You are on page 1of 68

Today is Friday, November 22, 2013

Search

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT anila G.R. No. 171396 May 3, 2006

PROF. RANDOLF S. DAVID, LORENZO TA ADA III, RONALD LLAMAS, !. !ARR" L. RO#UE, $R., $OEL RUIZ %UTU"AN, ROGER R. RA"EL, GAR" S. MALLARI, ROMEL REGALADO %AGARES, C!RISTOP!ER F.C. %OLASTIG, Petitioners, vs! GLORIA MACAPAGAL&ARRO"O, AS PRESIDENT AND COMMANDER&IN&C!IEF, E'ECUTIVE SECRETAR" EDUARDO ERMITA, !ON. AVELINO CRUZ II, SECRETAR" OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, GENERAL GENEROSO SENGA, C!IEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF T!E P!ILIPPINES, DIRECTOR GENERAL ARTURO LOMI%AO, C!IEF, P!ILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, Respondents! "#####################################" G.R. No. 171(09 May 3, 2006

NI EZ CAC!O&OLIVARES AND TRI%UNE PU%LIS!ING CO., INC., Petitioners, vs! !ONORA%LE SECRETAR" EDUARDO ERMITA AND !ONORA%LE DIRECTOR GENERAL ARTURO C. LOMI%AO, Respondents! "#####################################" G.R. No. 171()* May 3, 2006

FRANCIS $OSEP! G. ESCUDERO, $OSEP! A. SANTIAGO, TEODORO A. CASINO, AGAPITO A. A#UINO, MARIO $. AGU$A, SATUR C. OCAMPO, MU$IV S. !ATAMAN, $UAN EDGARDO ANGARA, TEOFISTO DL. GUINGONA III, EMMANUEL $OSEL $. VILLANUEVA, LIZA L. MAZA, IMEE R. MARCOS, RENATO %. MAGTU%O, $USTIN MARC S%. C!IPECO, ROILO GOLEZ, DARLENE ANTONINO&CUSTODIO, LORETTA ANN P. ROSALES, $OSEL G. VIRADOR, RAFAEL V. MARIANO, GIL%ERT C. REMULLA, FLORENCIO G. NOEL, ANA T!ERESIA !ONTIVEROS&%ARA#UEL, IMELDA C. NICOLAS, MARVIC M.V.F. LEONEN, NERI $AVIER COLMENARES, MOVEMENT OF CONCERNED CITIZENS FOR CIVIL LI%ERTIES REPRESENTED %" AMADO GAT INCIONG, Petitioners, vs! EDUARDO R. ERMITA, E'ECUTIVE SECRETAR", AVELINO $. CRUZ, $R., SECRETAR", DND RONALDO V. PUNO, SECRETAR", DILG, GENEROSO SENGA, AFP C!IEF OF STAFF, ARTURO LOMI%AO, C!IEF PNP, Respondents! "#####################################" G.R. No. 171()3 May 3, 2006

+ILUSANG MA"O UNO, REPRESENTED %" ITS C!AIRPERSON ELMER C. LA%OG AND SECRETAR" GENERAL $OEL MAGLUNSOD, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LA%OR UNIONS , +ILUSANG MA"O UNO -NAFLU&+MU., REPRESENTED

%" ITS NATIONAL PRESIDENT, $OSELITO V. USTAREZ, ANTONIO C. PASCUAL, SALVADOR T. CARRANZA, EMILIA P. DAPULANG, MARTIN CUSTODIO, $R., AND RO#UE M. TAN,Petitioners, vs! !ER E'CELLENC", PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL&ARRO"O, T!E !ONORA%LE E'ECUTIVE SECRETAR", EDUARDO ERMITA, T!E C!IEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF T!E P!ILIPPINES, GENEROSO SENGA, AND T!E PNP DIRECTOR GENERAL, ARTURO LOMI%AO, Respondents! "#####################################" G.R. No. 171(00 May 3, 2006

ALTERNATIVE LA/ GROUPS, INC. -ALG., Petitioner, vs! E'ECUTIVE SECRETAR" EDUARDO R. ERMITA, LT. GEN. GENEROSO SENGA, AND DIRECTOR GENERAL ARTURO LOMI%AO, Respondents! G.R. No. 171()9 May 3, 2006

$OSE ANSELMO I. CADIZ, FELICIANO M. %AUTISTA, ROMULO R. RIVERA, $OSE AMOR M. AMORADO, ALICIA A. RISOS&VIDAL, FELIMON C. A%ELITA III, MANUEL P. LEGASPI, $.%. $OV" C. %ERNA%E, %ERNARD L. DAGCUTA, ROGELIO V. GARCIA AND INTEGRATED %AR OF T!E P!ILIPPINES -I%P., Petitioners, vs! !ON. E'ECUTIVE SECRETAR" EDUARDO ERMITA, GENERAL GENEROSO SENGA, IN !IS CAPACIT" AS AFP C!IEF OF STAFF, AND DIRECTOR GENERAL ARTURO LOMI%AO, IN !IS CAPACIT" AS PNP C!IEF, Respondents! "#####################################" G.R. No. 171(2( May 3, 2006

LOREN %. LEGARDA, Petitioner, vs! GLORIA MACAPAGAL&ARRO"O, IN !ER CAPACIT" AS PRESIDENT AND COMMANDER&IN&C!IEF0 ARTURO LOMI%AO, IN !IS CAPACIT" AS DIRECTOR&GENERAL OF T!E P!ILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE -PNP.0 GENEROSO SENGA, IN !IS CAPACIT" AS C!IEF OF STAFF OF T!E ARMED FORCES OF T!E P!ILIPPINES -AFP.0 AND EDUARDO ERMITA, IN !IS CAPACIT" AS E'ECUTIVE SECRETAR", Respondents! $%&'S'(N SANDOVAL&GUTIERREZ, J.1 )ll po*ers need some restraint+ practical ad,ustments rather than ri-id formula are necessary! 1 Superior stren-th . the use of force . cannot ma/e *ron-s into ri-hts! 'n this re-ard, the courts should be vi-ilant in safe-uardin- the constitutional ri-hts of the citi0ens, specifically their liberty! &hief 1ustice )rtemio 2! Pan-aniban3s philosophy of liberty is thus most relevant! 4e said5 6 I2 3a454 627o87629 86:5;<y, <=5 43a854 o> ?@4<635 4=o@8A B569= =5a768y a9a624< 9o75;2C52< a2A 62 >a7o; o> <=5 Doo;, <=5 oDD;5445A, <=5 Ca;962a86E5A, <=5 A64Do445445A a2A <=5 B5aF!6 7a*s and actions that restrict fundamental ri-hts come to the courts 6*ith a heavy presumption a-ainst their constitutional validity!62 These seven 89: consolidated petitions for certiorari and prohibition alle-e that in issuin- Presidential Proclamation No! 1019 8PP

1019: and ;eneral (rder No! < 8;!(! No! <:, President ;loria acapa-al#)rroyo committed -rave abuse of discretion! Petitioners contend that respondent officials of the ;overnment, in their professed efforts to defend and preserve democratic institutions, are actually tramplin- upon the very freedom -uaranteed and protected by the &onstitution! 4ence, such issuances are void for bein- unconstitutional! (nce a-ain, the &ourt is faced *ith an a-e#old but persistently modern problem! How does the Constitution of a free people combine the degree of liberty, without which, law becomes tyranny, with the degree of law, without which, liberty becomes license=3 (n February 2>, 200?, as the nation celebrated the 20th )nniversary of the Edsa People Power I, President )rroyo issued PP 1019 declarin- a state of national emer-ency, thus5 NO/, T!EREFORE, ', ;loria acapa-al#)rroyo, President of the Republic of the Philippines and &ommander#in#&hief of the )rmed Forces of the Philippines, by virtue of the po*ers vested upon me by Section 1@, )rticle 9 of the Philippine &onstitution *hich states that5 6The President! ! ! *henever it becomes necessary, ! ! ! may call out 8the: armed forces to prevent or suppress! ! !rebellion! ! !,6 and in my capacity as their &ommander#in#&hief, Ao =5;5:y 3oCCa2A <=5 A;C5A Fo;354 o> <=5 P=686DD6254, <o Ca62<a62 8aB a2A o;A5; <=;o@9=o@< <=5 P=686DD6254, D;5752< o; 4@DD;544 a88 >o;C4 o> 8aB8544 76o85235 a4 B588 a4 a2y a3< o> 624@;;53<6o2 o; ;5:5886o2 a2A <o 52>o;35 o:5A65235 <o a88 <=5 8aB4 a2A <o a88 A53;554, o;A5;4 a2A ;59@8a<6o24 D;oC@89a<5A :y C5 D5;4o2a88y o; @Do2 Cy A6;53<6o2+ and a4 D;o76A5A 62 S53<6o2 17, A;<6385 12 o> <=5 Co24<6<@<6o2 Ao =5;5:y A538a;5 a S<a<5 o> Na<6o2a8 EC5;9523y. She cited the follo*in- facts as bases5 /!EREAS, over these past months, elements in the Do86<63a8 oDDo46<6o2 =a75 3o24D6;5A B6<= a@<=o;6<a;6a24 o> <=5 5G<;5C5 L5>< ;5D;5452<5A :y <=5 NDF&CPP&NPA a2A <=5 5G<;5C5 R69=<, ;5D;5452<5A :y C686<a;y aA752<@;64<4 , <=5 =64<o;63a8 525C654 o> <=5 A5Co3;a<63 P=686DD625 S<a<5 . *ho are no* in a tactical alliance and en-a-ed in a concerted and systematic conspiracy, over a broad front, to brin- do*n the duly constituted ;overnment elected in ay 200>+ /!EREAS, these conspirators have repeatedly tried to brin- do*n the President+ /!EREAS, <=5 38a6C4 o> <=545 585C52<4 =a75 :552 ;53F85448y Ca926>65A :y 35;<a62 459C52<4 o> <=5 2a<6o2a8 C5A6a0 /!EREAS, this series of actions is hurtin- the Philippine State . by obstructin- -overnance includin- =62A5;629 <=5 9;oB<= o> <=5 53o2oCy a2A 4a:o<a9629 <=5 D5oD85H4 3o2>6A5235 62 9o75;2C52< a2A <=56; >a6<= 62 <=5 >@<@;5 o> <=64 3o@2<;y+ /!EREAS, these a3<6o24 a;5 aA75;458y a>>53<629 <=5 53o2oCy0 /!EREAS, <=545 a3<676<654 9675 <o<a86<a;6a2 >o;354 o> :o<= <=5 5G<;5C5 L5>< a2A 5G<;5C5 R69=< <=5 oD52629 <o 62<5246>y <=56; a7oB5A a6C4 <o :;629 AoB2 <=5 A5Co3;a<63 P=686DD625 S<a<5+ /!EREAS, )rticle 2, Section > of the our &onstitution ma/es the defense and preservation of the democratic institutions and the State the primary duty of ;overnment+ /!EREAS, the activities above#described, their conseAuences, ramifications and collateral effects constitute a 385a; a2A D;5452< Aa295; to the safety and the inte-rity of the Philippine State and of the Filipino people+ (n the same day, the President issued ;! (! No! < implementin- PP 1019, thus5 /!EREAS, over these past months, elements in the political opposition have conspired *ith authoritarians of the e"treme 7eft, represented by the N$F#&PP#NP) and the e"treme Ri-ht, represented by military adventurists # the historical enemies of the

do*n the democratic Philippine State+ /!EREAS.y o@< <=5 253544a. *hich *ere issued on the basis of Proclamation No! 1019.to intensify their avo*ed aims to brin. do hereby call upon the )rmed Forces of the Philippines 8)FP: and the Philippine National Police 8PNP:.a State of National %mer-ency+ NO/.democratic Philippine State . *as issued declarin. by virtue of the po*ers vested in me under the &onstitution as President of the Republic of the Philippines. 200? has been issued declarin. and *ho are no* in a tactical alliance and en-a-ed in a concerted and systematic conspiracy.544 a2A D. )rticle 2'' and Section 19. the )rmed Forces of the Philippines 8)FP: and the Philippine National Police 8PNP:.eneral (rder No!< and No!? dated February 2>. the activities above#described. 200?. T!EREFORE.do*n the duly#constituted . over a broad front. the claims of these elements have been rec/lessly ma-nified by certain se-ments of the national media+ /!EREAS. Proclamation 1019 date February 2>. these actions are adversely affectin. *ere directed to maintain la* and order throu-hout the Philippines.oD. I.5752< a3<4 o> <5. to prevent and suppress acts of terrorism and la*less violence in the country+ ' hereby direct the &hief of Staff of the )FP and the &hief of the PNP.y a2A aDD. includin. Section > of our &onstitution ma/es the defense and preservation of the democratic institutions and the State the primary duty of .the Philippine State by obstructin. respondents stated that the pro"imate cause behind the . their conseAuences.a state of national emer-ency+ /!EREAS. <o 6CC5A6a<58y 3a.5 <=a< <=5 4<a<5 o> 2a<6o2a8 5C5.the economy+ /!EREAS. 200?.hinderin. prevent and suppress all form of la*less violence as *ell as any act of rebellion and to underta/e such action as may be necessary+ /!EREAS. )rticle 2. these conspirators have repeatedly tried to brin.. )rticle B'' of the &onstitution.. suppressed and Auelled the acts la*less violence and rebellion+ NO/. and &ommander#in#&hief of the Republic of the Philippines. T!EREFORE.54 <o 4@DD.-overnance. Proclamation No! 1019 dated February 2>. the President lifted PP 1019! She issued Proclamation No! 1021 *hich reads5 /!EREAS.o.overnment elected in ay 200>+ /!EREAS.9523y =a4 35a45A <o 5G64<.do*n our republican -overnment+ /!EREAS. by virtue of .64C a2A 8aB8544 76o85235! (n arch 3. hereby A538a. 200?. and pursuant to Proclamation No! 1019 dated February 2>.the people3s confidence in the -overnment and their faith in the future of this country+ /!EREAS. to brin. as *ell as the officers and men of the )FP and PNP. these series of actions is hurtin. e"actly one *ee/ after the declaration of a state of national emer-ency and after all these petitions had been filed. GLORIA MACAPAGAL&ARRO"O. President of the Republic of the Philippines. I GLORIA MACAPAGAL&ARRO"O. the )FP and PNP have effectively prevented.6a<5 a3<6o24 a2A C5a4@. by virtue of the po*ers vested in me by la*. pursuant to Section 1@. ramifications and collateral effects constitute a clear and present dan-er to the safety and the inte-rity of the Philippine State and of the Filipino people+ /!EREAS. 200?.!(! No! <.the -ro*th of the economy and sabota-in. 'n their presentation of the factual bases of PP 1019 and .overnment+ /!EREAS. these activities -ive totalitarian forces+ of both the e"treme 7eft and e"treme Ri-ht the openin.

roup and the National People3s )rmy 8NP):. &ommander of the )rmy3s elite Scout Ran-er! 7im said 6it was all systems go for the planned mo*ement against )rroyo. The Solicitor . <=5.eneral specified the facts leadin. 1r! to +disa*ow+ any defection! The latter promptly obeyed and issued a public statement5 6)ll .some military officers.the oral ar-uments held on arch 9.do*n the )rroyo administration! Nelly Sindayen of T' % a-a0ine reported that Pastor Saycon. PNP &hief )rturo 7omibao intercepted information that members of the PNP# Special )ction Force *ere plannin.eneroso Sen-a.the Philippine ilitary )cademy )lumni 4omecomin. the authorities -ot hold of a document entitled 6 Oplan Hackle I 6 *hich detailed plans for bombin-s and attac/s durin.some cabinet members and President )rroyo herself! ? Epon the advice of her security. and some members of the political opposition in a plot to unseat or assassinate President )rroyo! > They considered the aim to oust or assassinate the President and ta/e#over the rei-ns of -overnment as a clear and present dan-er! $urin.4 to the President in determinin.!(! No! <! S6926>63a2<8y. at the house of former &on-ressman Pepin. 7t! San 1uan announced throu-h $FR4 that the 6 agdalo!s "#"ay would be on $ebruary %&. not only by going to the streets in protest. and copies of subversive documents! 9 Prior to his arrest.5>@<a<6o2 >.6@ DG.y DoB5. a tape recorder. &hief of Staff of the )rmed Forces of the Philippines 8)FP:.minutes of the meetin-s bet*een members of the a-dalo .en! Sen-a has remained faithful to his &ommander#in#&hief and to the chain of command! 4e immediately too/ custody of DG.5<6o2a. escaped their detention cell in Fort Donifacio. Let us demonstrate our disgust.to the issuance of PP 1019 and . 200?.en! $anilo 7im.en! 7im and directed &ol! Huerubin to return to the Philippine arines 4eadAuarters in Fort Donifacio! %arlier. 200<! )ccordin..he Communist Party and re*olutionary mo*ement and the entire people look forward to the possibility in the coming year of . he immediately ordered S)F &ommandin.to these t*o 82: officers. they are presentin. there *as no *ay they could possibly stop the soldiers because they too. members of the a-dalo .&ity! 'n a public statement. the Solicitor .5 Ba4 2o . ho*ever. dis/ettes. 200?.out the armed forces! 4e emphasi0ed that none of the petitioners has sho*n that PP 1019 *as *ithout factual bases! Chile he e"plained that it is not respondents3 tas/ to state the facts behind the Auestioned Proclamation. %''(. the &PP#NP) called for intensification of political and revolutionary *or/ *ithin the military and the police establishments in order to for-e alliances *ith its members and /ey officials! NP) spo/esman .the chain of command to . that a hu-e number of soldiers *ould . *ere brea/in. 7t! San 1uan *as recaptured in a communist safehouse in Datan-as province! Found in his possession *ere t*o 82: flash dis/s containin.e"ecutive issuances *as the conspiracy amon.&o. at the hei-ht of the celebration.en! $anilo 7im and Dri-ade &ommander &ol! )riel Huerubin confided to .oC D5<6<6o25.uan-co. called a E!S! -overnment official about his -roup3s plans if President )rroyo is ousted! Saycon also phoned a man code#named $elta! Saycon identified him as DG. President &ory )Auino3s brother. . leftist insur-ents of the Ne* People3s )rmy 8NP):. &aptain Nathaniel Rabon0a and First 7ieutenants Sonny Sarmiento. lon-time )rroyo critic.en! .eneral ar-ued that the intent of the &onstitution is to -ive full A643.eneral arcelino Franco.re-orio 6Ia Ro-er6 Rosal declared5 6 . for the elucidation of the issues! (n 1anuary 19. 200?.in Da-uio &ity! The plot *as to assassinate selected tar-ets includin. narrated hereunder.the same.+ (n February 23.the necessity of callin.oin the rallies to provide a critical mass and armed component to the )nti#)rroyo protests to be held on February 2>. businessmen and mid#level -overnment officials plotted moves to brin. 200?. President )rroyo decided not to attend the )lumni 4omecomin-! The ne"t day. they vo*ed to remain defiant and to elude arrest at all costs! They called upon the people to 6show and proclaim our displeasure at the sham regime. 6 (n the same day. audio cassette cartrid-es. but also by wearing red bands on our left arms.to defect! Thus. a bomb *as found and detonated at the P ) parade -round! (n February 21. the %'th )nni*ersary of Edsa I. Ta-ui.oin the forces foist to unseat the President! 4o*ever.4H 3o@24584.roup indicted in the (a/*ood mutiny. 200?. 7a*rence San 1uan and Patricio Dumidan-.)$ units are under the effecti*e control of responsible and trustworthy officers with pro*en integrity and un-uestionable loyalty. 6 < (n February 19.

