that PP 1017 is within the president’s
calling out power, take care power and take over power.

ISSUE

● W/N PP 1017 is void on its face because of its overbreadth.

RATIO DECIDENDI

Issue
W/N PP 1017 is void on its
face because of its
overbreadth.
Ratio
NO, a facial review of PP 1017, using the overbreadth doctrine and on the
ground of vagueness, is uncalled for.
1. Overbreadth doctrine is an analytical tool developed for testing ‘on
their faces’ statutes in free speech cases.
a. 7 consolidated cases at bar are not primarily ‘freedom of
speech’ cases.
b. a plain reading of PP 1017 shows that it is not primarily
directed to speech or even speech-related conduct.
i. actually a call upon the AFP to prevent or suppress all
forms of lawless violence.
ii. the incontrovertible fact remains that PP 1017
pertains to a spectrum of conduct, not free speech,
which is manifestly subject to state regulation.
2. 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.
3. “Void for vagueness” is subject to the same principle governing
overbreadth doctrine.
a. Void for vagueness – a law is facially invalid if men of
common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning
and differ as to its application.
b. Same principles as with overbreadth:
i. Also an analytical tool for testing “on their faces”
statutes in free speech cases.
ii. A litigant may challenge a statute on its face only if it
is vague in all possible applications.
4. Petitioner did not even attempt to show that PP 1017 is vague in all
its application. They also failed to establish that men of common
intelligence cannot understand the meaning and application of PP
1017.

RULING
 University of the Philippines College of Law
CPE, 1-D

WHEREFORE, the Petitions are partly granted. The Court rules that PP 1017 is CONSTITUTIONAL insofar as it
constitutes a call by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on the AFP to prevent or suppress lawless violence.
However, the provisions of PP 1017 commanding the AFP to enforce laws not related to lawless violence, as
well as decrees promulgated by the President, are declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL. In addition, the provision in
PP 1017 declaring national emergency under Section 17, Article VII of the Constitution is CONSTITUTIONAL, but
such declaration does not authorize the President to take over privately-owned public utility or business
affected with public interest without prior legislation.

G.O. No. 5 is CONSTITUTIONAL since it provides a standard by which the AFP and the PNP should implement PP
1017, i.e. whatever is “necessary and appropriate actions and measures to suppress and prevent acts of lawless
violence.“ Considering that “acts of terrorism” have not yet been defined and made punishable by the
Legislature, such portion of G.O. No. 5 is declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

The warrantless arrest of Randolf S. David and Ronald Llamas; the dispersal and warrantless arrest of the KMU
and NAFLU-KMU members during their rallies, in the absence of proof that these petitioners were committing
acts constituting lawless violence, invasion or rebellion and violating BP 880; the imposition of standards on
media or any form of prior restraint on the press, as well as the warrantless search of the Tribune offices and
whimsical seizure of its articles for publication and other materials, are declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

No costs.

SEPARATE OPINIONS

Tinga dissented on the part of “void for vagueness” being essentially related to overbreadth doctrine when it
comes to facial challenge. [TBC]

NOTES