DAVID v.

MACAPAGAL-ARROYO

G.R. No. 171396 | May 3, 2006 | SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

| Topic: Judiciary-Powers-Judicial Review-Requisites-Moot and Academic
Case Summary: Petitioners filed seven (7) certiorari and prohibition allege that in issuing Presidential Proclamation
No. 1017 (PP 1017) and General Order No. 5 (G.O. No. 5), President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo committed grave
abuse of discretion. Petitioners contend 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. Hence, such issuances are void for being unconstitutional.

Doctrine: If the government consciously or unconsciously oversteps the Constitutional limitations there must be
some authority competent to hold it in control, to thwart its unconstitutional attempt, and thus to vindicate and
preserve inviolate the will of the people as expressed in the Constitution. This power the courts exercise. This is the
beginning and the end of the theory of judicial review.

Petitioner: PROF. RANDOLF S. DAVID, LORENZO TAÑADA III, RONALD LLAMAS, H. HARRY L. ROQUE, JR.,
JOEL RUIZ BUTUYAN, ROGER R. RAYEL, GARY S. MALLARI, ROMEL REGALADO BAGARES, CHRISTOPHER
F.C. BOLASTIG (there are other 6 set of petitioners)
Respondent: GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, AS PRESIDENT AND COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF, EXECUTIVE
SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA, HON. AVELINO CRUZ II, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, GENERAL
GENEROSO SENGA, CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES, DIRECTOR GENERAL
ARTURO LOMIBAO, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE (there are other 6 set of repondents)

Facts:
 On February 24, 2006, as the Filipino nation celebrated the 20th Anniversary of the EDSA People Power I,
President Arroyo issued PP 1017, implemented by G.O. No. 5, declaring a state of national emergency.
 She called upon the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the Philippine National Police (PNP), to
prevent and suppress acts of terrorism and lawless violence in the country. The Office of the President
announced the cancellation of all programs and activities related to the 20th anniversary celebration of Edsa
People Power I; and revoked the permits to hold rallies issued earlier by the local governments and dispersal
of the rallyists along EDSA.
 The police arrested (without warrant) petitioner Randolf S. David, a professor at the University of the
Philippines and newspaper columnist. Also arrested was his companion, Ronald Llamas, president of party-
list Akbayan.
 In the early morning of February 25, 2006, operatives of the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group
(CIDG) of the PNP, on the basis of PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5, raided the Daily Tribune offices in Manila and
attempt to arrest was made against representatives of ANAKPAWIS, GABRIELA and BAYAN MUNA whom
suspected of inciting to sedition and rebellion.
 On March 3, 2006, exactly one week after the declaration of a state of national emergency and after all these
petitions had been filed, the President issued PP 1021, lifting PP 1017.
 Petitioners filed seven (7) certiorari with the Supreme Court and three (3) of those petitions impleaded
President Arroyo as respondent questioning the legality of the proclamation, alleging that it encroaches the
emergency powers of Congress and it violates the constitutional guarantees of freedom of the press, of speech
and assembly.
 In their presentation of the factual bases of PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5, respondents stated that the proximate
cause behind the executive issuances was the conspiracy among some military officers, leftist insurgents of
the New People’s Army, 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.
 In respondents’ Consolidated Comment, the Solicitor General countered that the petitions should be dismissed
for being moot.
Issue/s:

Whether the issuance of PP 1021 renders the petitions moot and academic. NO

Held:

The Court holds that President Arroyo’s issuance of PP 1021 did not render the present petitions moot and academic.

The "moot and academic" principle is not a magical formula that can automatically dissuade the courts in resolving a
case. Courts will decide cases, otherwise moot and academic, if: first, there is a grave violation of the Constitution;
second, the exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest is involved; third, when
constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the public;
and fourth, the case is capable of repetition yet evading review.

All the foregoing exceptions are present here and justify this Court’s 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 public’s interest, involving as they do the people’s 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.

Respondents failed to take into account the Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban’s very statement that an otherwise
"moot" case may still be decided "provided the party raising it in a proper case has been and/or continues to be
prejudiced or damaged as a direct result of its issuance." The present case falls right within this exception to the
mootness rule pointed out by the Chief Justice.

Ruling:

The issue cannot be considered as moot and academic by reason of the lifting of the questioned PP. Hence, the
SC can take cognition of the case at bar.