Da.of telecommunication to*ers and cell sites in Dulacan and Dataan *as also considered as additional factual basis for the issuance of PP 1019 and . D5<6<6o25. president of party# list )kbayan! )t around 12520 in the early mornin.!(! No! <! So is the raid of an army outpost in Den-uet resultin. plus the -roups that have been reinforcin. it is probable that the President3s ouster is nearin.the dispersal of the rallyists alon. documents. marched from various parts of etro anila *ith the intention of conver-in. 200?. a professor at the Eniversity of the Philippines and ne*spaper columnist! )lso arrested *as his companion.roup 8&'$. 6 4e claimed that *ith the forces of the national democratic movement.for*ard to &ubao.ribune offices in anila! The raidin.-roups.its concludin.team confiscated ne*s stories by reporters. coalitions.<. are cancelled!Presidential &hief of Staff ichael $efensor announced that 6 warrantless arrests and take#o*er of facilities.)yala )venue and Paseo de Ro"as Street in a/ati &ity!12 )ccordin. police arrested 8*ithout *arrant: petitioner Randolf S! $avid. the President convened her security advisers and several cabinet members to assess the -ravity of the fermentin. hastened by the economic difficulties suffered by the families of )$P officers and enlisted personnel who undertake counter#insurgency operations in the field. the anti#)rroyo conservative political parties. bi. *! 'mmediately.at the %$S) shrine! Those *ho *ere already near the %$S) site *ere violently dispersed by hu-e clusters of anti#riot police! The *ell#trained policemen used truncheons. the police cited PP 1019 as the -round for the dispersal of their assemblies! $urin.students from any possible trouble that mi-ht brea/ loose on the streets.: of the PNP. the President suspended classes in all levels in the entire National &apital Re-ion! Fo.!(! No! <. *hich to the President3s mind *ere or-ani0ed for purposes of destabili0ation. <=56. and moc/#ups of the Saturday issue! Policemen from &amp &rame in Hue0on &ity *ere stationed inside the editorial and business offices of the ne*spaper+ *hile policemen from the anila Police $istrict *ere stationed outside the buildin-! 13 ) fe* minutes after the search and sei0ure at the "aily .its front or-ani0ations to . hundreds of riot policemen bro/e up an %$S) celebration rally held alon. *ater cannons. pictures.4 36<5A <=5 5752<4 <=a< >o88oB5A a><5. <=5 644@a235 o> PP 1017 a2A G.peace and order situation! She directed both the )FP and the PNP to account for all their men and ensure that the chain of command remains solid and undivided! To protect the youn.O. operatives of the &riminal 'nvesti-ation and $etection .oin <. spo/esman for the National $emocratic Front 8N$F: at North &entral indanao.%$S).accomplishing its immediate task of bringing down the )rroyo regime/ of rendering it to weaken and unable to rule that it will not take much longer to end it!6J (n the other hand. Ronald 7lamas. &esar Renerio.000 etro anila radicals and 2<. 200?. can already be implemented !611 Endeterred by the announcements that rallies and public assemblies *ould not be allo*ed. and tear -as to stop and brea/ up the marchin. and scatter the massed participants! The same police action *as used a-ainst the protesters marchin. -roups of protesters 8members of 0ilusang ayo 1no KI EL and National Federation of 7abor Enions#0ilusang ayo 1no KN)F7E#I EL:.000 more from the provinces in mass protests! 10 Dy midni-ht of February 23.in the death of three 83: soldiers! )nd also the directive of the &ommunist Party of the Philippines orderin.to petitioner 0ilusang ayo 1no.fiber -lass shields. raided the "aily .of February 2<.ribune offices.since 1une 200<. the (ffice of the President announced the cancellation of all pro-rams and activities related to the 20th anniversary celebration of Edsa People Power I+ and revo/ed the permits to hold rallies issued earlier by the local -overnments! 1ustice Secretary Raul . publicly announced5 6)nti#)rroyo groups within the military and police are growing rapidly. including media.on0ales stated that political rallies. No.sta-e in the first half of 200?! Respondents further claimed that the bombin. on the basis of PP 1019 and . Hue0on &ity and to the corner of Santolan Street and %$S)! That same evenin-. the police surrounded the premises of another pro# .

the coup attempt foiled by the -overnment! 4e *arned that his a-ency *ill not hesitate to recommend the closure of any broadcast outfit that violates rules set out for media covera-e *hen the national security is threatened!1> )lso. hurricane and similar occurrences. the tabloid )bante! The raid. they *ere told they could not be admitted because of PP 1019 and . is +meant to show a 2strong presence.+ $irector .or .raised in these petitions! (n arch 3.the )nakpawis Party and &hairman of 0ilusang ayo 1no 8I E:. it violates the constitutional -uarantees of freedom of the press. 171()*. *ere ta/en into custody! Retired a.!(! No! <! T*o members *ere arrested and detained. 6 and Proc. *as arrested *hile *ith his *ife and -olfmates at the (rchard .a public forum at the Sulo 4otel in Hue0on &ity! Dut his t*o drivers. 'nc! challen-ed the &'$. 171396. former head of the Philippine &onstabulary. 171(09. on February 2<. is not a party in any of these petitions! Chen members of petitioner I E *ent to &amp &rame to visit Deltran. petitioners Nine0 &acho#(livares and . petitioners Randolf S! $avid. it encroaches on the emer-ency po*ers of &on-ress+ -2.3s act of raidinthe "aily .! to tell media outlets not to conni*e or do anything that would help the rebels in bringing down this go*ernment. No. ho*ever. *hile leavin.!(! No! < *ere filed *ith this &ourt a-ainst the above#named respondents! Three 83: of these petitions impleaded President )rroyo as respondent! 'n G.ribune offices as a clear case of 6censorship6 or 6prior restraint!6 They also claimed that the term 6emer-ency6 refers only to tsunami. 7'78 3 we will recommend a 2takeo*er. accordin.opposition paper. No.abriela Representative 7i0a a0a! 9ayan una Representative 1osel 2irador *as arrested at the P)7 Tic/et (ffice in $avao &ity! 7ater. President )rroyo issued PP 1021 declarin. Representative Rafael ariano. typhoon.+ The PNP *arned that it *ould ta/e over any media or-ani0ation that *ould not follo* +standards set by the go*ernment during the state of national emergency.R.! %scudero. had lon. he *as turned over to the custody of the 4ouse of Representatives *here the 6Datasan <6 decided to stay indefinitely! 7et it be stressed at this point that the alle-ed violations of the ri-hts of Representatives Deltran.eneral Ramon ontaMo. or if they do not subscribe to what is in 4eneral Order 5o. et al! assailed PP 1019 on the -rounds that -1.R. Satur (campo. *hich stemmed from a case of incitin. 9ayan una Representative Teodoro &asiMo and .to rebellion filed durin. and t*enty one 821: other members of . are not bein. 200?. alaya.his farmhouse in Dulacan! The police sho*ed a *arrant for his arrest dated 1J@<! Deltran3s la*yer e"plained that the *arrant.to Presidential &hief of Staff ichael $efensor. *hile the rest *ere dispersed by the police! 9ayan una Representative Satur (campo eluded arrest *hen the police *ent after him durin.!+ National Telecommunications3 &ommissioner Ronald Solis ur-ed television and radio net*or/s to +cooperate+ *ith the -overnment for the duration of the state of national emer-ency! 4e as/ed for +balanced reporting+ from broadcasters *hen coverin. representin. et al!.the constitutionality of PP 1019 and . petitioners herein are Representative Francis 1oseph . &avite! )ttempts *ere made to arrest )nakpawis Representative Satur (campo. hence.been Auashed! Deltran.olf and &ountry &lub in $asmariMas.the arcos re-ime. these seven 89: petitions challen-in. No.R.eneral 7omibao stated that +if they do not follow the standards 3 and the standards are # if they would contribute to instability in the go*ernment. and its sister publication.the events surroundin. the police arrested &on-ressman &rispin Deltran.ribune Publishin. of speech and of assembly! 'n G. identified as Roel and )rt.that the state of national emer-ency has ceased to e"ist! 'n the interim. 200?. there is 6 absolutely no emergency6 that *arrants the issuance of PP 1019! 'n G.&o!. itis a subterfu-e to avoid the constitutional reAuirements for the imposition of martial la*+ and -3. 5o.

!(! No! < constitute 6usurpation of legislati*e powers6+ 6*iolation of freedom of e:pression6 and 6a declaration of martial law!6 They alle-ed that President )rroyo 6-ra*ely abused her discretion in calling out the armed forces without clear and *erifiable factual basis of the possibility of lawless *iolence and a showing that there is necessity to do so. Chetherthe Supreme &ourt can revie* the factual bases of PP 1019! 2.petitioner7oren D! 7e-arda maintained that PP 1019 and . including its cognate rights such as freedom of the press and the right to access to information on matters of public concern. No.6 'n G. Section >1< of )rticle ''. it is not necessary for petitioners to implead President )rroyo as respondent+ fourth.eneral countered that5 first. . 200?. Rafael ariano. No. Chether petitioners in 171()* 8%scudero et al.:.ection & of the 7<=8 Constitution. petitioners asserted that PP 1019 6goes beyond the nature and function of a proclamation as defined under the . No. petitioner )lternative 7a* .R. 171(00 8)7. all guaranteed under )rticle III. the &ourt conducted oral ar-uments and heard the parties on the above interloc/in. 6 'n addition.petitioners I E. and 1osel 2irador. SU%STANTIVE1 1.her election protest pendin.roups. N)F7E#I E. G.the 4ouse of Representatives. 191>@3 8I E et al!:.1? 2.. Chether PP 1019 and . includin. and -A. No. in G. she stated that these issuances prevented her from fully prosecutin. 171()9. Facial &hallen-e .: and 191>@J 8&adi0 et al!: have no le-al standin-+ third. 171(00. Teodoro &asiMo.+ )nd lastly.Representatives Satur (campo. 7i0a a0a. they arro-ate unto President )rroyo the po*er to enact la*s and decrees+ -2. and 171(2( 87e-arda: have le-al standin-! %. PROCEDURAL1 1.R. PP 1019 does not violate the people3s ri-ht to free e"pression and redress of -rievances! (n arch 9. petitioners ar-ued that 6it amounts to an e:ercise by the President of emergency powers without congressional appro*al.': alle-ed that PP 1019 and .!R! Nos! 191>00 8)7. PP 1019 has constitutional and le-al basis+ and fifth.before the Presidential %lectoral Tribunal! 'n respondents3 &onsolidated &omment. 171()3.issues *hich may be summari0ed as follo*s5 A.':. 171()98&adi0 et al!:.!(! No! < are unconstitutional because they violate -a. No4. -3. 171()3 8I E et al!:. their issuance *as *ithout factual basis+ and -3. Chether the issuance of PP 1021 renders the petitions moot and academic! 2.!(! No! < are unconstitutional! a.e*ised )dministrati*e Code. 191>2> 87e-arda:.R. 171(2(. 'nc! 8)7.!(! No! < are 6 unconstitutional for being *iolati*e of the freedom of e:pression. -:. and their members averred that PP 1019 and .petitioners in .!(! No! < are unconstitutional because -1. alle-ed that PP 1019 is an 6arbitrary and unlawful e:ercise by the President of her artial Law powers!6 )nd assumin. They asserted that PP 1019 and . Sections 1.R. they violate freedom of e"pression and the ri-ht of the people to peaceably assemble to redress their -rievances! 'n G.19 and >1@ of )rticle '''.R.that PP 1019 is not really a declaration of artial 7a*. the Solicitor . petitioners 1ose )nselmo '! &adi0 et al.':. 6 'n this re-ard. Section 1920 of )rticle B'' of the &onstitution! 'n G. the petitions should be dismissed for beinmoot+ second. 191>@< 8%scudero et al.Section 231J of )rticle 2'.

enerally.capacity!6 23 &ourts may e"ercise such po*er only *hen the follo*in.adverse le-al interest+6 a real and substantial controversy admittin.6<y 3oCD5<52< <o =o8A 6< 62 3o2<. <=5 3o@. 7a86AI Do <=5y ?@4<6>y <=545 a88595A 68859a8 a3<4I These are the vital issues that must be resolved in the present petitions! 't must be stressed that 6 a2 @23o24<6<@<6o2a8 a3< 64 2o< a 8aB. T=64 DoB5.21 This concept rests on the e"traordinary simple foundation ## arbury *. 62oD5.545. accordin. other*ise moot and academic.a<675!630 The 6moot and academic6 principle is not a ma-ical formula that can automatically dissuade the courts in resolvin.events.< 6<4 @23o24<6<@<6o2a8 a<<5CD<.eneral refutes the e"istence of such actual case or controversy.<4 5G5.e"ceptions are present here and . the case is capable of repetition yet evadin. )s )pplied &hallen-e A. *e shall limit our discussion thereon! )n actual case or controversy involves a conflict of le-al ri-ht. the constitutional Auestion must be raised at the earliest opportunity+ and fourth.o8. No. 2? so that a declaration thereon *ould be of no practical use or value! 29 . The &onstitution is the supreme la*! 't *as ordained by the people. committed ille-al acts in implementinit! A.ustify this &ourt3s assumption of .urisdiction over such case2@ or dismiss it on -round of mootness!2J The &ourt holds that President )rroyo3s issuance of PP 1021 did not render the present petitions moot and academic! $urin. touchin. the decision of the constitutional Auestion must be necessary to the determination of the case itself! 2> Respondents maintain that the first and second reAuisites are absent. the bar.:.to petitioners.revie*!3> )ll the fore-oin.A4 2o D. T=64 64 <=5 :59622629 a2A <=5 52A o> <=5 <=5o. PROCEDURAL First.udicial resolution! 't is 6definite and concrete. <o <=Ba. the ultimate source of all political authority! 't confers limited po*ers on the national -overnment! " " " I> <=5 9o75.udicial revie* does not repose upon the courts a 6self#startin.2C52< 3o2436o@48y o. hence.urisdiction over the instant petitions! .5445A 62 <=5 Co24<6<@<6o2. the e"ceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest is involved+ 32third.Moot and Academic Principle (ne of the -reatest contributions of the )merican system to this country is the concept of .y o> ?@A636a8 . * 3o24<6<@<6o2a8 o.a case! &ourts *ill decide cases.that the present petitions *ere rendered 6moot and academic6 by President )rroyo3s issuance of PP 1021! Such contention lac/s merit! ) moot and academic case is one that ceases to present a . the police officers.the le-al relations of parties havin.75 6276o8a<5 <=5 B688 o> <=5 D5oD85 a4 5GD. *hen constitutional issue raised reAuires formulation of controllin. 6< 3o2>5. a2A <=@4 <o 762A63a<5 a2A D.5765B!22 Dut the po*er of . @23o2436o@48y o75.principles to -uide the bench.4<5D4 <=545 86C6<a<6o24 <=5. if5 first. and the public+ 33 and fourth. petitioners have to raise a Auestion of constitutionality+ third. there is a -rave violation of the &onstitution+31 second.3645.of specific relief!2< The Solicitor .5 C@4< :5 4oC5 a@<=o.69=<4.o<53<6o20 6< 64 62 859a8 3o2<5CD8a<6o2.4 2o . courts decline . *e must resolve the procedural roadbloc/s! I.the ei-ht 8@: days that PP 1019 *as operative. there must be an actual case or controversy+second. an opposite le-al claims susceptible of . 6< a>>o. &onstitutional Dasis 3.O. contendin.5 PP 1017 a2A G.usticiable controversy by virtue of supervenin.reAuisites are present5 first. 6< 6CDo454 2o A@<654.udicial revie* enunciated in adison.

5C5A65A !6 Cith respect to ta"payer3s suits.54<.6 or in the cate-ory of a 6citi0en.oD5. B=685 62 <=5 8a<<5.>< anila . =5 C@4< 4=oB <=a< =5 =a4 4@4<a625A a A6.53< 62?@. =oB575.657a235 :5 . respondents cited &hief 1ustice )rtemio 2! Pan-aniban3s Separate (pinion in .udicial po*er to determine the validity of an e"ecutive or le-islative action.@C52< o> <=5 D@:863 3o235. 62?@. This &ourt adopted the KA6. 1llman. the plaintiff *ho asserts a 6public ri-ht6 in assailin.Legal Standing 'n vie* of the number of petitioners suin. the 6real#party#in interest6 is 6<=5 Da.!(! No! < violates the &onstitution! There is no Auestion that the issues bein. Rule 3 of the 1JJ9 Rules of &ivil Procedure. the &ourt has the duty to formulate -uidin.5a8 Da..y a4 a .C5. a2A <=a< a D@:863 9. he has to ma/e out a sufficient interest in the vindication of the public order and the securin. and thus hinders the activities of -overnmental a-encies en-a-ed in public service. as amended! 't provides that 6575.an alle-edly ille-al official action. involvin.y a2A <=5 Do8635.in various personalities. "e la $uente.or locus standi. he has to adeAuately sho* that he is entitled to see/ .ect to .constitutional precepts.>@ .<y 52<6<85A <o <=5 a7a684 o> <=5 4@6<. 6> 2o< <=5 A@<y.8y D@.urisdictions no* allo*s both 6citi0en6 and 6ta"payer6 standin. B688 4@4<a62 A6. doctrines or rules! 't has the symbolic function of educatin. $eli:. <=5 D8a62<6>> 64 a>>53<5A :y <=5 5GD52A6<@. @ordan>1 held that 6<=5 . .<y 62 62<5. and in the present petitions. Locus standi is defined as 6a ri-ht of appearance in a court of . the plaintiff3s standin.y6 <54< in E: Parte Le*itt.is -overned by the 6real#parties#in interest6 rule as contained in Section 2.<4 <o .3J *here it *as held that the plaintiff in a ta"payer3s suit is in a different cate-ory from the plaintiff in a citi0en3s suit! I2 <=5 >o.ustice on a -iven Auestion!6 39 'n private suits. a2A 6< 64 2o< 4@>>63652< <=a< =5 =a4 a 9525. does so as a representative of the -eneral public! 4e may be a person *ho is affected no differently from any other person! 4e could be suin.>3 The same &ourt ruled that for a private individual to invo/e the .a8 62<5. . respondents3 contested actions are capable of repetition! &ertainly.y 36<6E52 <o 62<5.in public actions! The distinction *as first laid do*n in 9eauchamp *. )s held by the Ne* Oor/ Supreme &ourt in People e: rel Case *.err *.urisdiction! 'n People *.a62 <=5 @28aB>@8 @45 o> D@:863 >@2A4 <o =64 62?@.of relief as a 6citi0en6 or 6ta"payer! &ase la* in most .6 4o*ever.2.5 <=5 . o> C5.is based on his o*n ri-ht to the relief sou-ht! The difficulty of determinin.udicial protection! 'n other *ords. Collins5>0 6I2 Ca<<5.5 624<. to prevent .ust about any person from see/in.54< !6 )ccordin-ly.<654JI< 64 a< 85a4< <=5 .4 o> <=5 D@:863. o. .69=<.udicial interference in any official policy or act *ith *hich he disa-reed *ith.>> it held that the person *ho impu-ns the validity of a statute must have 6a D5.y 3a22o< :5 A5265A. on the e"tent of the protection -iven by constitutional -uarantees! 3< )nd lastly.>2 later reaffirmed in.as they do the people3s basic ri-hts to freedom of e"pression.53< 62?@.54< 62 <=5 3a45 4@3= <=a< =5 =a4 4@4<a625A.5 D@:863 .5 o> D@:863 >@2A4.J<=5 D5oD85 a. of assembly and of the press! oreover.5A :y <=5 ?@A9C52< 62 <=5 4@6< o.raised affect the public3s interest. o> 575.ilk. <=5 C686<a. =5 64 :@< <=5 C5.54@8< o> <=a< a3<6o2. they failed to ta/e into account the &hief 1ustice3s very statement that an other*ise 6moot6 case may still be decided 6pro*ided the party raising it in a proper case has been and>or continues to be pre?udiced or damaged as a direct result of its issuance. the &ourt deems it imperative to have a more than passindiscussion on le-al standin.53< 62?@.rainers! )ssociation *.69=<.54< 3oCCo2 <o a88 C5C:5.y a3<6o2 C@4< :5 D.53< 62?@. such as.and controllin.4@5A a2A D@264=5A.ileston *. the Enited State Supreme &ourt laid do*n the more strin-ent 6A6. 6 The present case falls ri-ht *ithin this e"ception to the mootness rule pointed out by the &hief 1ustice! II.locus standi arises in D@:863 4@6<4! 4ere.the bench and the bar.ecretary!3? 4o*ever.Petitioners alle-ed that the issuance of PP 1019 and .o453@<5A o.<y B=o 4<a2A4 <o :5 :525>6<5A o.6 or Nta"payer!6 'n either case.4o2a8 a2A 4@:4<a2<6a8 62<5. <=5 Da..anlakas *.. standin.ecretary of Public Borks>9 and )nti#Chinese League of the Philippines *. the petitions are sub. President of the . A5>52A5A 62 <=5 2aC5 o> <=5 .y a4 a .as a 6stran-er.5a8 Da.yK <54< in our . Aera.63@ Succinctly put.>?Pascual *.69=< o> a 36<6E52 a2A a <aGDay5. E:ecuti*e .5 a2A 455 <=a< a D@:863 o>>5235 :5 D. Custodio *.udicial revie*! 'n their attempt to prove the alle-ed mootness of this case.54@8<!6 The Aera doctrine *as upheld in a litany of cases.enate .ace Horse .>5. <o Ca62<a62 a2 a3<6o2 62 3o@.

