David v ArroyoGR No. 171396, May 3, 2006Facts: As the nation celebrated EDSA¶s 20
anniversary, President Arroyo issued PP 1017 declaring astate of national emergency and thereby commanded the AFP and PNP to immediately carryout necessary and appropriate actions and measures to suppress and prevent acts of terrorismand lawless violence.This declaration led to cancellation of all programs and activities related to the EDSA PeoplePower I celebration. Rally permits were revoked and warrantless arrests and take-over of facilities, including the media, were implemented. Assemblies and rallyists were dispersed. Along with the dispersal, petitioner was arrested without warrant. A week after PP 1017, PP1021 was issued lifting the state of emergency.Issue:Whether or not there is an actual controversy or case subject for judicial review.Whether or not there petition is with legal standing particularly on his qualification to sue.Ratio Decidendi:The Solicitor General¶s refute that the case has been moot and academic was not upheld by theCourt. According to the Supreme Court, courts will decide cases otherwise found moot andacademic if: there is grave Constitutional violation, the situation¶s exceptional character andparamount public interest involved, issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles toguide the bench, bar and public, and lastly it is capable of repetition yet evading review.Petitioner was found to be of legal standing on the grounds that his personal rights wereinvolved. The petitioner qualifies under the direct injury test. The personal and substantialinterest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain direct injury qualifies him toimpugn the validity of the statute. To wit some of these direct injuries he sustained are the illegalarrest and unlawful search he experienced. Given this fact, the court entertained his petition ashe has adequately shown that he entitled to judicial protection.However, the court does not liberally declare statutes as invalid although they may be abusedand misabused and may afford an opportunity for abuse in the manner of application. Thevalidity of a statute or ordinance is to be determined from its general purpose and its efficiencyto accomplish the end desired, not from its effects in a particular case.The Court ruled that the assailed PP 1017 is unconstitutional insofar as it grants President Arroyo the authority to promulgate decrees, taking into consideration that legislative power isvested only in congress.The Court partly grants the petitions. PP 1017 is constitutional insofar as it allows the Presidentto call the AFP to prevent or suppress lawless violence. However, commanding the AFP toenforce laws not related to lawless violence are declared unconstitutional. Such proclamationdoes not also authorize the President to take over privately-owned public utilities or businessaffected with public interest without prior legislation. General Order No. 5 is constitutional as it isa standard on how the AFP and PNP would implement PP1017, but portion where ³acts of terrorism´ has not been defined and punishable by congress is held unconstitutional.