a24352A52<a8 6CDo.<> *hile the &ourt noted that the petitioners may not file suit in their capacity as ta"payers absent a sho*in.o4D5. allo*in. B6<= locus standi0 (2.4. there must be a sho*in. re-ulations and rulin-s! <1 Thus. orato. Comelec.po*ers.<654 455F629 ?@A636a8 . concerned citi0ens. <3 *herein the &ourt held that K96752 <=5 <. Cha*eC *. for 7o<5. the reAuirement of locus standi may be *aived by the &ourt in the e"ercise of its discretion! This *as done in the 19(9 EC5.5 Ca<<5.5a3=629 6CD863a<6o246 of the petition not*ithstandin.or spendin.5765BK of the 2isitin.a24352A52<a8 6CDo.4o*ever.cases5 -1.in the &ourt3s attitude to*ard le-al standin-! 'n 0ilosbayan.354 a. it reiterated its rulin. for <aGDay5. <<<=a< 62 3a454 o> <.&.4.reAuirements are met5 -1.54o@.to sue. it cannot sue as a ta"payer absent any alle-ation that public funds are bein.that 6Dali/atan 02#016 involves the e"ercise of &on-ress3 ta"in.elecommunications and 9roadcast )ttorneys of the Philippines. Damora.<? the &ourt ruled that the status of 0ilosbayan as a people3s or-ani0ation does not -ive it the reAuisite personality to Auestion the validity of the on#line lottery contract.ury.<a235 B=63= 38o<=5 <=5 D5<6<6o25.< Cay . there must be a sho*in. provided that the follo*in. Lim *. more so *here it does not raise any issue of constitutionality! oreover.9523y PoB5.69=< <o 62>o.ury6 test .in 9agong )lyansang akabayan *.of obvious interest in the validity of the election la* in Auestion+ -(.its cate-orical statement that petitioner therein had no personality to file the suit! 'ndeed. and le-islators may be accorded standin.<a235 o> <=5 644@54 627o875A.<a235. *. A54D6<5 <=5 8a3F o> A6. they have been allo*ed to sue under the principle of 6<. <=5 Co@.4.the constitutionality or validity of la*s. E:ecuti*e .<9 the &ourt reiterated the 6direct in. there is a chain of cases *here this liberal policy has been observed. )raneta *.oCD<8y a2A A5>626<58y a2A 4<a2A629 .4 o> <. Comelec .5L@6. recent decisions sho* a certain tou-henin.y <o <=5 Da.5C52<4 a2A a88oB <=5 4@6< <o D. there must be a claim that the official action complained of infrin-es upon their prero-atives as le-islators! Si-nificantly. *.25A 36<6E524.a24352A52<a8 6CDo.that the issues raised are of transcendental importance *hich must be settled early+ and -*. for 859648a<o.a mere procedural technicality. members of &on-ress. "inglasan.ordinary citi0ens. the cases involve constitutional issues+ -2. the &ourt has adopted a rule that even *here the petitioners have failed to sho* direct in. <=5 3a454 C@4< :5 45<<85A D.ecretary.5C52<4 Cay :5 .58aG5A! Dy *ay of summary. Inc.rules may be culled from the cases decided by this &ourt! Ta"payers.<0 this &ourt resolved to pass upon the issues raised due to the 6>a.<2 *here the &ourt ruled that <=5 52>o.a24352A52<a8 6CDo. the follo*in.53< 62?@.ury it has suffered! 'n . there must be a claim of ille-al disbursement of public funds or that the ta" measure is unconstitutional+ -3.Forces )-reement+ -3.<a235!6 Pertinent are the follo*in.misused! Nor can it sue as a concerned citi0en as it does not alle-e any specific in.5L@6.4 Ca454.>J *here the 6<.58aG <=5 4<a2A629 . bein. for 3o235. voters. 9agong )lyansang akabayan *.a24352A52<a8 6CDo.35C52< o> <=5 3o24<6<@<6o2a8 . Public Estates )uthority. Inc.Ca<6o2 a2A <=5 5L@6<a:85 A6>>@46o2 o> 2a<@. and civic or-ani0ations to prosecute actions involvin.a8 . Damora.<a2356 of the cases prompted the &ourt to act liberally! Such liberality *as neither a rarity nor accidental! 'n )-uino *.

an.!(! No! < violated its ri-ht to peaceful assembly may be deemed sufficient to -ive it le-al standin-! O.aEada *. 7oren 7e-arda has no personality as a ta"payer to file the instant petition as there are no alle-ations of ille-al disbursement of public funds! The fact that she is a former Senator is of no conseAuence! She can no lon-er sue as a le-islator on the alle-ation that her prero-atives as a la*ma/er have been impaired by PP 1019 and .from 6ille-al arrest6 and 6unla*ful search6 committed by police operatives pursuant to PP 1019! Ri-htly so.< <=5 . 859648a<675 DoB5.ocial @ustice .4! )s to petitioners . No. C5C:5.?> that *hen the issue concerns a public ri-ht.R. .!(! No! <! 'n Integrated 9ar of the Philippines *.&o! 'nc! They alle-ed 6direct in.<@ the &ourt ruled that one of the petitioners. it is in the interest of .po*ers incident to artial 7a* are used! oreover.udicial notice of the announcement by the (ffice of the President bannin.once more the transcendental importance of the issue involved. 171()9. Laban ng "emokratikong Pilipino 87$P:.. particularly $avid and 7lamas. Inc.ribune Publishin.from the alle-ed ille-al official act!6 'n Lacson *.ury arisin.9523y DoB5.anlakas *.R.eneral does not Auestion their le-al standin-! 'n G. *. No. 171()3.4 !?< Ce ta/e .more. 'n G.ociety.69=<4 o> <=56.a2<5A 4<a2A629 <o a445. ?? the &ourt held that the mere invocation by the 'DP of its duty to preserve the rule of la* and nothin.them *ith the 7$P in Lacson! No*. 171(2(.ecretary.ecretary of )grarian . *hile undoubtedly true. is not sufficient to clothe it *ith standin. No.629 <=56.constitutional issues! 't held that 6there must be a sho*in.anlakas.to sue. 171(09.9a26Ea<6o24 Cay :5 9.failed to alle-e any direct or potential in.?0 0apatiran 5g ga 5aglilingkod sa Pamahalaan ng Pilipinas.*ith respect to concerned citi0ens3 cases involvin. Philippine )musement and 4aming Corporation. Partido anggagawa. <=@4 6CDa6.ury6 resultin.to the attention of the &ourt the alle-ed violations of their basic ri-hts! 'n G.!(! No! <! 4er claim that she is a media personality *ill not li/e*ise aid her because there *as no sho*in.R. eAuatin.electoral protest before the Presidential %lectoral Tribunal is li/e*ise of no relevance! She has not sufficiently sho*n that PP 1019 *ill affect the proceedin-s or result of her case! Dut considerin. members or supporters! 'n .ury *hich the 'DP as an institution or its members may suffer as a conseAuence of the issuance of PP No! 1019 and .eform.R.in this case! This is too -eneral an interest *hich is shared by other -roups and the *hole citi0enry! 4o*ever. CadiC et al. No.!(! No! <! 'n G. Enri-ueC. this &ourt applied the liberality rule in Philconsa *. No.?2 9asco *. PereC. &acho#(livares and . 8)7.that the enforcement of these issuances prevented her from pursuin.':.?1 )ssociation of . it is sufficient that the petitioner is a citi0en and has an interest in the e"ecution of the la*s! 'n G. 171396. is beyond doubt! The same holds true *ith petitioners in G.mall Landowners in the Philippines. the application of the above principles to the present petitions! The locus standi of petitioners in G. this &ourt may rela" the standinrules! 't must al*ays be borne in mind that the Auestion of locus standi is but corollary to the bi--er Auestion of proper e"ercise of . I E3s assertion that PP 1019 and . .all rallies and cancelin. E:ecuti*e . *ho are national officers of the 'nte-rated Dar of the Philippines 8'DP: have no le-al standin-. 171(00. the Solicitor . Damora.all permits for public assemblies follo*in. .R. Inc. ?3 and .ustice that those affected by PP 1019 can be represented by their &on-ressmen in brin-in.that the citi0en personally suffered some actual or threatened in. havin.the issuance of PP 1019 and . No.ury to itself or to its leaders. the opposition &on-ressmen alle-ed there *as usurpation of le-islative po*ers! They also raised the issue of *hether or not the concurrence of &on-ress is necessary *henever the alarmin. as they claim that the President3s declaration of a state of rebellion 64 a @4@.her occupation! 4er submission that she has pendin. No.544. the &ourt declared them to be devoid of standin-.Da<6o2 o> <=5 5C5. *.<J the &ourt ruled that only the petitioners *ho are members of &on-ress have standin. petitioners.R. this &ourt declares that petitioner have locus standi.u*era.R. 171()*.4 o> Co29. and . in vie* of the transcendental importance of the issue. is not a real party#in# interest as it had not demonstrated any in.

that the a@<=o. the courts are authori0ed not only 6to settle actual controversies involvin. <=5 75.a<6o2 o> DoB5. 3o24<6<@<629 9.69? 'n 1J93. 6< 4=6><5A <=5 >o3@4 <o <=5 4y4<5C o> 3=53F4 a2A :a8a2354.3645A 62 a Ca225. it stressed that 6<=64 Ao54 2o< D.C625 B=5<=5.udicial po*er! This is the underlyin.o8 >o. Damora @0 ## a recent case most pertinent to these cases at bar && echoed a principle similar to Lansang.546A52< and =64 A53646o2 64 >62a8 a2A 3o238@4675 o2 <=5 3o@.that 662 <6C54 o> Ba. B=5<=5. a2 5G69523y =a4 a.546A52<. the *hole of Philippine society no* *aits *ith bated breath the rulin.3645A B6<=62 D5. the &ourt *as almost evenly divided on the issue of *hether the validity of the imposition of artial 7a* is a political or .as such! Furthermore.net This &ourt holds that all the petitioners herein have locus standi! 'ncidentally. Enrile*hich -reatly diluted Lansang! 't declared that there is a need to re#e"amine the latter case. Chile the &ourt considered the President3s 6callin-#out6 po*er as a discretionary po*er solely vested in his *isdom. 62 <@.546A52< 64 4@D. this does not mean that the President is not accountable to anyone! 7i/e any other official.ri-hts *hich are le-ally demandable and enforceable.<4! Lansang too/ the opposite vie*! There. durin.le-al tenet of the 6liberality doctrine6 on le-al standin-! 't cannot be doubted that the validity of PP No! 1019 and . *. SU%STANTIVE I.oC <=5 D. <=5 P5oD85. 64. a2A GoA!69J The Integrated 9ar of the Philippines *. 2a<6o2a8 5C5. the 4ead of State. 2o< <=5.udicial Auestion *hich is of paramount importance to the Filipino people! To paraphrase 1ustice 7aurel. Enrile. if he can be dra--ed into court liti-ations *hile servin.6<y <o A5<5. only one constitutes the e"ecutive branch and anythin.5a< D5. a2A <=5 a@<=o.2. and there is no need to provide for it in the &onstitution or la*! 't *ill de-rade the di-nity of the hi-h office of the President. 2o< =5 =a4 4o a3<5A 64 754<5A 62 <=5 $@A636a8 D5Da.!(! No! < is a .<a2356 doctrine.546A52< C@4< :5 96752 a:4o8@<5 3o2<. it *as not 6necessary6 for President )rroyo to issue such Proclamation! The issue of *hether the &ourt may revie* the factual bases of the President3s e"ercise of his &ommander#in#&hief po*er has reached its distilled point # from the indul-ent days of 9arcelon *. 4arcia.6452 :58o294 <o <=5 P. Re iew o! "actual #ases Petitioners maintain that PP 1019 has no factual basis! 4ence. 6< 62<o25A. a rela"ation of the standin.5<6o2 aCo@2<629 <o 8a3F o. B=63= <=5 P.*hich impairs his usefulness in the dischar-e of the many -reat and important duties imposed upon him by the &onstitution necessarily impairs the operation of the . 3o24<6<@<6o2a88y supreme.usticiable Auestion!9@ Then came 4arcia#Padilla *. he remains accountable to the people?@ but he may be removed from office only in the mode provided by la* and that is by impeachment! ?J %.92 )-uino.?9 may not be sued in any civil or criminal case.his tenure of office or actual incumbency.5 a88o<<5A <o =6C :y <=5 %a463 LaB.y 86>5 o> <=5 2a<6o2 a2A <=5 9o75. 64 a24B5. <=5 P. it is not proper to implead President )rroyo as respondent! Settled is the doctrine that the President. o.93 and .. G G G o28y i! a2A w$en =5 a3<4 B6<=62 <=5 4D=5.of this &ourt on this very critical matter! The petitions thus call for the application of the 6<. hindrance or distraction to enable him to fully attend to the performance of his official duties and functions! Enli/e the le-islative and .5752< a2 5GaC62a<6o2 o> B=5<=5. Ba4 5G5. Castaneda91 to the volatile era of Lansang *. 5G3544 o> .udicial branch.6<y <o A536A5 B=5<=5.4.6 particularly those Auestions 6in re-ard to *hich full discretionary authority has been dele-ated to the le-islative or e"ecutive branch of the -overnment!6 9<9arcelon and ontenegro *ere in unison in declarin. the members of the &ourt *ere unanimous in the conviction that the &ourt has the authority to inAuire into the e"istence of factual bases in order to determine their constitutional sufficiency! F.5 =a4 :552 a 9.overnment! 4o*ever.99 There. @r. 9aker90 and ontenegro *. 4@3= DoB5.a75 a:@45 o> A643. )rticle 2''' of 1J@9 &onstitution *hich fortifies the authority of the courts to determine in an appropriate action the validity of the acts of the political departments! Ender the ne* definition of . ratiocinatin.6 but also 6<o A5<5. o. w$ic$ in t$is respect. K@2A5.<C52<.5<6o2 !6This rulin.a:85 o28y <o =64 3o24365235.9523y.C625 B=5<=5. o.arcia#Padilla v! %nrile!9> The tu-#of#*ar al*ays cuts across the line definin6political Auestions.is mainly a result of the &ourt3s reliance on Section 1.C6446:85 3o24<6<@<6o2a8 86C6<4 o.6236D85 o> 45Da. Enrile.a75 a:@45 o> A643.2C52< 64 62 9. the unanimous &ourt ofLansang *as divided in )-uino *.5C5.68. 6< Ba4 5G5.udicial po*er. it is important that he be freed from any form of harassment.reAuirements for the petitioners in the 6PP 1019 cases!6 7a**phil. T=5 P.a24352A52<a8 6CDo.

ect provides an adeAuate bac/drop for our ensuin. but arbitrariness! @3 'n Integrated 9ar of the Philippines.the -ro*in. to *it.6254 o> S575.9523y This case brin-s to fore a contentious sub. invasion or rebellion! 4o*ever.546A52< 62 T6C54 o> EC5.to the issuance of PP 1019. in certain cases.part of the records! entioned are the escape of the a-dalo . .to this sub.for military aid! 'ndeed.ect ## the po*er of the President in times of emer-ency . Do3<.o43.statements from the communist leaders! There *as also the inutes of the 'ntelli-ence Report and Security .6 but that 6the President did not act arbitrarily!6 Thus.of the Solicitor .A629 <o A643.roup. the &ro*n retained a prero-ative 6DoB5.<aF5 a2 62A5D52A52< 62754<69a<6o2 :5yo2A <=5 D85aA6294!6 Petitioners failed to sho* that President )rroyo3s e"ercise of the callin-#out po*er.54o. su--estin. .@C52<a86<y o> <=5 9o75.< 3a22o< @2A5. render them disastrous and ma/e them brin. called upon the %n-lish doctrine of prero-ative to cope *ith the problem of emer-ency! 'n times of dan-er to the nation.as to render it impossible to suspend their operation! %ven Sparta allo*ed its la* to lapse!!! 'f the peril is of such a /ind that the paraphernalia of the la*s are an obstacle to their preservation.ud-in. President )rroyo *as not e"pected to simply fold her arms and do nothin. is totally bereft of factual basis! ) readin.6D<6o2 o> <=5 8aB a2A 4oC5<6C54 5752 a9a624< 6<!6@> Dut 7oc/e reco-ni0ed that this moral restraint mi-ht not suffice to avoid abuse of prero-ative po*ers! /=o 4=a88 ?@A95 <=5 255A >o. describin. +o. .udicial po*er to enable the courts of . o> <=5 P.5 <=5y =a75 2o ?@A95 o2 5a. . the e"ercise of such po*er or duty must not stifle liberty! II.discussion! 1ohn 7oc/e.the architecture of civil -overnment.64A63<6o2 o2 <=5 Da. 7oc/e readily admitted defeat.eneral3s &onsolidated &omment and emorandum sho*s a detailed narration of the events leadin. <o a3< a33o.thatK<=5 D5oD85 =a75 2o o<=5.of .udicial prero-ative not only in terms of DoB5.udicial inAuiry can go no further than to satisfy the &ourt not that the President3s decision is correct. the discretion of the political departments of the -overnment! @1 't spea/s of . the method is to nominate a .ustified in issuin.a23= o.the seriousness of the incidents.<629 <o <=5 D.ustice to revie* *hat *as before a forbidden territory. the ruin of the StateP 't is *ron.to him5 The infle"ibility of the la*s.themselves to circumstances.*. by issuin. the &ourt is convinced that the President *as .<=.PP 1019 callin. *ith supportin.64<4 o2 <=5 PoB5.5<6o2 >o. Lansang adopted the test that 6. positive la* enacted by the le-islature mi-ht be inadeAuate or even a fatal obstacle to the promptness of action necessary to avert catastrophe! 'n these situations.2C52<!6 The latter part of the authority represents a broadenin. %onstitutionality o! PP &'&( and ). :@< <o aDD5a8 <o !5a752!6@< 1ean#1acAues Rousseau also assumed the need for temporary suspension of democratic processes of -overnment in time of emer-ency! )ccordin. absent any contrary alle-ations. this &ourt further ruled that 66< 64 623@C:52< @Do2 <=5 D5<6<6o25.therefore to *ish to ma/e political institutions as stron. at a time of crisis. *hich prevents them from adoptin. by *ay of proof. 3a454 B=5.reports formin.5C5Ay 62 <=64. particularly in the Philippine arines. but also of A@<y!@2 )s to ho* the &ourt may inAuire into the President3s e"ercise of po*er.to refute such events! Thus. to support his assertion.5.?@. and the reprovin.alliance bet*een the NP) and the military! Petitioners presented nothin. the standard laid do*n is not correctness.a8 Po86<63a8 T=5o. 624<. B6<=o@< <=5 D. a4 62 a88 o<=5.PP 1019.546A52<H4 A53646o2 64 <o<a88y :5.< o> a2y :. ) -limpse at the various political theories relatin. their audacious threat of the agdalo "#"ay.to prevent or suppress *hat she believed *as la*less violence. <o 4=oB <=a< <=5 P. the defections in the military. then 6<=64 Co@.about. <=5 D@:863 9ooA. may.roup of the Philippine )rmy sho*in.5>< o> >a3<@a8 :a464 6 and that if he fails.o9a<675 a2A =oB Cay 6<4 a:@45 :5 a7o6A5AI 4ere.

o> D5.754 <o D.y 62 a D5.5C5 2535446<y.themselves to the problem of response to emer-ency by constitutional democracies.63< <6C5 86C6<a<6o20 a2A 8a4<.4 o> <=5 5G53@<675.5a4629 aAC6264<.a<675 DoB5.ermany and the Enited States.9523y a3<6o2 C@4< :5 <=5 A5>5245 o> <=5 3o24<6<@<6o2a8 o. sub.a. he relied upon a tenure of office of prescribed duration to avoid perpetuation of the dictatorship! @9 1ohn Stuart ill concluded his ardent defense of representative -overnment5 6 I aC >a. and it clear that the people3s first intention is that the State shall not perish! @? Rosseau did not fear the abuse of the emer-ency dictatorship or 64@D.limitations as to *ho shall e"ercise such po*ers. havin.4=6D !6@@ Nicollo achiavelli3s vie* of emer-ency po*ers. No -eneral re-ime or particular institution of constitutional dictatorship should be initiated unless it is necessary or even indispensable to the preservation of the State and its constitutional orderP . 62 <=5 >o. have employed the doctrine of constitutional dictatorship! J1 Frederic/ ! Cat/ins sa* 62o . in a *ell#ordered society.6oA o> <5CDo.a8 624<6<@<6o24 . as one element in the *hole scheme of limited -overnment.6 provided it 645.the history of the employment of emer-ency po*ers in . 62 3a454 o> 5G<.4 4=o@8A :5 5G5.ect to eAually stron.the adeAuacy of any of scheme of emer-ency po*ers. offered criteria for .y 5C5. <=5 A5>5245 o> 86:5.o<53< 54<a:864=5A 624<6<@<6o24 >. addressin. in contrast to 7oc/e.to rely upon an 6 aDD5a8 <o =5a752!6 'nstead.Ca252< 62?@. as *ell as all constitutional -overnance5 623. Rosseau and ill .!6J3 Cat/ins placed his real faith in a scheme of constitutional dictatorship! These are the conditions of success of such a dictatorship5 KT=5 D5.po*er .6oA o> A63<a<o. France.58a<6758y 4=o.576o@4 >o. thus5 No*. for if the practice is once established for -ood ob. *ith effective constitutional restraints!J0 &ontemporary political theorists.supreme la*yer.7a<64C!6 &arl 1! Friedrich cast his analysis in terms similar to those of Cat/ins! J< 6't is a problem of concentratin..9523y0 5C5.ects. to cope *ithP situations of unprecedented ma-nitude and -ravity! There must be a broad -rant of po*ers.<JD63<a<o.a3<5. and to *hat end!6J? Friedrich.2 <o <=5 D.C625 <=5 5G64<5235 o> a2 5C5.a capacious reserve of po*er and speed and vi-or in its application in time of emer-ency.constitutional measures+ for althou-h they may for a time be beneficial.a3y6 as he termed it! For him. too.6<y <o A5<5. it *ould more li/ely be cheapened by 6indiscreet use!6 4e *as un*illin. a 4<. in a -overnment *here po*er has consciously been divided . <=5 a44@CD<6o2 o> a:4o8@<5 DoB5. . .ud-in.reat Dritain.5C5 Ca964<.4=6D C@4< :5 .6 thus5 1. no republic *ill ever be perfect if she has not by la* provided for everythin-.4=6D 62 a2y 96752 3a45 C@4< 2575.C o> a <5CDo.63<8y 8596<6Ca<5 62 3=a.5. B=685 a< <=5 4aC5 <6C5 K6CDo4629 86C6<a<6o2 @Do2 <=a< DoB5.oC 3o2A5C2629. sou-ht to incorporate into the constitution a re-ulari0ed system of standby emer-ency po*ers to be invo/ed *ith suitable chec/s and controls in time of national dan-er! 4e attempted forthri-htly to meet the problem of combinin. *ho shall silence all the la*s and suspend for a moment the soverei-n authority! 'n such a case.63< Do86<63a8 3o245. after surveyin.y A63<a<o. reverted to a description of a scheme of 6constitutional dictatorship6 as solution to the ve"inproblems presented by emer-ency!J@ 7i/e Cat/ins and Friedrich.oC <=5 Aa295. 6. for ho* lon-.9523y a2A 64 >o88oB5A :y a D.9523y DoB5.oCD< . yet the precedent is pernicious. Ceimar. *hen. there is no doubt about the -eneral *ill.!6J9 &linton 7! Rossiter. >. =5 C@4< :5 8596<6Ca<50 =5 4=o@8A 2o< 52?oy DoB5.a remedy for every emer-ency and fi"ed rules for applyin.4=6D 4=o@8A a8Bay4 :5 4<.5a4o2 B=y a:4o8@<64C 4=o@8A 2o< :5 @45A a4 a C5a24 >o. <o A5<5.it! @J achiavelli .ective of such an emer-ency dictatorship should be 6 4<. they *ill in a little *hile be disre-arded under that prete"t but for evil purposes! Thus. A63<a<o.a.9523y 5G53@<675 C@4< :5 aDDo62<5A :y 3o24<6<@<6o2a8 C5a24 . it should never be necessary to resort to e"tra .JF62a8 a@<=o. furnished an ironic contrast to the 7oc/ean theory of prero-ative! 4e reco-ni0ed and attempted to brid-e this chasm in democratic political theory.A5.C4 o> Do86<63a8 86>5!6J2 4e reco-ni0ed the t*o 82: /ey elements of the problem of emer-ency -overnance. =6C458>P6J> and the ob.3645A @2A5. he stated a priori the conditions of success of the 6constitutional dictatorship.54< B6<= <=5 A63<a<o.C625 <=5 255A >o.5<@. to *it5 KT=5 5C5. <=5 o:?53<675 o> 5C5.

in analy0in.o8 o> 9o75.of constitutionalism.A5.2. The dictatorship should be carried on by persons representative of every part of the citi0enry interested in the defense of the e"istin. The measures adopted in the prosecution of the a constitutional dictatorship should never be permanent in character or effectP 7. they favored instead the 6concept of constitutionalism6 articulated by &harles 4! c'l*ain5 ) concept of constitutionalism *hich is less misleadin.oC KB5aFK 9o75.a8 86C6<a<6o24.o35A@.in the analysis of problems of emer-ency po*ers.54Do246:686<y! c'l*ain clearly reco-ni0ed the need to repose adeAuate po*er in -overnment! )nd in discussin.63a8 a2A D.that.the above contemporary theories in li-ht of recent e"perience. li/e the decision to institute one should never be in the hands of the man or men *ho constitute the dictator! ! ! 10. but rather in the 86C6<629 o> 6<+ bet*een *hich there is a -reat and very si-nificant difference! I2 a44o36a<629 3o24<6<@<6o2a864C B6<= K86C6<5AK a4 A64<629@64=5A >.cott and Cotter. F55D629 9o75.o354454 >o. and *hich is consistent *ith the findin-s of this study. <o <=5 2a<6o2 64 not :a45A @Do2 4o@2A 3o24<6<@<6o2a8 <=5o.emer-ency po*ers! 4o*ever used.8y D.6a2 .a75 Aa295.@85.a3654 4@. 6 <=5 4@9954<6o2 <=a< A5Co3. No -overnment should initiate a constitutional dictatorship *ithout ma/in. 62 <6C5 o> 9.6<a.of -overnment but. Eltimate responsibility should be maintained for every action ta/en under a constitutional dictatorship! ! ! 9.2C52< . full emphasis is placed upon D.2C52<.the e"istence or termination of an emer-ency.prior to the initiation of the constitutional dictatorshipP JJ Rossiter accorded to le-islature a far -reater role in the oversi-ht e"ercise of emer-ency po*ers than did Cat/ins! 4e *ould secure to &on-ress final responsibility for declarin. M3I8Ba62 C5a2< 9o75. Pthe termination of the crisis must be follo*ed by a complete return as possible to the political and -overnmental conditions e"istin. and Do86<63a8 . no re-ular procedure altered any more than is absolutely necessary for the conAuest of the particular crisis ! ! ! 6. *ere one in sayin.of -overnment by an e"a--erated emphasis upon separation of po*ers and substantive limitations on -overnmental po*er! 4e found that the really effective chec/s on despotism have consisted not in the *ea/enin. and he places -reat faith in the effectiveness of con-ressional investi-atin.. P no dictatorial institution should be adopted. he insisted that the =64<o.specific provisions for its terminationP (.committees! 100 . Pthe decision to institute a constitutional dictatorship should never be in the hands of the man or men *ho *ill constitute the dictatorP 3. <54< o> 3o24<6<@<6o2a864C Ba4 <=5 5G64<5235 o> aA5L@a<5 D. is that formulated by &harles 4! c'l*ain! Chile it does not by any means necessarily e"clude some indeterminate limitations upon the substantive po*ers of -overnment.constitutional order! ! ! ).2C52< <o a2 a@<=o. No constitutional dictatorship should e"tend beyond the termination of the crisis for *hich it *as institutedP 11. 6constitutional dictatorship6 cannot be divorced from the implication of suspension of the processes of constitutionalism! Thus.5 o> 8aB .y!6 To appraise emer-ency po*er in terms of constitutional dictatorship serves merely to distort the problem and hinder realistic analysis! 't matters not *hether the term 6dictator6 is used in its normal sense 8as applied to authoritarian rulers: or is employed to embrace all chief e"ecutives administerin.oD5.the meanin.52A5.ustments in the or-ani0ation of the -overnment should be effected in pursuit of constitutional or le-al reAuirementsP *. The decision to terminate a constitutional dictatorship.o35A@. <=5 3o2<. Pall uses of emer-ency po*ers and all read. no ri-ht invaded.54Do246:85 ! 4e refused to eAuate constitutionalism *ith the enfeeblin.2C52< 86C6<5A <o <=5 o.

2C52< <o <=5 9o75.the validity of a la* that 6reflects le-itimate state interest in maintainin.o<53<5A 3o2A@3< ! Thus.53o926E5A a2 Mo75. 3o24<6<@<6o2a88y @2D.543.6C62a8 8aB4 <=a< .629 <=a< 4@3= DoB5.5aA<=H Ao3<.5 <=5 859a8 86C6<4 <o a.:6A4 <=5 S<a<5 <o 4a23<6o2 Co754 >.A62a.B645 7a86A 3.< o> o@. la*less violence.35.75 a4 86C6<a<6o2 o.58a<675 585C52<4 o> 3o24<6<@<6o2a864C >o.statutes *hich.the lan-ua-e of c'l*ain! 'n other *ords. (ur &onstitution has fairly coped *ith this problem! Fresh from the fetters of a repressive re-ime.6:5A D. :y <=56.o<53<5A :5=a76o.5aA<= aA?@A63a<6o2 64 a2 5G35D<6o2 <o o@. and the Supreme &ourt. a< <=5 75. 62 <6C54 o> 5C5. Ea3= :. constitutionally unprotected conduct!6 Endoubtedly. a<<52@a<54 a4 <=5 o<=5.<a685A B=52 627oF5A a9a624< o.a8 86C6<a<6o24 ! a.o85 <o 45.9523y.# from 7oc/3s 6theory of prero-ative.the overbreadth doctrine.y 3.alerno. the &on-ress.C4. to c'l*ain3s 6principle of constitutionalism6 ### ultimately aim to solve one real problem in emer-ency -overnance.o354454 o> >o. T=5 <Bo >@2AaC52<a8 3o. a2A a 3oCD85<5 Do86<63a8 .o<53<5A 3o2A@3< !610? 4ere.:.a<5 B6<=62 3a. This system does not B5aF52 the President. le-islative. 3a454 64.25A!101 'n the final analysis. also /no*n under the )merican 7a* as First )mendment cases!103 ) plain readin. in times of emer-ency. )rticle ''' of the &onstitution and sent a 6chillin.! oreover. it . <5. is uncalled for! $irst and foremost.a4 oDDo45A <o <=5 D. at the same time.:6<. 'n 1nited . eventually.. <=a< 6< >o.6on their faces6 statutes in >.y 85a4<.54Do246:686<y o> 9o75. i!e!.o35A@.:.oC MD@. insurrection and rebellion are considered 6harmful6 and 6constitutionally unprotected conduct!6 'n 9roadrick *.5>@88y D. B=685 624@. .aA6<6o2a8 .5a4629 a. 6< o:86954 =6C <o oD5. the overbreadth doctrine is not intended for testin.54<4 62 Ca62<a62629 3oCD. endeavored to create a -overnment in the concept of 1ustice 1ac/son3s 6balanced po*er structure!6102 %"ecutive. the incontrovertible fact remains that PP . a 86C6<5A o25 a< <=5 o@<45<.effect6 to the citi0ens! ) facial revie* of PP 1019. in draftin.:.10>the ES Supreme &ourt held that 6B5 =a75 2o< .5752 6> 5GD.udicial po*ers are dispersed to the President. see/ to re-ulate only 64DoF52 Bo.o84 o75. claims of facial overbreadth are entertained in cases involvin. respectively! %ach is supreme *ithin its o*n sphere! %@< 2o25 =a4 <=5 Co2oDo8y o> DoB5.y DoB5.544675 .C>@8.5=524675 3o2<.of PP 1019 sho*s that it is not primarily directed to speech or even speech#related conduct! 't is actually a call upon the )FP to prevent or suppress all forms of 8aB8544 76o85235. =a75 :552 3@.A 3o2A@3< and <=a< 3o2A@3< . >a884 B6<=62 <=5 43oD5 o> o<=5. 3=53F @Do2 <=5 o<=5. our &onstitution reasonably demands that *e repose a certain amount of faith in the basic inte-rity and *isdom of the &hief %"ecutive but.55AoC o> 4D553=.5 4D553=H <oBa.55 4D553= 3a454. KFa36a8 C=a885295K Petitioners contend that PP 1019 is void on its face because of its 6overbreadth!6 They claim that its enforcement encroached on both unprotected and protected ri-hts under Section >.a23= 64 96752 a .5a4 o> A643. <=a< >a36a8 o75.625 o@<46A5 <=5 86C6<5A 3o2<5G< o> <=5 F6.<y C@4< y5< >69=< a.y DoB5.tates *.5aA<= 38a6C4.5>853< 8596<6Ca<5 4<a<5 62<5.5<6o2a.4< AC52AC52<K ->. and .<a625A a< a88. 5>>53<675 86C6<a<6o24 a2A 3=53F4. the overbreadth doctrine is an analytical tool developed for testin.10< it *as held5 't remains a Nmatter of no little difficulty3 to determine *hen a la* may properly be held void on its face and *hen Nsuch summary action3 is inappropriate! %@< <=5 D8a62 6CDo.B645 @2D.. <.6C62a8 8aB4 <=a< a. Oklahoma.5 4o@9=< <o :5 aDD865A <o D.a3<635 a2A <=a< 6<4 >@23<6o2.4 B688 :5 5G5. 6> 52<5. usin.the 1J@9 &onstitution. <=a< o> a88o<<629 623.comprehensive control over harmful. the 1J@? &onstitutional &ommission.@854 o> D.a. B=63= a88 8o75. =a.4 o> 86:5.6 to Cat/ins3 doctrine of 6constitutional dictatorship6 and. usin.3645A B6<= a 45245 o> Do86<63a8 .ust 86C6<4 his po*er. that 6o75.54Do246:686<y a2A @2A5.A46 and a-ain. the various approaches to emer-ency of the above political theorists . <o <=5 C=65> EG53@<675.

3=a885295.5865> 4o@9=<.6 to be used 64Da. 6110 't is sub.69=<4 o> <=6. D5<6<6o25.54o.6 not merely 6as applied for6 so that the overbroad la* becomes unenforceable until a properly authori0ed court construes it more narro*ly! The factor that motivates courts to depart from the normal ad. but on the assumption or prediction that its very e"istence may cause o<=5.57a684.5o75.o75.. pinpointin.5A+6109 The reason for this is obvious! %mbedded in the traditional rules -overninconstitutional ad. and reAuirin.69=<4 o> <=6. and above all <=5 4D53@8a<675 a2A aCo. aDD863a<6o24 o2 a 3a45 <o 3a45 :a464. since the challen-er must establish that <=5.F4 a2 5G35D<6o2 <o 4oC5 o> <=5 @4@a8 . petitioners did not even attempt to sho* *hether this situation e"ists! Petitioners li/e*ise see/ a facial revie* of PP 1019 on the -round of va-ueness! This. it is said that a liti-ant may challen-e a statute on its face only if it is 7a9@5 62 a88 6<4 Do446:85 aDD863a<6o24. is un*arranted! Related to the 6overbreadth6 doctrine is the 6void for va-ueness doctrine6 *hich holds that 6 a 8aB 64 >a36a88y 627a86A 6> C52 o> 3oCCo2 62<588695235 C@4< 253544a. I2 o75.<63@8a. oB2 62<5.58a<675 . a4 <o 6<4 aDD863a<6o2.a proposed statute. 62 o<=5. too. facial invalidation of la*s is considered as 6Ca26>54<8y 4<.4 <o a 8aB a.D=o@4 2a<@.6 and is 69525.5aA<= <53=26L@5 64 <=a< 6< Ca. a Da.< to refrain from constitutionally protected speech or e"pression! 'n Founger *.C6<<5A <o .econd. They also failed to establish that men of common intelli-ence cannot understand the meanin.correction of these deficiencies before the statute is put into effect.:.5Co<52544 o> <=5 3o2<.suit! The &ourt assumes that an overbroad la*3s 6very e"istence may cause others not before the court to refrain from constitutionally protected speech or e"pression!6 )n overbreadth rulin.A Da.o3544 o> <=5 .ect to the same principles -overnin. the 6CDa3< o2 <=5 859648a<675 D.< <=56.5 o> <=5 o75.a645 <=5 . it is also an analytical tool for testin. Harris.6on their faces6 4<a<@<54 62 >. *hich is manifestly sub.ect to state re-ulation! .udication is the principle that a person to *hom a la* may be applied *ill not be heard to challen-e a la* on the -round that it may conceivably be applied unconstitutionally to others.10J it *as held that5 KTLhe tas/ of analy0in.<4 3a.o29 C5A63625.the overbreadth doctrine *ill reAuire the &ourt to e"amine PP 1019 and pinpoint its fla*s and defects.5 o> <=5 . !!!ordinarily results in a /ind of case that is B=o88y @24a<64>a3<o.A62a. not free speech.A Da. O.@854 o> 3o24<6<@<6o2a8 86<69a<6o2. Mo. is rarely if ever an appropriate tas/ for the .5aA<= a2a8y464.4 2o< :5>o.0 6> <=5 86<69a2< D.<654 a2A 3a2 o28y a445. *hichever *ay they mi-ht be decided! )nd third.68y 9@544 a< 6<4 C5a2629 a2A A6>>5. A9a62. not on the basis of its actual operation to petitioners. 86<69a2< 38a6C4 <=a< a 4<a<@<5 64 @23o24<6<@<6o2a8 a4 aDD865A <o =6C o. i!e!.:.and application of PP 1019! :.5A 8625&:y&8625 a2a8y464 o> A5<a685A 4<a<@<54.4 A6A 2o< 5752 a<<5CD< <o 4=oB <=a< PP 1017 64 7a9@5 62 a88 6<4 aDD863a<6o2.5 <=5 Co@.55 4D553= 3a454! )nd li/e overbreadth.@854 9675 Bay0 3=a8852954 a. <=o45 .5 D5.54<4. a facial challen-e on the -round of overbreadth is the most difficult challen-e to mount successfully.1019 pertains to a spectrum of 3o2A@3<.oD5.C6<<5A <o .a88y A64>a7o.overbreadth doctrine! For one.5L@6.is desi-ned to remove that deterrent effect on the speech of those third parties! 'n other *ords.<654+ and the court invalidates the entire statute 6on its face.udiciary! The combination of the . a facial challen-e usin.<.udicatory rules is the concern *ith the 6chillin-+6 deterrent effect of the overbroad statute on third parties not coura-eous enou-h to brin.5 <=5 Co@.68y. =5.<.y for decidin.75 aBay <=5 @23o24<6<@<6o2a8 a4D53<4 o> <=5 8aB :y 627a86Aa<629 6<4 6CD.6298y a2A o28y a4 a 8a4< .constitutional Auestions.a645 <=5 .5 3a2 :5 2o 624<a235 B=52 <=5 a44a685A 8aB Cay :5 7a86A! 4ere.4y.5 2o< D5. Co24<6<@<6o2a8 %a464 o> PP 1017 No* on the constitutional foundation of PP 1019! .10@ ) *riter and scholar in &onstitutional 7a* e"plains further5 T=5 Co4< A64<623<675 >5a<@. <=5 3o@. 46<@a<6o24 2o< :5>o.its deficiencies.

The President shall be the &ommander#in#&hief of all armed forces of the Philippines and B=52575.the suspension of the privile-e of the *rit.The operative portion of PP 1019 may be divided into three important provisions. a 6seAuence6 of -raduated po*ers! From the most to the least beni-n. in the same manner.si"ty days.such proclamation or suspension.anlakas *. *hen the public safety reAuires it. these are5 .$ird pro ision6as provided in Section 19. and must promul-ate its decision thereon *ithin thirty days from its filin-! ) state of martial la* does not suspend the operation of the &onstitution. for a period not e"ceedin. 1).filed by any citi0en.ointly..to the &on-ress! The &on-ress. the sufficiency of the factual bases of the proclamation of martial la* or the suspension of the privile-e of the *rit or the e"tension thereof. )rticle 2'' of the &onstitution reproduced as follo*s5 r! S53.%alling-out Power The first provision pertains to the President3s callin-#out po*er! 'n . nor authori0e the conferment of . )rticle B'' of the &onstitution do hereby declare a State of National %mer-ency!6 "irst Pro ision. convene in accordance *ith its rules *ithout need of a call! The Supreme &ourt may revie*.5752< o. 4@DD. throu-h 1ustice $ante (! Tin-a.of the civil courts or le-islative assemblies. held that Section 1@. as &ommander#in#&hief. in an appropriate proceedin.udicially char-ed for rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected *ith invasion! $urin.354 <o D. 6< :53oC54 253544a.udicially char-ed *ithin three days. any person thus arrested or detained shall be . to maintain la* and order throu-hout the Philippines. suspend the privile-e of the *rit of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial la*! Cithin forty#ei-ht hours from the proclamation of martial la* or the suspension of the privile-e of the *rit of habeas corpus. )rtilce 2'' P do hereby command the )rmed Forces of the Philippines. e"tend such proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by the &on-ress. by a vote of at least a ma.111 this &ourt. E:ecuti*e . prevent or suppress all forms of la*less violence as *ell any act of insurrection or rebellion6 Second pro ision6and to enforce obedience to all the la*s and to all decrees.C5A >o. other*ise he shall be released! -rants the President.5:5886o2 ! 'n case of invasion or rebellion. nor automatically suspend the privile-e of the *rit! The suspension of the privile-e of the *rit shall apply only to persons . 627a46o2 o.ecretary.ority of all its embers in re-ular or special session. votin. . orders and re-ulations promul-ated by me personally or upon my direction+6 .urisdiction on military courts and a-encies over civilians *here civil courts are able to function.544 8aB8544 76o85235. he may. nor supplant the functionin. may revo/e such proclamation or suspension. thus5 "irst pro ision6by virtue of the po*er vested upon me by Section 1@. the President shall submit a report in person or in *ritin. shall *ithin t*enty#four hours follo*in. *hich revocation shall not be set aside by the President! Epon the initiative of the President. if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety reAuires it! The &on-ress. the &on-ress may. =5 Cay 3a88 o@< 4@3= a. if not in session.y.

544 8aB8544 76o85235.anlakas! Some of the petitioners vehemently maintain that PP 1019 is actually a declaration of artial 7a*! 't is no so! Chat defines the character of PP 1019 are its *ordin-s! 't is plain therein that *hat the President invo/ed *as her callin-#out po*er! The declaration of artial 7a* is a 6*arnKin-L to citi0ens that the military po*er has been called upon by the e"ecutive to assist in the maintenance of la* and order. )cts of the President fi"in. 6< :53oC54 253544a.11>an authority in constitutional la*. Proclamations! . is harmless.! (bviously.8aB8544 76o85235.the circumstances then prevailin-. 627a46o2 o.on the )FP to prevent or suppress la*less violence. *hich provides5 S%&! >! . or not *ritten.the callin-#out po*er. shall be promul-ated in proclamations *hich shall have the force of an e"ecutive order! President )rroyo3s declaration of a 6state of rebellion6 *as merely an act declarin.of the civil courts or le-islative assemblies.enate Committee on @ustice6 on arch 13. nor supplant the functionin. a President must be careful in the e"ercise of his po*ers! 4e cannot invo/e a -reater po*er *hen he *ishes to act under a lesser po*er! There lies the *isdom of our &onstitution.ustify acts that only under a valid . and the po*er to declare artial 7a*! &itin.him to secure the people from harm and to restore order so that they can en. it cannot be used to . the po*er to declare artial 7a* poses the most severe threat to civil liberties! 't is a stron. 627a46o2 a2A . the -reater are the limitations! 't is pertinent to state. in the *ords of . such Proclamation cannot be deemed harmless.urisdiction on military courts and a-encies over civilians *here civil courts are able to function. Doo/ '' of the Revised )dministrative &ode of 1J@9. *hile the emer-ency lasts. Damora. r! 1ustice 2icente 2! endo0a.tatement before the . .a status or condition of public moment or interest. a provision on the State3s e"traordinary po*er to ta/e over privately#o*ned public utility and business affected *ith public interest! 'ndeed.5:5886o2!6 )re these conditions present in the instant cases= )s stated earlier. provides5 ) state of martial la* does not suspend the operation of the &onstitution. PP 1019 is more than that! 'n declarin. the statutory authority cited in .y.Integrated 9ar of the Philippines *.6 the President may call the armed forces 6<o D.anlakas: and the authority to proclaim a state of national emer-ency! Chile President )rroyo3s authority to declare a 6state of rebellion6 emanates from her po*ers as &hief %"ecutive.a state of national emer-ency. the -reater the po*er. as in the case of . PP 1019 calls for the e"ercise of an aB54oC5 DoB5.anlakas *as Section >.of the President for the purpose of enablin. ho*ever. 200?. )rticle B''. a provision callin. nor authori0e the conferment of . )rt! 2''. a declaration allo*ed under Section > cited above! Such declaration. upon pain of arrest and punishment.112 the &ourt ruled that the only criterion for the e"ercise of the callin-#out po*er is that 6B=52575. *ithout le-al si-nificance. President )rroyo found it necessary to issue PP 1019! (*in. &hapter 2.5:5886o2! This involves ordinary police action! Dut every act that -oes beyond the President3s callin-#out po*er is considered ille-al or ultra *ires! For this reason. and deemed not *ritten! 'n these cases.a date or declarin. said that of the three po*ers of the President as &ommander#in#&hief. Section 1@.anlakas. considerin. *ithout le-al si-nificance. that there is a distinction bet*een the President3s authority to declare a 6state of rebellion6 8in . not commit any acts *hich *ill in any *ay render more difficult the restoration of order and the enforcement of la*!6 113 'n his 6. the President may summon the armed forces to aid him in suppressin. the po*er to suspend the privile-e of the *rit of habeas corpus.a status or condition of public moment or interest. 4@DD. she is in the best position to determine the actual condition of the country! Ender the callin-#out po*er. they must.to her (ffice3s vast intelli-ence net*or/. President )rroyo did not only rely on Section 1@. invasion or rebellion! She also relied on Section 19. nor automatically suspend the privile-e of the *rit! 1ustice endo0a also stated that PP 1019 is not a declaration of artial 7a*! 't is no more than a call by the President to the armed forces to prevent or suppress la*less violence! )s such.5752< o. upon the e"istence of *hich the operation of a specific la* or re-ulation is made to depend. )rticle 2'' of the &onstitution.oy their individual freedoms! 'n fact. and that.medicine *hich should not be resorted to li-htly! 't cannot be used to stifle or persecute critics of the -overnment! 't is placed in the /eepin.

<=. 11< the primary function of the President is to enforce the la*s as *ell as to formulate policies to be embodied in e"istin.3645 o> P. . 8a: arrests and sei0ures *ithout .4 a2A .4o2a88y o.oC@89a<5A :y C5 D5.clause of PP 1019 issued by President )rroyo is5 <o 52>o. *hich vests the po*er to enact la*s in &on-ress! They assail the clause 6<o 52>o. Ce all /no* that it *as PP 10@1 *hich -ranted President arcos le-islative po*er! 'ts enablin.35 o:5A65235 <o a88 <=5 8aB4 a2A A53. the enablin. @Do2 Cy A6. FERDINAND E.554. 4@DD. 17! The President shall have control of all the e"ecutive departments.554.554. <o Ca62<a62 8aB a2A o.la*s! 4e sees to it that all la*s are enforced by the officials and employees of his department! Defore assumin. MARCOS. 6e"ecute its la*s!611? 'n the e"ercise of such function.59@8a<6o24 D.354 o> <=5 P=686DD6254. if needed.4o2a88y o. o. T!EREFORE. 7i0a a0a. and 1osel 2irador ar-ue that PP 1019 is unconstitutional as it arro-ated upon President )rroyo the po*er to enact la*s and decrees in violation of Section 1.544 a88 >o. Section 1 of the &onstitution under martial la* and. bureaus. @Do2 Cy A6.oC@89a<5A :y C5 D5.A5.. do hereby place the entire Philippines as defined in )rticle 1. Satur (campo. in my capacity as their &ommander#in#&hief.59@8a<6o24 D.53<6o2 o.35 o:5A65235 <o a88 <=5 8aB4 a2A to all A53.53<6o2. )rticle 2'' *hich reads5 SEC. D. the President.K Epon the other hand.A5.a0e %are/ Power The second provision pertains to the po*er of the President to ensure that the la*s be faithfully e"ecuted! This is based on Section 19. Section 10.o@9=o@< <=5 P=686DD6254. @Do2 Cy A6.C5A Fo.A5.oyoH4 3a88629&o@< DoB5.554.or suppressin. Ao =5.A5.5 <=a< <=5 8aB4 :5 >a6<=>@88y 5G53@<5A! )s the %"ecutive in *hom the e"ecutive po*er is vested.35 o:5A65235 <o a88 <=5 8aB4 a2A <o a88 A53.others. are po*ers *hich can be e"ercised by the President as &ommander#in#&hief o28y *here there is a valid declaration of artial 7a* or suspension of the *rit of habeas corpus! Dased on the above disAuisition.4o2a88y o. he *ill.5:y 3oCCa2A <=5 A.office.35 o:5A65235 <o a88 <=5 8aB4 a2A A53.4o2a88y o. @Do2 Cy A6.declaration of artial 7a* can be done! 'ts use for any other purpose is a perversion of its nature and scope.53<6o2. and any act done contrary to its command is ultra *ires! 1ustice endo0a further stated that specifically. )rticle 2' of the &onstitution. he is reAuired to ta/e an oath or affirmation to the effect that as President of the Philippines. President of the Philippines by virtue of the po*ers vested upon me by )rticle 2''.4 a2A . Teodoro &asiMo.la*less violence! Second Pro ision. it is clear that PP 1019 is not a declaration of artial 7a*! I< 64 C5.58y a2 5G5.. and offices! !5 4=a88 524@.clause states5 K<o 52>o.oC@89a<5A :y C5 D5.of PP 1019 operative clause sho*s that it *as lifted 120 from Former President arcos3 Proclamation No! 10@1.53<6o2!6 Q Petitioners3 contention is understandable! ) readin. o. especially Representatives Francis 1oseph .udicial *arrants+ 8b: ban on public assemblies+ 8c: ta/e#over of ne*s media and a-encies and press censorship+ and 8d: issuance of Presidential $ecrees. for the armed forces to assist her in preventin.4 a2A .overnment! 11J Petitioners.59@8a<6o24 D. amon. Rafael ariano. Para-raph 82: of the &onstitution.! %scudero.A5.5752< o. *hich partly reads5 NO/.4 a2A . 119 includin.oC@89a<5A :y C5 D5. o. o.5:5886o2 a2A <o 52>o.59@8a<6o24 D.C4 o> 8aB8544 76o85235 a4 B588 a4 a2y a3< o> 624@. I. may employ the po*ers attached to his office as the &ommander#in#&hief of all the armed forces of the country.53<6o2 !6 .546A52< A.the Philippine National Police11@ under the $epartment of 'nterior and 7ocal ./.

< . )rticle 2' cate-orically states that 6N<O=5 859648a<675 DoB5. cannot be enforced! Cith respect to 6la*s. 4=a88 :5 754<5A 62 <=5 Co29.to internal administration. neither artial 7a* nor a state of rebellion nor a state of emer-ency can .5452<a<6754!6 To be sure. a4 6< 9.force as statutes because they *ere issued by the President in the e"ercise of his le-islative po*er durin.554 similar to those issued by Former President arcos under PP 10@1! Presidential $ecrees are la*s *hich are of the same cate-ory and bindin.to the attention of all or some of the departments.6<y <o D.546A52< A.family and property relations.6 she cannot call the military to enforce or implement certain la*s.544 8aB8544 76o85235! . President )rroyo has no authority to enact decrees! 't follo*s that these decrees are void and. shall be promul-ated in proclamations *hich shall have the force of an e"ecutive order! Sec! <! emorandum Orders! R )cts of the President on matters of administrative detail or of subordinate or temporary interest *hich only concern a particular officer or office of the .for rules of a -eneral or permanent character in implementation or e"ecution of constitutional or statutory po*ers shall be promul-ated in e"ecutive orders! Sec! 3! )dministrati*e Orders! R )cts of the President *hich relate to particular aspect of -overnmental operations in pursuance of his duties as administrative head shall be promul-ated in administrative orders! Sec! >! Proclamations! R )cts of the President fi"in.4o2a88y o.53<6o2. for information or compliance.a0e * er .K 7e-islative po*er is peculiarly *ithin the province of the 7e-islature! Section 1.6 The President is -ranted an (rdinance Po*er under &hapter 2. la*s on obli-ations and contracts and the li/e! She can only order the military.a status or condition of public moment or interest.overnment shall be embodied in memorandum orders! Sec! ?! emorandum Circulars! R )cts of the President on matters relatin. bureaus or offices of the .554.Power to . a-encies.pecial Orders! R )cts and commands of the President in his capacity as &ommander#in#&hief of the )rmed Forces of the Philippines shall be issued as -eneral or special orders! President )rroyo3s ordinance po*er is limited to the fore-oin.a2<4 P..Is it within the domain of President )rroyo to promulgate +decrees+G PP 1019 states in part5 6to enforce obedience to all the la*s and A53.ustify President )rroyo3s e"ercise of le-islative po*er by issuin.issuances! She cannot issue A53.oyo <=5 a@<=o. therefore.overnment.544 o> <=5 P=686DD6254 B=63= 4=a88 3o2464< o> a S52a<5 a2A a !o@45 o> R5D.the period of artial 7a* under the 1J93 &onstitution!121 T=64 Co@.a date or declarin.oC@89a<5 KA53.554 " " " D. under PP 1019.$ird Pro ision. *hich the President desires to brin. such as customs la*s. to enforce la*s pertinent to its duty <o 4@DD. shall be embodied in memorandum circulars! Sec! 9! 4eneral or .@854 <=a< <=5 a44a685A PP 1017 64 @23o24<6<@<6o2a8 624o>a. Doo/ ''' of %"ecutive (rder No! 2J2 8)dministrative &ode of 1J@9:! She may issue any of the follo*in-5 Sec! 2! E:ecuti*e Orders! R )cts of the President providin. @Do2 Cy A6.decrees! Can President )rroyo enforce obedience to all decrees and laws through the military = )s this &ourt stated earlier.oC@89a<5A :y C5 D5. la*s -overnin. upon the e"istence of *hich the operation of a specific la* or re-ulation is made to depend.

as a product of the 6martial la*6 thin/in. PP 1019 purports to -rant the President.5 6a state of national emer-ency6 and to5G5. The &on-ress. claim that President )rroyo3s inclusion of Section 19. sol*e and end the present national emergency. and re-ulations promul-ated by me personally or upon my direction+ a2A a4 D. shall have the 4o85 DoB5. 'n times of *ar or o<=5. <o A538a. by a vote of t*o#thirds of both 4ouses in . the Philippine 5ational . The import of this provision is that President )rroyo.ect to such restrictions as it may prescribe. )rticle 2' of the &onstitution reads5 SEC. A.o76A5A 62 S53<6o2 17.ewerage )uthority. )rticle 2'' -rants the President such po*er. authori0e the President. to ta/e over or direct the operation of any privately#o*ned public utility or business affected *ith public interest! This provision *as first introduced in the 1J93 &onstitution. 1J92 instructin. the Philippine )ir Lines. 6 Petitioners. durin. Section 1@. .of the 1J91 &onstitutional &onvention!122 'n effect at the time of its approval *as President arcos3 7etter of 'nstruction No! 2 dated September 22. durin. *ithout any authority or dele-ation from &on-ress. 2a<6o2a8 5C5. no le-itimate constitutional ob. the State may.The pertinent provision of PP 1019 states5 " " " and to enforce obedience to all the la*s and to all decrees.the emer-ency and under reasonable terms prescribed by it.the Secretary of National $efense to ta/e over 6 the management. the Philippine Long "istance . by la*. votin.ection can be raised! Dut to the second. the &on-ress may. )rticle B'' *hich reads5 S53. -1. )ir anila HandI $ilipinas Orient )irways . 23. 17. .<6385 'II o> <=5 Co24<6<@<6o2 Ao =5. the 5ational Baterworks and . 'n times of national emer-ency. particularly the members of the 4ouse of Representatives.ailways. )rticle B'' in PP 1019 is an encroachment on the le-islature3s emer-ency po*ers! This is an area that needs delineation! ) distinction must be dra*n bet*een the President3s authority to A538a. such po*ers shall cease upon the ne"t ad. orders. temporarily ta/e over or direct the operation of any privately#o*ned public utility or business affected *ith public interest! Bhat could be the reason of President )rroyo in in*oking the abo*e pro*ision when she issued PP 7'78G The ans*er is simple! $urin.elephone Company.! -2.3645 emer-ency po*ers! To the first.oint session assembled. hence. 2a<6o2a8 5C5.9523y. control and operation of the anila Electric Company. to e"ercise po*ers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy! Enless sooner *ithdra*n by resolution of the &on-ress. they did not intend that &on-ress should first authori0e the President before he can declare a 6state of national emer-ency!6 The lo-ical conclusion then is that President .5:y A538a.the state of national emer-ency under PP 1019. )rticle 2'' 8callin-#out po*er: and -rant it to &on-ress 8li/e the declaration of the e"istence of a state of *ar:.ournment thereof! 't may be pointed out that the second para-raph of the above provision refers not only to *ar but also to 6 o<=5.separately. as elucidated by the &ourt. for the successful prosecution by the 4o*ernment of its effort to contain. then the Framers could have provided so! &learly. can call the military not only to enforce obedience 6to all the la*s and to all decrees " " "6 but also to act pursuant to the provision of Section 19.the e"istence of the state of national emer-ency.9523y. *hen the public interest so reAuires. manifold constitutional issues arise! Section 23.5 a 4<a<5 o> 2a<6o2a8 5C5.9523y!6 'f the intention of the Framers of our &onstitution *as to *ithhold from the President the authority to declare a 6state of national emer-ency6 pursuant to Section 1@.5 <=5 5G64<5235 o> a 4<a<5 o> Ba. for a limited period and sub.

y o> 5C5. a :oAy 3a22o< A5859a<5 a DoB5.oC 4<oDD629 D. The emer-ency po*ers must be e"ercised to 3a.a88y.4! This is evident in the tenor of Section 23 82:.broad po*ers in military commanders en-a-ed in day#to#day fi-htin. Co29. The dele-ation must be 4@:?53< <o 4@3= . <5CDo. o.5 >a6<=>@88y 5G53@<5A .ust another facet of the emer-ency po*ers -enerally reposed upon &on-ress! Thus. T=5 >6. sections.a<6o2 o> a2y D. not the President! No*.5Do45A @Do2 6<. A64D@<54 >.over of privately o*ned public utility or business affected *ith public interest.544 64 <=5 .544 Cay D.a2< 5G53@<675 DoB5.aC5Bo.4. it may not be possible or practicable for &on-ress to meet and e"ercise its po*ers. <=5 2a<6o2H4 8aBCaF5. )rticle B'' must be understood as an aspect of the emer-ency po*ers clause! The ta/in.9523y DoB5. sub. 5C5.C5A Fo. *hen Section 19 states that the 6<=5 S<a<5 Cay.9523y! -2.<y 62 o.4< 453<6o2 o> <=5 >6. )rticle 2' authori0in.F o> o@. :@462544 a>>53<5A B6<= D@:863 62<5. 3o24<6<@<6o2a8 4y4<5C =o8A <=a< <=5 CoCCa2A5. they must be read to-ether to determine the limitation of the e"ercise of emer-ency po*ers! G525. I2 <=5 >.67a<58y oB25A D@:863 @<686<y o.6:5 ! -(. T=5 Co24<6<@<6o2 86C6<4 =64 >@23<6o24 62 <=5 8aBCaF629 D.5Do46<o.awyer. 2o< >o.o3544 <o <=5 .546A52<.K :5 a2 5GDa2A629 3o235D<. <o F55D 8a:o.overnment attempts to do so by citin.4< a.543.a number of cases upholdin. 5L@67o3a8 a:o@< B=o 4=a88 CaF5 8aB4 B=63= <=5 P. o> Ba. <o 455 <=a< <=5 8aB4 a. *hether or not the President may e"ercise such po*er is dependent on *hether &on-ress may dele-ate it to him pursuant to a la* prescribin.ect matter *ill be construed to-ether and considered in the li-ht of each other!123 &onsiderin.6 it refers to &on-ress.6:5A :y 6<.5 o. *.that durin.A5.546A52<H4 DoB5. .543. 4o*ever. <=5 P.-rave emer-encies.a8 3o24<6<@<6o2a8 D.in a theater of *ar! Such cases need not concern us here! E752 <=o@9= K<=5a<5.354 =a4 <=5 @8<6Ca<5 DoB5.5a4o2a:85 <5. different clauses.the reasonable terms thereof! Foungstown . . Co24<6<@<6o2.6<654.. is a different matter! This reAuires a dele-ation from &on-ress! &ourts have often said that constitutional provisions in pari materia are to be construed to-ether! (ther*ise stated.C4 D. /no*in. and provisions of a constitution *hich relate to the same sub.y o@< a 2a<6o2a8 Do863y declared by &on-ress!12> Section 19.54< . et al.ube Co.5>@<54 <=5 6A5a <=a< =5 64 <o :5 a 8aBCaF5.)rroyo could validly declare the e"istence of a state of national emer-ency even in the absence of a &on-ressional enactment! Dut the 5G5. There must be a Ba. 2o< .12<held5 't is clear that if the President had authority to issue the order he did.A5. No.68y <aF5 o75.3645 of emer-ency po*ers..y a@<=o.heet J . relate to national emer-encies.53< <=5 oD5. :5 4@4<a625A :53a@45 o> <=5 4575.629 <=5 5C5.o7646o24 <=a< 9.63<6o24 a4 <=5 Co29.it to dele-ate such po*ers to the President! C5.53oCC52A629 o> 8aB4 =5 <=62F4 B645 a2A <=5 75<o629 o> 8aB4 =5 <=62F4 :aA.over of private business affected *ith public interest is .oA@3<6o2. it must be found in some provision of the &onstitution! )nd it is not claimed that e"press constitutional lan-ua-e -rants this po*er to the President! The contention is that presidential po*er should be implied from the a--re-ate of his po*ers under the &onstitution! Particular reliance is placed on provisions in )rticle '' *hich say that 6The e"ecutive Po*er shall be vested in a President ! ! ! !+6 that 6he shall ta/e &are that the 7a*s be faithfully e"ecuted+6 and that he 6shall be &ommander#in#&hief of the )rmy and Navy of the Enited States! The order cannot properly be sustained as an e"ercise of the President3s military po*er as &ommander#in#&hief of the )rmed Forces! The . A2A <=5 Co24<6<@<6o2 64 256<=5.&62&C=65> o> <=5 A. previously Auoted. thus5 -1. the Framers of our &onstitution deemed it *ise to allo* &on-ress to -rant emer-ency po*ers to the President. The dele-ation must be for a 86C6<5A D5. 6<4 C686<a. a4 4@3= <o <aF5 Do445446o2 o> D.oD5.9523y a2A @2A5. A6.that Section 19 of )rticle B'' and Section 23 of )rticle 2'.ect to certain conditions.<a628y.546A52< 64 <o 5G53@<5.6oA o28y! -3.54<. B5 3a22o< B6<= >a6<=>@82544 <o o@. T=64 64 a ?o: >o. such as the ta/in. <o <=5 P. A@. or o<=5. 3a2 <=5 456E@.a.67a<5 D.<6385 4ay4 <=a< KA88 . 46852< 2o.

)rticle B'' refers to 6 <4@2aC6.)S! Stri/es. no+ those *ould not be covered by the term 6national emer-ency!6 R! D%N.544 o> <=5 U26<5A S<a<54 ! ! !612? Petitioner Cacho#Oli*ares. contends that the term 6emer-ency6 under Section 19..dan-er to life or *ell#bein.)S! Oes.. as the ideal! The point is.F(N! Enless they are of such proportions such that they *ould paraly0e -overnment service! 132 """""" R! T'N. *ith all its faults.)S&(N! There is a Auestion by &ommissioner de los Reyes! Chat about stri/es and riots= R! 2'77%.4 =5. under this frame*or/ of . "inglasan.2a8 a99. o33@.)S! Chat ' mean is threat from 5G<5. variety.peoples in this system. or other similar catastrophe of nation*ide proportions or effect! 131This is evident in the Records of the &onstitutional &ommission. R! T'N. *ith all its defects and shortcomin-s. 2a<@.y o. flood.of po*ers in one man or -roup of men! The Filipino people by adoptin. connotes the e"istence of conditions suddenly intensifyin. and perception!129 %mer-encies. unable to dele-ate to the President the po*er to ta/e over privately#o*ned public utility or business affected *ith public interest! 'n )raneta *. remains in &on-ress even in times of crisis! 6" " " )fter all the criticisms that have been made a-ainst the efficiency of the system of the separation of po*ers. typhoon. 3a8aC6<654 or 2a<@.parliamentary -overnment have -iven notice that they share the faith of other democracy#lovin. classifiable under three 83: principal heads5 a.S(N! Than/ you very much!133 't may be ar-ued that *hen there is national emer-ency. et al.S(N! ay ' as/ the committee if 6national emer-ency6 refers to C686<a. as perceived by le-islature or e"ecutive in the Enited Sates since 1J33. the fact remains that the &onstitution has set up this form of -overnment.beyond that *hich is accepted as normal! 'mplicit in this definitions are the elements of intensity. &on-ress may not be able to convene and. is of the same breadth! 't may include rebellion.6 6=@. economic crisis.13> this &ourt emphasi0ed that le-islative po*er. it could refer to :o<= C686<a. the State may temporarily ta/e over or direct the operation of any privately o*ned public utility or business affected *ith public interest! R! 2'77%. throu-h *hich e"traordinary measures are e"ercised.6 as contemplated in our &onstitution.a8 A64a4<5.9523y=6 R! 2'77%.9523y or could this be 53o2oC63 5C5. 53o2oC63 A648o3a<6o24. pestilence or epidemic. as a -eneric term.y 2a<6o2a8 5C5.)S&(N! Oes! Chat is the &ommittee3s definition of 6national emer-ency6 *hich appears in Section 13.6<y!130 6%mer-ency.52354!6 This is a limited vie* of 6emer-ency!6 %mer-ency.859648a<675 PoB5.12@ :. have been occasioned by a *ide ran-e of situations.53o2oC63.4! R! . thus5 R! .5446o2.a2<5A 4=a88 :5 754<5A 62 a Co29.562 9. for e"ample. pa-e <= 't reads5 Chen the common -ood so reAuires.6 6<yD=oo2. 2a<6o2a8 453@.a8 A64a4<5.12J and 3.. in preference to the commin-lin.63a256and646C68a. therefore.the de-ree of e"istin.

on February 2>.periods of crisis no matter ho* serious! Never in the history of the Enited States. is that military necessity and the -uaranteed ri-hts of the individual are often not compatible! (ur history reveals that in the crucible of conflict. or *hen it *as en-a-ed in a life#and#death stru--le to preserve the Enion! The truth is that under our concept of constitutional -overnment.a2<8544 a. have specific functions of the le-islative branch of enactin.69=< a9a624< Ba. he has no po*er to ta/e over privately#o*ned public utility or business affected *ith public interest! The President cannot decide *hether e"ceptional circumstances e"ist *arrantin.O. o> aDD863a<6o2!13? The validity of a statute or ordinance is to be determined from its -eneral purpose and its efficiency to accomplish the end desired. B6<=o@< 859648a<6o2.the ta/e over of privately#o*ned public utility or business affected *ith public interest! Nor can he determine *hen such e"ceptional circumstances have ceased! 7i/e*ise. le-islative. No.udicial.55AoC o> 4D553=..69=< a9a624< @2. )rticle 2'' in the absence of an emer-ency po*ers act passed by &on-ress! 3. o> <=5 D. a2A o> a445C:8y under the Dill of Ri-hts suffered the -reatest blo*! (f the seven 89: petitions. 200?. 3a45!139 PP 1019 is merely an invocation of the President3s callin-#out po*er! 'ts -eneral purpose is to command the )FP to . 200?.54<0 and <=5 >.uries6 alle-edly suffered by the said petitioners sho*s that they resulted from the 6CD85C52<a<6o2. not even *hen that Republic *as fi-htin. le-islation is preserved for &on-ress all the time.5446o2.3= a2A 456E@. o> 5GD. *ithout le-islation.544. ho*ever.ury!6 'n G. the basic features of *hose &onstitution have been copied in ours. in times of e"treme perils more than in normal circumstances Nthe various branches.!(! No! <. not e"ceptin. No. are called upon Nto perform the duties and dischar-e the responsibilities committed to them respectively!6 Follo*in.out of a le-islative policy accordin. petitioners &acho#(livares and . petitioners I E and N)F7E#I E et al. they *ere arrested *ithout *arrants on their *ay to %$S) to celebrate the 20th )nniversary of People Power I.a total *ar. 5o 6 on the basis of these illegal actsG 'n -eneral. and .to prescribed standards+ no.50 <=5 .5a4o2a:85 45a. this &ourt rules that such Proclamation does not authori0e her durin. 171396. alle-ed that their members *ere 6turned a*ay and dispersed6 *hen they *ent to %$S) and later.the carryin.la*s been surrendered to another department .<63@8a.-overnment. that *hich pertains to security. e"ecutive.PP 1019. operatives 6raided and ransac/ed *ithout *arrant6 their office! Three policemen *ere assi-ned to -uard their office as a possible 6source of destabili0ation!6 )-ain.the emer-ency to temporarily ta/e over or direct the operation of any privately o*ned public utility or business affected *ith public interest *ithout authority from &on-ress! 7et it be emphasi0ed that *hile the President alone can declare a state of national emer-ency.does the illegal implementation of a law render it unconstitutionalG Settled is the rule that courts are not at liberty to declare statutes invalid a8<=o@9= <=5y Cay :5 a:@45A a2A C64a:@45A13< and Cay a>>o.&o!. a:@45 62 <=5 Ca225. 'nc! claimed that on February 2<.R. pursuant to .A a2 oDDo.officers cited PP 1019 as basis of the arrest! 'n G. the President has no po*er to point out the types of businesses affected *ith public interest that should be ta/en over! 'n short.ribune Publishin.R. to celebrate the 20th )nniversary of People Power I! ) perusal of the 6direct in. unless *e re-ard as le-islatin.R. the &'$. The arrestin. to )yala )venue. No. petitioners $avid and 7lamas alle-ed that.<@26<y >o.our interpretation of Section 19. KAS APPLIED C!ALLENGEK (ne of the misfortunes of an emer-ency. the . of PP 1019! Can this Court ad?udge as unconstitutional PP 7'78 and 4. 171()3. )rticle B''. the President has no absolute authority to e"ercise all the po*ers of the State under Section 19. the basis *as PP 1019! )nd in G.3 -iven the ability to act. 171(09.oC 6<4 5>>53<4 62 a Da.. three 83: indicate 6direct in. invo/ed by President )rroyo in issuin. 2o< >. particularly. many ri-hts are curtailed and trampled upon! 4ere.

to criteria that are not al*ays /no*n to the public. then.a<6o2 o> 8aB.oD5.internationally! 7ists of states 6sponsorin. their ob.eneral orders are 6acts and commands of the President in his capacity as &ommander#in#&hief of the )rmed Forces of the Philippines!6 They are internal rules issued by the e"ecutive officer to his subordinates precisely for the D.ority of the provisions of the Revised Penal &ode *ould have been declared unconstitutional a lon. *ere ori-inally labeled as terrorists by those *ho controlled the territory at the time.54 <o 4@DD.the police. but has been unable to brid-e the -ap bet*een those *ho . 3aD. by armed -roups such as liberation movements.in vain to reach a consensus on the basic issue of definition! The or-ani0ation has intensified its efforts recently.time a-o! President )rroyo issued .54@8< a.6a<5 a3<6o24 a2A C5a4@.those acts from eventually le-itimate acts of national resistance or self#defense= Since the times of the &old Car the Enited Nations (r-ani0ation has been tryin.all these military actions .ud-in. 4abib Dour-ouiba in Tunisia. and obedience. .criterion for terrorist acts . and *hich is invariably associated *ith 6invasion. or )hmed Den Della in )l-eria. a2A 2o< a C5.5752< a3<4 o> <5. Such rules and re-ulations create no relation e"cept bet*een the official *ho issues them and the official *ho receives them! 13J They are based on and are the product of. to mention only a fe*. may this &ourt ad.6(ne country3s terrorist is another country3s freedom fi-hter!6 The apparent contradiction or lac/ of consistency in the use of the term 6terrorism6 may further be demonstrated by the historical fact that leaders of national liberation movements such as Nelson andela in South )frica.suppress all forms of la*less violence. the 6fi-ht a-ainst terrorism6 has become one of the basic slo-ans *hen it comes to the .and punishin.. 2o< a.5a4o2a:85.y o. but are clearly determined by strate-ic interests! The basic problem underlyin.ud-e a la* or ordinance unconstitutional on the -round that its implementor committed ille-al acts= The ans*er is no! The criterion by *hich the validity of the statute or ordinance is to be measured is the essential basis for the e"ercise of po*er. invasion or rebellion! 't had accomplished the end desired *hich prompted President )rroyo to issue PP 1021! Dut there is nothin. or threats of the use of force as the most recent by the Enited States a-ainst 'raA .64629 >.6 the phrase 6acts of terrorism6 is still an amorphous and va-ue concept! &on-ress has yet to enact a la* definin. ma. insurrection or rebellion. a relationship in *hich po*er is their source. is the definin.o.updated accordin.oC 6<4 5G5.5 6236A52<a8 . and 5>>63652<aAC6264<. .terrorism6 and of terrorist or-ani0ations are set up and constantly bein. to conduct ille-al arrest.acts of terrorism! 'n fact. the differentia specifica distin-uishin.636o@4. search or violate the citi0ens3 constitutional ri-hts! No*.from the blunders committed by policemen in the cases passed upon by the &ourt.observations are Auite apropos5 'n the actual unipolar conte"t of international relations. this 6definitional predicament6 or the 6absence of an a-reed definition of terrorism6 confronts not only our country.in PP 1019 allo*in.y a2A aDD.oD. one reAuirement for these rules to be valid is that they must be .!(! No! < mandates the )FP and the PNP to immediately carry out the 6253544a. or by individuals! The dilemma can by summari0ed in the sayin.a. consists in the absence of an a-reed definition of terrorism! Remar/able confusion persists in re-ard to the le-al cate-ori0ation of acts of violence either by states.ect! 1>0 For these reasons.64C a2A 8aB8544 violence!6 Enli/e the term 6la*less violence6 *hich is unar-uably e"tant in our statutes and the &onstitution.544 a2A D.them have acted arbitrarily! 'f this *ere so.:6<. but the international community as *ell! The follo*in.!(! No! < to carry into effect the provisions of PP 1019! . e"pressly or impliedly.ustification of the use of force a-ainst certain states and a-ainst -roups operatin.ust because the officers implementin.<6o2 !13@This is lo-ical! 1ust ima-ine the absurdity of situations *hen la*s maybe declared unconstitutional . but later became internationally respected statesmen! Chat.

the correspondin. *ho has the discretion to determine *hat acts constitute terrorism! 4er . they violate the due process clause of the &onstitution! Thus.mar-inali0ed+ and the problem has become even more acute since the terrorist attac/s of 11 September 2001 ' the Enited States!1>1 The absence of a la* definin.!(! No! <.64C.the international community can best be illustrated by reference to the contradictin..into offices and residences. former -reat po*ers of the &old Car era as *ell as medium po*ers are increasin-ly bein. " " " shall be punished byreclusion temporal " " "!6 P!$! No! 1@3< *as repealed by %!(! No! 1?9 8*hich outla*s the &ommunist Party of the Philippines: enacted by President &ora0on )Auino on ay <.overnment of the Philippines " " " by force. the basic reason for these stri/in. can those contradictin. in spite of the emphasis in the Preamble to the Enited Nations &harterS .spree! Oet the military or the police may consider the act as an act of terrorism and immediately arrest them pursuant to .po*er in a -iven territory. has become even more serious in the present -lobal po*er constellation5 one superpo*er e"ercises the decisive role in the Security &ouncil. the Iashmiri resistance -roups . of an occupyin.6 not of 6terrorism6 *hen acts of violence by this -roup are concerned. freedom fi-hters for the Enited States.interests of soverei-n states that determine in each and every instance ho* a particular armed movement 8i!e! a non# state actor: is labeled in re-ard to the terrorists#freedom fi-hter dichotomy! ) 6policy of double standards6 on this vital issue of international affairs has been the unavoidable conseAuence! This 6definitional predicament6 of an or-ani0ation consistin. <5. because of opposin.o. 1J@<! These t*o 82: la*s. then. under . this is abuse and oppression on their part! 't must be remembered that an act can only be considered a crime if there is a la* definin. 1J@1 enacted by President arcos durin. or.of soverei-n states . i!e!. liberation fi-hters in that of Pa/istan . violence. this &ourt declares that the 6acts of terrorism6 portion of .penalty thereon! So far.the . ho*ever. terrorists for the Socialist camp .for the Soviet Enion! (ne could -o on and on in enumeratin. and not of peoples. *hich is a terrorist -roup for 'srael and a liberation movement for )rabs and uslims . or adversary.!(! No! <! (bviously.6acts of terrorism6 may result in abuse and oppression on the part of the police or military! )n illustration is *hen a -roup of persons are merely en-a-ed in a drin/in.!(! No! <! These acts -o far beyond the callin-#out po*er of the President! &ertainly. ta/in.the &old Car period they *ere a -roup of freedom fi-hters for the Cest. the )f-hani u.The Penalties for embership in Subversive (r-ani0ations!6 The *ord 6terrorism6 is mentioned in the follo*inprovision5 6That one *ho conspires *ith any other person for the purpose of overthro*in. there can be indiscriminate arrest *ithout *arrants.perceptions and evaluations of one and the same -roup and its actions be e"plained= 'n our analysis. the earlier &ontras in Nicara-ua . and vice#versa! The Enited Nations (r-ani0ation has been unable to reach a decision on the definition of terrorism e"actly because of these conflictin. the *ord 6terrorism6 appears only once in our criminal la*s. do not define 6acts of terrorism!6 Since there is no la* definin6acts of terrorism. and those *ho believe in the concept of the le-itimate use of force *hen resistance a-ainst forei-n occupation or a-ainst systematic oppression of ethnic andGor reli-ious -roups *ithin a state is concerned! The dilemma facin. *ho are terrorists in the perception of 'ndia. in P!$! No! 1@3< dated 1anuary 1?.ud-ment on this aspect is absolute.6 it is President )rroyo alone.!(! No! < is unconstitutional! . nurtured by the Enited States.on *hether a state is in the position of an occupyin.ahedeen 8later to become the Taliban movement:5 durin.The 2arious 7a*s on )nti#Subversion and 'ncreasin.over the media enterprises.the same as such and imposin.the artial 7a* re-ime! This decree is entitled 6&odifyin. state functionaries or infrastructure or military installations. *ithout restrictions! &onseAuently.po*er or in that of a rival. brea/in. most drastically.cate-ori0ations that cannot be reconciled in any *ay .inconsistencies lies in the diver-ent interest of states! $ependin.associate 6terrorism6 *ith any violent act by non#state -roups a-ainst civilians. and a terrorist -an. prohibition and dispersal of all assemblies and -atherin-s unfriendly to the administration! )ll these can be effected in the name of .political interests that are at the roots of those perceptions! 4o*.definitions and conflictin. the definition of terrorism *ill 6fluctuate6 accordin-ly! ) state may eventually see itself as protector of the ri-hts of a certain ethnic -roup outside its territory and *ill therefore spea/ of a 6liberation stru--le.cate-ori0ation of or-ani0ations and movements such as Palestine 7iberation (r-ani0ation 8P7(: .e"amples of conflictin.

such acts are considered ille-al! Ce first e"amine G.R.!(! No! < authori0in. arrest a person5 -a.the (rder! (ther*ise. he *as arrested *ithout *arrant+ second.the place to be searched and the persons or thin-s to be sei0ed!61>2 The plain import of the lan-ua-e of the &onstitution is that searches. photo-raphed and boo/ed li/e a criminal suspect+ fourth. is actually committin-.5752< 8aB8544 76o85235. or of the press. Chen an offense has .Si-nificantly.. all that the arrestin. # ) peace officer or a private person may.54< shall issue e"cept upon probable cause to be determined personally by the . ))01>< and I236<629 <o S5A6<6o2+ si:th.he *as treated brusAuely by policemen *ho 6held his head and tried to push him6 inside an unmar/ed car+ fifth.: The &onstitution provides that 6the ri-ht of the people to be secured in their persons. papers and effects a-ainst unreasonable search and sei0ure of *hatever nature and for any purpose shall be in iolable1 and no search *arrant or Ba.ustifies petitioner $avid3s *arrantless arrest! $urin. and particularly describin.6a<5 <o 4@DD. there is nothin.the sub. sei0ures and arrests are 2o.oD.it.the military or police to commit acts beyond *hat are 253544a. he *as detained for seven 89: hours+ and se*enth.he *as eventually released for insufficiency of evidence! Section <.Ca88y unreasonable unless authori0ed by a validly issued search *arrant or *arrant of arrest! Thus. in his presence.ud-e after e"amination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the *itnesses he may produce. the PNP operatives arrested him on the basis of PP 1019+ third.t#shirts *ith the invective +Oust 4loria 5ow+ and their erroneous assumption that petitioner $avid *as the leader of the rally!1>? &onseAuently. certain facts are established5 first. the 'nAuest Prosecutor ordered his immediate release on the -round of insufficiency of evidence! 4e noted that petitioner $avid *as not *earin. or the ri-ht of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the -overnment for redress of -rievances! .y a2A aDD. Chen. No. 171396 8"a*id et al. Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on &riminal Procedure provides5 Sec! <! Arrest wit$out warrant2 w$en law!ul..ust been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal /no*led-e of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it+ and " " "! Neither of the t*o 82: e"ceptions mentioned above . such fact is insufficient to char-e him *ith i236<629 <o 45A6<6o2! Further. the person to be arrested has committed. the fundamental protection -iven by this provision is that bet*een person and police must stand the protective authority of a ma-istrate clothed *ith po*er to issue or refuse to issue search *arrants or *arrants of arrest! 1>3 'n the Drief )ccount1>> submitted by petitioner $avid. but also their ri-ht to peaceably assemble! Section > of )rticle ''' -uarantees5 No la* shall be passed abrid-in.the freedom of speech. houses. is that not only *as their ri-ht a-ainst *arrantless arrest violated. he also stated that there is insufficient evidence for the char-e of 76o8a<6o2 o> %P ))0 as it *as not even /no*n *hether petitioner $avid *as the leader of the rally! 1>9 Dut *hat made it doubly *orse for petitioners $avid et al. he *as char-ed *ith 2iolation of %a<a4 PaC:a24a %68a29 No. or is attemptin.a2< o> a.to commit an offense! -:. Hue0on &ity *here he *as fin-erprinted.officers could invo/e *as their observation that some rallyists *ere *earin.ect t#shirt and even if he *as *earin.the inAuest for the char-es of i236<629 <o 45A6<6o2 and 76o8a<6o2 o> %P ))0. *ithout a *arrant. the limitation of their authority in pursuin. of e"pression. he *as brou-ht at &amp Iarin-al.in .544 a2A D.

2C52<.A4 .545235.ribune offices! Thereafter.2C52<. 8&acho#(livares. (n the basis of the above principles.a2A <=5 4<a2Aa. et al! *ere arrested *hile they *ere e"ercisin. A@5 2o<635 a2A =5a. li/e other ri-hts embraced in the freedom of e"pression.52< Ca<<5.95.have committed crimes else*here. e"cept on a sho*in. the"aily .K $irector .of February 2<. Ao a2y<=629 <=a< Bo@8A =58D <=5 . 624<5aA o> D. a *ave of *arnin.R.ribune e"cept the security -uard of the buildin-+ and fifth.ribune!s offices *ere searched *ithout *arrant+second. the distinction bet*een protected and unprotected assemblies *as eliminated! oreover. respondents failed to sho* or convince the &ourt that the rallyists committed acts amountin. it behooves a democratic -overnment to see to it that the restriction is fair. established the follo*in-5 first.the oral ar-ument. the char-es of 6236<629 <o 45A6<6o2and 76o8a<6o2 o> %P ))0 *ere mere afterthou-ht! %ven the Solicitor . 4@3= o>>52454. invasion or rebellion! Cith the blan/et revocation of permits.officers3 conduct! 'n "e @onge *.H <o <588 C5A6a o@<85<4 2o< <o 3o22675 o. if the ri-hts of free speech and peaceful assembly are not to be preserved.to la*less violence.!R! No! 191>@3: un*arranted! )pparently. o.eneral 7omibao further stated that K6> <=5y Ao 2o< >o88oB <=5 4<a2Aa.that such raid *as KC5a2< <o 4=oB a M4<. this ri-ht is not to be limited.1>@ it *as held that peaceable assembly cannot be made a crime. their dispersal *as done merely on the basis of alacaMan-3s directive cancelin. et al. under DP @@0.55AoC o> a445C:8y 64 2o< <o :5 86C6<5A. the &ourt li/e*ise considers the dispersal and arrest of the members of I E et al. reasonable. neither *as there a sho*in.69=< <o D. thus5 Peaceable assembly for la*ful discussion cannot be made a crime! The holdin.all permits previously issued by local -overnment units! This is arbitrary! The *holesale cancellation of all permits to rally is a blatant disre-ard of the principle that 6>. the authority to re-ulate assemblies and rallies is lod-ed *ith the local -overnment units! They have the po*er to issue permits and to revo/e such permits a><5.5 Da.5752<!61>J Tolerance is the rule and limitation is the e"ception! (nly upon a sho*in.5452< Aa295.<636Da<6o2 62 a D5a35a:85 a445C:8y a2A a 8aB>@8 D@:863 A643@446o2 a4 <=5 :a464 >o. durin. much less denied.eneral failed to refute.of a 385a. and accordin. but *hether their utterances transcend the bounds of the freedom of speech *hich the &onstitution protects! 'f the persons assemblin. No.eneral. and not for the assembly itself.6C62a8 3=a. petitioners *ere not even notified and heard on the revocation of their permits! 1<0 The first time they learned of it *as at the time of the dispersal! Such absence of notice is a fatal defect! Chen a person3s ri-ht is restricted by -overnment action. policemen stationed themselves at the vicinity of the "aily . failed to .: presents another facet of freedom of speech i!e!.629629 AoB2 <=64 9o75.*as held but as to its purpose+ not as to the relations of the spea/ers. 5G35D< o2 a 4=oB629 o> a clear and present danger o> a 4@:4<a2<675 5768 <=a< <=5 S<a<5 =a4 a .of a clear and present dan-er that *arranted the limitation of that ri-ht! )s can be -leaned from circumstances. 6> <=5y Ao 2o< . of a substantive evil that &on-ress has a ri-ht to prevent! 'n other *ords.any crime.to procedure! G.of meetin-s for peaceable political action cannot be proscribed! Those *ho assist in the conduct of such meetin-s cannot be branded as criminals on that score! The Auestion. *hich the Solicitor . a2A D.5 6> <=5y Bo@8A 3o2<.ect to previous restraint or censorship! 't may not be conditioned upon the prior issuance of a permit or authori0ation from the -overnment authorities e"cept.o453@<629 <=5C >o. if they have formed or are en-a-ed in a conspiracy a-ainst the public peace and order.6)ssembly6 means a ri-ht on the part of the citi0ens to meet peaceably for consultation in respect to public affairs! 't is a necessary conseAuence of our republican institution and complements the ri-ht of speech! )s in the case of freedom of e"pression.5:584 62 :. of course.that an assembly presents a clear and present dan-er that the State may deny the citi0ens3 ri-ht to e"ercise it! 'ndeed. 8.6:@<5 <o 624<a:686<y 62 <=5 9o75. the ri-ht to assemble is not sub.ustify the arrestin. if the assembly is intended to be held in a public place. C@3= 8544 A5265A.came from -overnment officials! Presidential &hief of Staff ichael $efensor *as Auoted as sayin.the search *as conducted in the absence of any official of the "aily .truth here is that petitioner $avid. is not as to the auspices under *hich the meetin. a permit for the use of such place. a 3. 171(09. 456E54 @Do2 C5. they may be prosecuted for their conspiracy or other violations of valid la*s!%@< 6< 64 a A6>>5.A4 a.their ri-ht to peaceful assembly! They *ere not committin.629 on the determination of the presence of clear and present dan-er! 4ere. the search *as conducted at about 1500 o3 cloc/ in the mornin. 200?+ fourth. Oregon. the police operatives sei0ed several materials for publication+ third. B=52 <=5 S<a<5.o29 D. the freedom of the press! Petitioners3 narration of facts. may be validly reAuired! The rin-in.

53oCC52A <=5 38o4@.4P >. Chief of .. T=64 4<a<5 o> :5629 64 Da<52<8y a2a<=5Ca<63 <o a A5Co3.a8 O. the premises searched *ere the business and printin. ' thin/ and ' /no*.oaA3a4< o@<>6< <=a< 76o8a<54 . and a-ainst any stealthy encroachments thereon! The motto should al*ays be obsta principiis!1<> 'ncidentally. or any other premise be made 62 <=5 D. the search violated petitioners3 freedom of the press! The best -au-e of a free and democratic society rests in the de-ree of freedom en.taff1<2 this &ourt held that ## )s heretofore stated.o3.F B=5. B5 B688 .@854 45< o@< >o. No.4=6D a:=o.of -overnment officials to media.ribune!s offices and the sei0ure of its materials for publication and other papers are ille-al+ and that the same are inadmissible 6for any purpose. * a2A P.he "aily .%N%R)7 D%N'P)O(5 Ender the la* they *ould seem to be. a85.53oCC52A a N<aF5o75. in *hich case a direction may be inserted that it be served at any time of the day or ni-ht! )ll these rules *ere violated by the &'$.55AoC o> <=5 D.eneral admitted that the search of the .1<1 The search is ille-al! Rule 12? of The Revised Rules on &riminal Procedure lays do*n the steps in the conduct of search and sei0ure! S53<6o2 ( reAuires that a 45a. the stationin.of policemen in the vicinity of the .54@8< <=a< <=5 D. and no more and no less than *hat he is permitted to say on pain of punishment should he be so rash as to disobey!1<3 Endoubtedly. if they *ere ille-ally sei0ed.he "aily .6 thus5 1EST'&% &)77%1(5 Oou made Auite a mouthful of admission *hen you said that the policemen.5a<525A . B6<= <=5 >@. operatives! Not only that. a2A 3o24<6<@<54 a 76. <=5 >@2AaC52<a8 8aB. .5 o> D.ected to these arbitrary intrusions because of its anti#-overnment sentiments! This &ourt cannot tolerate the blatant disre-ard of a constitutional ri-ht even if it involves the most defiant of our citi0ens! Freedom to comment on public affairs is essential to the vitality of a representative democracy! 't is the duty of the courts to be *atchful for the constitutional ri-hts of the citi0en.62<.ud-e after e"amination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the *itnesses he may produce! S53<6o2 ) mandates that the search of a house.629 <6C54 B=52 <=5 2a<6o2a8 453@..aC5Bo. the .the oral ar-uments. <=545 D.544 9@a.ribune *as sub. No.A5.62<629 a2A D@:863a<6o2 o> 4a6A 25B4DaD5.a2<55A @2A5. room.oB<= o> <=5 36<6E52.5 64 62 <=5 2a<@.5 a >.6<y 64 <=. the Solicitor .oyed by its media! 'n the 9urgos *.ribune offices.55.<@a8 A526a8 o> D5<6<6o25. durin. unless the property is on the person or in the place ordered to be searched.a<63 >.25A <=a< =64 a9523y B688 2o< =546<a<5 <o . and the arro-ant *arnin.ribune *as not padloc/ed and sealed li/e the 6 etropolitan ail6 and 6Be $orum6 ne*spapers in the above case.6:5 <o B=a< 64 62 G525.55AoC <o 5GD. yet it cannot be denied that the &'$.evidence and you admitted that the policemen *ere able to -et the clippin-s! 's that not in admission of the admissibility of these clippin-s that *ere ta/en from the Tribune= S(7'&'T(R .<=5. in the presence of t*o 82: *itnesses of sufficient a-e and discretion residin.4 B5. C5A6a 3o75. <=5 Do86<63a8 52869=<52C52< a2A 9.< a2A 5752 C686<a2< D. 1017 .5 DaA8o3F5A a2A 45a85A.5 A643o2<62@5A ! S@3= 38o4@. the "aily .544 64 54452<6a8 >o.in the same locality! )nd S53<6o2 9 states that the *arrant must direct that it be served in the Aay<6C5. operatives e"ceeded their enforcement duties! The search and sei0ure of materials for publication. Oour 4onor.!36 National Telecommunications &ommissioner Ronald Solis ur-ed television and radio net*or/s to +cooperate+ *ith the -overnment for the duration of the state of national emer-ency! !5 Ba.3= Ba.52< <o <=5 >. and these are inadmissible for any purpose!1<< .5 o> a2y :.544 <=5C458754 62 D.y! Chile admittedly.a95 A@.a62< o.576o@4 .4@:43.545235 o> <=5 8aB>@8 o33@Da2< thereof or any member of his family or in the absence of the latter. are plain censorship! 't is that officious functionary of the repressive -overnment *ho tells the citi0en that he may spea/ only if allo*ed to do so.offices of the 6 etropolitan ail6 and the 6Be $orum6 ne*spapers! )s a conseAuence of the search and sei0ure.54<.a2< be issued upon probable cause in connection *ith one specific offence to be determined personally by the . 3524o. *hen inspected the Tribune for the purpose of -atherin.5C6454 B5.

accordin.that the act of the policeman is ille-al. and it is not based on Proclamation 1019! S(7. no le-al basis *hatsoever= S(7. the *arrantless arrests and sei0ures e"ecuted by the police *ere. Oour 4onor. it has no basis. that is *hy ' said. from the facts. because there is nothin. Oour 4onor! Not upon my instructions! SR! )SS(! 1EST'&% PEN(5 )re you sayin. 2o.%N D%N'P)O(5 't is not based on Proclamation 1019.5 a.5 . <=5y 3a2 4@5 a2A <=5.to the Solicitor .in 1019 *hich says that the police could -o and inspect and -ather clippin-s from $aily Tribune or any other ne*spaper! SR! )SS(! 1EST'&% PEN(5 's it based on any la*= S(7. ille-al and cannot be condoned. 6< 3a22o< :5 3o2Ao25A! Oou cannot blame the President for.%N D%N'P)O(5 aybe so. as ' said. Oour 4onor. it is not based on any la*. it *as the police that did that. as you said. Oour 4onor! aybe so.""""""""" SR! )SS(! 1EST'&% PEN(5 These have been published in the past issues of the $aily Tribune+ all you have to do is to -et those past issues! So *hy do you have to -o there at 1 o3cloc/ in the mornin.)N'D)N5 There seems to be some confusions if not contradiction in your theory! S(7'&'T(R . 2o! SR! )SS(! 1EST'&% PEN(5 So.5C5A654 >o. a misapplication of the la*! These are acts of . ' don3t /no* if it is premature to say this.%N D%N'P)O(5 Cell.and *ithout any search *arrant= $id they become suddenly part of the evidence of rebellion or incitin.to sedition or *hat= S(7.%N%R)7 D%N'P)O(5 ' don3t /no* *hether this *ill clarify! The acts.5A :y <=64 Bo@8A Ba2< <o 4@5 <=5C.eneral. <=64 !1<? 7i/e*ise. B5 Ao 2o< 3o2Ao25 <=64! I> <=5 D5oD85 B=o =a75 :552 62?@.%N D%N'P)O(5 )s far as ' /no*. thus5 &4'%F 1EST'&% P)N. the supposed ille-al or unla*ful acts committed on the occasion of 1019.

69=<4 a. this &ourt has to declare such acts unconstitutional and ille-al! 'n this connection. a supervenin. the &ourt finds . is considered an inte-ral part of this ponencia! SUMMATION 'n sum. )rticle B'' of the &onstitution.!(! No! <.!(! No! < valid! 't is an (rder issued by the President .544 a2A D.!(! No! < have not been le-ally defined and made punishable by &on-ress and should thus be deemed deleted from the said . 64 a C5a24 <o a2 52A a2A 4@:4<a2<675 36768 . invasion or rebellion! Chen in implementin. the military and the police committed acts *hich violate the citi0ens3 ri-hts under the &onstitution.!(! No! < are constitutional in every aspect and 6should result in no constitutional or statutory breaches if applied accordin. or one similar to it. the transcendental issues raised by the parties should not be 6evaded+6 they must no* be resolved to prevent future constitutional aberration! The &ourt finds and so holds that PP 1019 is constitutional insofar as it constitutes a call by the President for the )FP to prevent or suppress 8aB8544 76o85235. to determine the limits of the )FP3s authority in carryin.y a2A aDD.6a<5 a3<6o24 a2A C5a4@. ille-al acts *ere committed alle-edly in pursuance thereof! Desides.opinion.. addressed to subalterns in the )FP to carry out the provisions of PP 1019! Si-nificantly. criminal or administrative sanctions on the individual police officers concerned! They have not been individually identified and -iven their day in court! The civil complaints or causes of action andGor relevant criminal 'nformations have not been presented before this &ourt! %lementary due process bars this &ourt from ma/in.oD. attached hereto.out by the President of the military to prevent or suppress la*less violence. <=a< C686<a.any specific pronouncement of civil.y DoB5.!(! No! <! (ther than this declaration of invalidity. *hile PP 1019 *as still operative. pursuant to . are ultra *ires and @23o24<6<@<6o2a8! The &ourt also rules that under Section 19. may not a-ain be issued! )lready.out this portion of .54 <o 4@DD. there have been media reports on )pril 30.as &ommander#in#&hief . actin.the police officers. in the absence of a le-islation.of PP 1019 throu-h the issuance of PP 1021 .event . &hief 1ustice )rtemio 2! Pan-aniban3s concurrin. the liftin. are not authori0ed by the &onstitution. )rticle 2'' of the &onstitution and the relevant . criminal or administrative liabilities! 't is B588 <o . that the military and the police should ta/e only the 6253544a. !oB . and eventually the courts.5 52A4 62 <=5C458754. that is their responsibility!1<9 The $issentin.urisprudence! Not even by the valid provisions of PP 1019 and . the President. suffice it to reiterate that PP 1019 is limited to the callin. the la* and . no la* has been enacted to -uide the military.5752< a3<4 o> 8aB8544 76o85235!6Dut the *ords 6a3<4 o> <5. it is also pristine clear that 81: the *arrantless arrest of petitioners Randolf S! $avid and Ronald 7lamas+ 82: the dispersal of the rallies and *arrantless arrest of the I E and N)F7E# I E members+ 83: the imposition of standards on media or any prior restraint on the press+ and 8>: the *arrantless search of the .to their letter!6 The &ourt has passed upon the constitutionality of these issuances! 'ts ratiocination has been e"haustively presented! )t this point. PP 10193s e"traneous provisions -ivin. this &ourt cannot impose any civil.o. 200? that alle-edly PP 1019 *ould be reimposed 6if the ay 1 rallies6 become 6unruly and violent!6 &onseAuently.the President e"press or implied po*er 81: to issue decrees+ 82: to direct the )FP to enforce obedience to a88 8aB4even those not related to la*less violence as *ell as decrees promul-ated by the President+ and 83: to impose standards on media or any form of prior restraint on the press. there is no -uarantee that PP 1019. *ould have normally rendered this case moot and academic! 4o*ever.ribune offices and the *himsical sei0ures of some articles for publication and other materials. cannot ta/e over privately#o*ned public utility and private business affected *ith public interest! 'n the same vein.5C5C:5.!(! No! <! (n the basis of the relevant and uncontested facts narrated earlier.(pinion states that PP 1019 and . The proclamation is sustained by Section 1@.its provisions.64C6 found in . it also provides a valid standard .urisprudence discussed earlier! 4o*ever.!(! Chile 6terrorism6 has been denounced -enerally in media.

544 8aB8544 76o85235! 4o*ever. ALICIA AUSTRIA&MARTINEZ LEONARDO A. yet they should not be arbitrary as to unduly restrain our people3s liberty! Perhaps. the provisions of PP 1019 commandin.that 6acts of terrorism6 have not yet been defined and made punishable by the 7e-islature. in the absence of proof that these petitioners *ere committin. 4@DD. The *arrantless arrest of Randolf S! $avid and Ronald 7lamas+ the dispersal and *arrantless arrest of the I E and N)F7E# I E members durin.loria acapa-al#)rroyo on the )FP <o D.25A!1<@ /!EREFORE.ribune offices and *himsical sei0ure of its articles for publication and other materials. the provision in PP 1019 declarin. 6< 255A4 <o D. CORONA . it is possible to -rant -overnment the authority to cope *ith crises *ithout surrenderin. -overnmental action may vary in breadth and intensity from normal times.emer-ency.6 Considerin.oD. as *ell as the *arrantless search of the .<o 9675 <=5 C686<a.y a2A aDD.the )FP to enforce la*s not related to la*less violence.political philosophies is that.!(! No! < is CONSTITUTIONAL since it provides a standard by *hich the )FP and the PNP should implement PP 1019.:6<.la*less violence.y DoB5. )rticle 2'' of the &onstitution is CONSTITUTIONAL.2C52< <o <=5 9o75. are declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL! 'n addition. i!e! *hatever is 6253544a. the vital lesson that *e must learn from the theorists *ho studied the various competin. CARPIO )sscociate 1ustice RENATO C.DP @@0+ the imposition of standards on media or any form of prior restraint on the press. and Do86<63a8 .2a8 :a8a23629 <a4F4 o> a A5Co3.aCD8629 62A676A@a8 .!(! No! < is declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL.a.y <=5 DoB5.the t*o vital principles of constitutionalism5 <=5 Ca62<52a235 o> 859a8 86C6<4 <o a.5752< a3<4 o> 8aB8544 76o85235.68y <. are declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL! No costs! SO ORDERED! ANGELINA SANDOVAL&GUTIERREZ )ssociate 1ustice C% &(N&ER5 ARTEMIO V. such portion of . as *ell as decrees promul-ated by the President. but such declaration does not authori0e the President to ta/e over privately# o*ned public utility or business affected *ith public interest *ithout prior le-islation! . the Petitions are partly -ranted! The &ourt rules that PP 1019 is CONSTITUTIONAL insofar as it constitutes a call by President .544 a2A D.a<63 4<a<5 !$urin.their rallies.54Do246:686<y o> <=5 9o75.54 <o 4@DD.69=<4 64 o25 o> <=5 5<5.. PUNO )ssociate 1ustice CONSUELO "NARES&SANTIAGO )ssociate 1ustice MA. PANGANI%AN &hief 1ustice 8(n leave: RE"NATO S.5752< o. invasion or rebellion and violatin.o<53< <=5 R5D@:863 B6<=o@< @2253544a.national emer-ency under Section 19.acts constitutin.6a<5 a3<6o24 a2A C5a4@. #UISUM%ING )sscociate 1ustice ANTONIO T.

1ustice Tom &! &lar/ . arch ?. GARCIA )sscociate 1ustice Pursuant to Section 13. CALLE$O. . 2olume B'B. )sscociate 1ustice DANTE O. Liberty and Prosperity. 7ecturer.he $ranklin emorial Lectures. $R. SR. 1J91. 200?! < ? inutes of the 'ntelli-ence Report and Security . February 1<. 4eraclitus of %phesus. )nne" 6'6 of Respondents3 &onsolidated &omment! 9 @ Respondents3 &onsolidated &omment! Ibid.)ssociate 1ustice CONC!ITA CARPIO MORALES )ssociate 1ustice ADOLFO S.ree/ philosopher. it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above $ecision *ere reached in consultation before the case *as assi-ned to the *riter of the opinion of the &ourt! ARTEMIO V. )ssociate 1ustice &%RT'F'&)T'(N )sscociate 1ustice ROMEO $. Philippine )rmy. Ibid. J . 200?! )rticulated in the *ritin-s of the . notably opposites are interrelated! 3 > Respondents3 &omment dated Ibid. AZCUNA )ssociate 1ustice MINITA V. C!ICO&NAZARIO )ssociate 1ustice PRES%ITERO $.roup. TINGA )sscociate 1ustice CANCIO C. PANGANI%AN &hief 1ustice Foo<2o<54 1 Law and "isorder. VELASCO. <>0#>@0 D!&!. p! 2J! 2 &hief 1ustice )rtemio 2! Pan-aniban. *ho propounded universal impermanence and that all thin-s. )rticle 2''' of the &onstitution.

under conditions provided by la*.the place to be searched and the persons or thin-s to be sei0ed! 19 No la* shall be passed abrid-in. houses. the State may.ect to such restrictions as it may prescribe. temporarily ta/e over or direct the operation of any privately o*ned public utility or business affected *ith public interest! 20 21 1 &ranch 139 K1@03L! 4o*ard 7! acDain. to e"ercise po*ers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy! Enless sooner *ithdra*n by resolution of the &on-ress. and effects a-ainst unreasonable searches and sei0ures of *hatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable.e*iew. p! 2<J! . p! 9J:! 23 2> &ru0.!R! No! 191>00. durin. nor shall any person be denied the eAual protection of the la*s! 1? The ri-ht of the people to be secure in their persons. 'n times of *ar or other national emer-ency. The &on-ress. of e"pression.the freedom of speech.ournment thereof! 'n times of national emer-ency. by a vote of t*o#thirds of both 4ouses in . or property *ithout due process of la*. Si"th %dition.oint session assembled.overnment may call upon the people to defend the State and. p! <! 11 Police action in various parts of etro anila and the reactions of the hu-e cro*ds bein. authori0e the President. for a limited period and sub. by la*.ome )spects of @udicial . )merican Constitutional Law.usticiable case! 8Shapiro and Tresolini. shall have the sole po*er to declare the e"istence of a state of *ar! 1J -2.ne*s6 by the ma. Petition in .10 Ibid. p! 11! Ibid. votin.tates 8Doston5 Doston Eniversity 4effernan Press.!R! No! 1913J?.ud-e after e"amination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the *itnesses he may produce.overnment is to serve and protect the people! The . liberty.overnment for redress of -rievances! 1@ -1. the &on-ress may. papers. 1J3J:. in the fulfillment thereof. all citi0ens may be reAuired. 1> The prime duty of the . or of the press. 6. 2002 %d!. and particularly describin.capacity and must a*ait the action of some liti-ant so a--rieved as to have a . or the ri-ht of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the . Philippine Political 7a*. such po*ers shall cease upon the ne"t ad.+ 9acon Lectures on the Constitution of the 1nited . *hen the public interest so reAuires. to render personal military or civil service! 1< No person shall be deprived of life.separately. 1J@3. pp! 39?#99! 22 The &ourt has no self#startin.dispersed *ere broadcast as 6brea/in. and no search *arrant or *arrant of arrest shall issue e"cept upon probable cause to be determined personally by the .the emer-ency and under reasonable terms prescribed by it.or television stations of this country! 12 13 Petition in .

anlakas *.2< Ibid. Court of )ppeals.helby. 1J>< 8Enreported:! 3? 39 3@ 3J >0 >1 >2 >3 >> >< . Court of )ppeals. .!R! No! 1<J0@<. . .. >2? S&R) J1+ and Paloma *.!R! No! 1<J0@<. 13> S&R) >3@! . Pro*ince of 9atangas *. 11@ E!S! >2<! Pro*ince of 9atangas *. <J S%2d 3<J 81J<0:! 302 E!S! ?33! 31@ E!S! >>?! ?< Phil! <? 81J39:! .a*ings and ortgage 9ank *.ecretary. @r. 3@3 S&R) <99. Pro*ince of 9atangas *.. . 3<9 S&R) 9<?! 30 &ru0. November 11.. PereC. 200>. >1< S&R) <J0! 29 .!R! No! 11?<.omulo. Barner 9arnes J Co. . @@ Phil! 12< 81J<1:! 29< Iy J1. supra! Lacson *. >2< S&R) 12J+ Ada. 200>. "e "abao *. PereC. supra. .!R! No! 1>99@0. >3< S&R) J@. 1uly 2. . .uaCon. .oyal Cargo Corporation *. 4uingona.!R! No! 1?3302.omulo. 2003. 2001. February 3.!R! No! 119. et al. @r. p! 2?@ citin. 2002. 2002. Court of )ppeals. ay 10. CruC PaEo.!R! No! 1<299>. ?th %d! 1JJ1. 200>. ay 29. Commission on Elections.alonga *. >2J S&R) 93?! 2? 9anco $ilipino . Philippine Political 7a*. 120 SC2d 9?< 81J3@:! 1J Cend! <? 81@39:! 232 N& >@. >21 S&R) ?<?! 3> 3< . Ci*il )eronautics 9oard. arch 10. arch 23.!R! No! 13>@<<. 200>. supra! 2@ 2J Lacson *. November 9.alonga *. 1J@<. February 3. . E:ecuti*e .!R! No! 1><>31. 31 32 33 )lbaEa *.!R! Nos! 1030<<#<?. supra. 1uly 23. . "e "abao *.. >21 S&R) ?<?! Dlac/3s 7a* $ictionary. February 1@. >21 S&R) 21+ Ada. 200>. No! 7# <J<2>. . . . .5orton *. )cop *. 200>. p! J>1! .omulo. 1anuary 2?. 200>.!R! No! 1329J<.

. *here the &ourt held that petitioner as a ta"payer. 1J1 S&R) ><2. technicalities of procedure!6 >J <0 7#No! >000>. .100>20. %omelec. .a suit *here a constitutional issue is raised! Maceda . 19< S&R) 3>3. .the validity of the implementation of the &)RP! )on5ales . public interest *as definitely involved and this clothed petitioner *ith the le-al personality under the disclosure provision of the &onstitution to Auestion it! Association o! Small Landowners in t$e P$ilippines1 Inc.aside. )pril 2>.!R! No! @3<<1. *here the &ourt ruled that *hile petitioners are strictly spea/in-. if *e must.!R! No! 9@9>2. 1uly 1>.!R! No! 10>912. *here the &ourt held that the importance of the issues involved concernin.aside technicalities of procedures+ 6e )uia . 1J@9. *here the &ourt held that *here the Auestion is one of public duty and the enforcement of a public ri-ht. 1J@J. the reAuirement of personal interest is satisfied by the mere fact that the petitioner is a citi0en and part of the -eneral public *hich possesses the ri-ht! 4apatiran ng mga +agliling0od sa Pama$alaan ng Pilipinas1 Inc. as the issues involved. 100>19. ay ?.as it does the political e"ercise of Aualified voters affected by the apportionment. 1J@<.!R! No! @@2J1. 1J@@. ?2 S&R) 29<! .!R! No! @9?3?. 13? S&R) 29. . nonetheless considerin. brushin. and it is sufficient that the petitioner is a citi0en interested in the e"ecution of the la*+ <1 Legaspi . ..>? . necessitates the brushin. Macaraig1 Jr. 1JJ S&R) 9<0. the transcendental importance to the public of these cases demands that they be settled promptly and definitely. 1une 30.!R! No! ?3J1<. *here the &ourt held that *here serious constitutional Auestions are involved. 1JJ1. 1uly 11. November 1J. 1<0 S&R) <30. 1J9<. . 7! No! @1311..its important role in the economic development of the country and the ma-nitude of the financial consideration involved. the people are the real party in interest.an. %omelec. 1J@J. 1J9 S&R) 991.!R! No! 9211J. 19< S&R) 2?>. 1JJ1. Sec. *here the &ourt held that ob. o! Agrarian Re!orm1 . 1anuary 31. not covered by the definition of a 6proper party. it has the discretion to *aive the reAuirement.ections to ta"payers3 lac/ of personality to sue may be disre-arded in determinin. ay 31. Macaraig1 Jr. pertains to ille-al e"penditure of public money+ *sme3a . 1anuary 11. .an assertion of a public ri-ht. *here the &ourt held that in cases involvin.!R! No! 10031@.oys the open discretion to entertain ta"payer3s suit or not and that a member of the Senate has the reAuisite personality to brin. 1JJ0. 1JJ2. *here the &ourt held that it en. 10030@.!R! No! 2J>9. *here the &ourt held that *hile no e"penditure of public funds *as involved under the Auestioned contract. ay 2J. has the personality to file the instant petition.u era. the 6transcendental importance6 to the public of the cases involved demands that they be settled promptly and definitely. 1J<J 8Enreported:! 110 Phil! 331 81J?0:! 99 Phil! 1012 81J>9:! >9 >@ @> Phil! 3?@ 81J>J: The &ourt held5 6)bove all. brushin. 1?3 S&R) 391. . .aside of the procedural reAuirement of locus standi! . %i il Ser ice %ommission.6 nonetheless.the validity of the 2)T la*+ Albano . .a3ada . in determinin. Reyes. 20@ S&R) >20. 1uly 30.

3>2 S&R) >>J! .!R! Nos! 13@<90. 3<9 S&R) 9<?! <3 <> << <? <9 <@ <J .!R! No! 1<J0@<. )pril 21. 1>99JJ.ustice.!R! No! 1<1>><.upra. ?0 ?1 ?2 ?3 ?> ?< ?? From the deliberations of the &onstitutional &ommission. 3@> S&R) 1<2! . 1>9@10. inte-rity.!R! No! 132J22. See 5))CP *. 3<9 E!S! >>J 81J<@:! . >91 S&R) @9! J1 Phil! @@2 81J<2:! No! 7#33J?>. Sec! 2! No! 2J0@. 1J91. the intent of the framers is clear that the immunity of the President from suit is concurrent only *ith his tenure and not his term! 8$e 7eon. )pril 11.!R! No! 1332<0. serve them *ith utmost responsibility. loyalty and efficiency. 13@<@9. 3@0 S&R) 93J! . $ecember 11. 200>. 1uly J. 2001. 2@J S&R) 339! . September 30. act *ith patriotism and . 2<0 S&R) 130! . 13@<92. >2 S&R) >>@! 90 91 92 . 13@?J@. 1J9 S&R) <2. 200<.!R! No! 1>12@>. 33@ S&R) @1. p! 302:! ?9 Section 1. )rticle B' of the &onstitution provides5 Public (ffice is a public trust! Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people.upra. )labama. Philippine Constitutional Law.!R! No! 1>99@0. 200> %d!. 2000.!R! No! 11@J10. 1JJ<.<2 . 13@?@0. 2ol! 2. 2000. 2002.. . November 1?. February 3.upra. ay 10.upra. >21 S&R) ?<?! 23< S&R) <0? 81JJ>:! . 2002. (ctober 10. ?0 81JJ1:! . and lead modest lives! ?@ ?J Ibid. 1JJ@. 1>99@1. . )u-ust 1<.

D/! 1. Teehan/ee. Damora.a narro* scope of revie* authority to the &ourt.he "iscourses. " " " Darredo. Fernande0.*ith the %"ecutive3s Proclamation!6 8Dernas. Fernando. CruC. 4uingona. 2002 %d!. lined up on the side of . he advocated a return to 9arcelon *. 1J92. 9> 9< 9? 99 6Five 1ustices . )pril 20. Ne* Oor/. . 1J92. affirmed the impossible tas/ of Nchec/in-3 the action ta/en by the President! 4ence. Powers of the President during Crises.epublic of the PhilippinesK ) Commentary . Powers of the President during Crises. %s-uerra advocated the abandonment of Lansang and a return to 9arcelon! )nd. and )Auino . Fernande0. p! 9J>!: 9@ 9J See Separate (pinion of 1! Puno in Integrated 9ar of the Philippines *. ho*ever. uMo0# Palma.!R! No! 13><99. &h! BBB'2! @0 @1 @2 @3 @> @< @? @9 @@ @J . pp! ?#9! . 2J@ S&R) 9<?! . 1JJ? %dition.usticiability as enunciated in Lansang.he 7<=8 Constitution of the . 1r!. and. September 19. pp! 123#12>! Smith and &otter. Cuenco. supra. pp! 29>. implicitly. %s-uerra. 1J<0.the proclamation posed a 6political Auestion6 beyond the . . p! 2>9! . too/ the position that the proclamation of martial la* and the arrest and detention orders accompanyin. p! ?! Ibid. Philippine Political 7a*. 103 Phil! 10<1 81J<9:! Lansang *. 121 S&R) >92! . in a separate opinion. althou-h 1ustices &astro. $utton. 1J9>.the 6political Auestion6 position! Fernande0. 1JJ@.upra. ar-ued that the &onstitution had deliberately set up a stron. supra.ocial Contract 8Ne* Oor/5 $utton. >93 and >@1! .urisdiction of the &ourt! 1ustice )ntonio.presidency and had concentrated po*ers in times of emer-ency in the hands of the President and had -iven him broad authority and discretion *hich the &ourt *as bound to respect! 4e made reference to the decision in Lansang *.antiago *. 1J@3. even understood as -ivin.he . 9aker! Similarly. in a separate opinion concurred in by a/asiar. 4arcia.upra. and )Auino.epresentati*e 4o*ernment . >@1#>@2! Smith and &otter.aEada *. *anted to have the best of both *orlds and opted for the vie* that 6political Auestions are not per se beyond the &ourt3s .upra. November 1@. )ntonio. 1J<0:. .urisdiction !!! but that as a matter of policy implicit in the &onstitution itself the &ourt should abstain from interferin. 4arcia but read it as in effect upholdin. <J S&R) 1@3! No! 7#?13@@. also ar-ued Lansang. .93 No! 7#3<<>?. pp. a/asiar. 299#9@! .

No! 7#2>?J3.mith and Cotter. 1J92. p! J! Constitutional 4o*ernment and "emocracy. Powers of the President "uring Crises.. p! 3<3! Ibid.tate 1ni*. 1J>@. 3?2 E!S! 19. 10? 7!%d!2d 3@@ 81J@J:! 10J Ermita# alate Hotel and 81J?9:! 110 111 otel Operators )ssociation *.andiganbayan.inn T &o!.. Powers of the President "uring Crises. >J2 E!S! >?J.!R! No! 1>@<?0. rev! ed!. $o:. p! 12! J1 J2 J3 J> J< J? J9 J@ JJ 100 101 Ooun-sto*n Sheet and Tube &o! v! Sa*yer. Powers of the President "uring Crises. Doston5 . 1J92. pp! 33@#3>1! Smith and &otter. Princeton5 Princeton Eniversity Press. 3?J S&R) 3J3! 103 10> endo0a in Estrada *.mith and Cotter. 29 7!%d!2d ??J. .F *. February 3.rustees. November 1J.he Problem of Constitutional "ictatorship. .!R! No! 1<J0@<. 1J>J. <2#<3. p! 32@! Ibid. 10< 10? 109 9roadrick *.aines. >13 E!S! ?01 81J93:! Ibid. .(pinion of 1ustice 2001.(pinion of 1ustice endo0a in Estrada *. 1uly 31. >@1 E!S! 93J. 1J?9. Oklahoma. .J0 Smith and &otter.upra! See &oncurrin. J< 7! %d! 2d ?J9 81J@9:! . pp! 2J@#30?! . 1nited . . See . City ayor . &onstitutional $ictatorship. 3>3 E!S! <9J+ 92 Sup! &t! @?3+ J? 7! %d! 11<3 81J<2:. 200>. 10@ >01 E!S! 39. of 5. See &oncurrin. p! 10! .tates *. 1J92! p! @! Ibid. *herein this &ourt sustained President )rroyo3s declaration of a 6state of rebellion6 pursuant to her callin-#out po*er! . p! 11! Smith and &otter. > 7!%d!2d <2> 81J?0:+ 9oard of . 20 S&R) @>J .ossiter. 1J92. &h! BB2'. p! <@0! Ibid. Po*ers of the President $urin. pp! <9>#<@>! . 1J92.&rises.andiganbayan. supra. Powers of the President "uring Crises. ?@0 81J91:. >21 S&R) ?<?.(pinion 1! 1ac/son! 102 See &oncurrin.

p! 1. Ponce#Enrile.it imperative that the Federal . tornado. )rticle B2' of the &onstitution! See Republic )ct No! ?J9<! 11J 'ronically. 6KtKhe prime duty of the . .or anticipated emer-encies attributable to earthAua/e. $efense. includin.overnment cooperate more effectively *ith the several States and Territories and the $istrict of &olumbia in furnishin. . 1uly 1. $ourth Edition. p!21! &ru0. supra.tatutory Construction. 11< S&R) >1@ 81J@2:+ 4arcia#Padilla *.9523y!6K12JL . Neutrality. 12J National Security may be catalo-ed under the heads of -1.75 a2A D. )rticle 2 of the 1J@9 &onstitution *hich provides that.11@ 112 Section . 121 Section 19. Philippine Political 7a*.ection & of our Constitution ma0es t$e de!ense and preser*ation o! the democratic institutions and the State the primary duty of 4o*ernment+ replicates more closely Section 2. &ivil $efense. )rticle B'2 of the 1J93 &onstitution reads5 6'n times of national emer-ency *hen the public interest so reAuires. hurricane. p!1@: 12@ The Emergency )ppropriation )ct for $iscal 7<L6 appropriated fund to meet the emer-ency and necessity for relief in stric/en a-ricultural areas and in another section referred to 6 <=5 D. 1J@2.o@9=< 5C5. ormon cric/ets.6 reAuirin. cyclone. 4ostilities or Car! 8p! 22: . 1J<J.5452< A. confla-ration an landslides!K12JL There is also a 1oint Resolution of )pril 1J39! 't made 6funds available for the control of incipient or emer-ency outbrea/s of insect pests or plant diseases.a ban/ holiday a fe* days after ta/in. ! ! ! ma/in.upra. )-uino *. citin. -3. inistry of $inance. Sec! 2 KaL: . supra.the national defense and security and the effective prosecution of the *ar! 8Smith and &otter. even the 9th Chereas &lause of PP 1019 *hich states that 6)rticle %.overnment is to 45. due to *ide#spread unemployment and the inadeAuacy of State and local relief funds. flood. the Emergency Price Control )ct of 7<&% *as desi-ned to prevent 53o2oC63 A648o3a<6o24 from endan-erin. and -(. Powers of the President "uring Crises. 1J92.he India Emergency $ood )id )ct of 7<67 provided for emer-ency shipments of food to 'ndia to meet famine conditions then rava-in. p! 1> 12> 12< 12? 129 The Federal Emergency .relief to their needy and distressed people! President Roosevelt in declarin.institutions for the purpose of hoardin-+ !!! resultin. 1J92. pp! 2<<#2<9! Smith and &otter.in 6sever drains on the Nation3s stoc/s of -old P have created a national emer-ency.5446o2created a serious emer-ency. &onstitutional &onstruction.o<53< <=5 D5oD85!6 120 )-palo. p! J>! 3>3 E!S! <9J+ 92 Sup! &t! @?3+ J? 7! %d! 11<3 81J<2:! Tresolini. Powers of the President "uring Crises.upra. and chinch bu-s! 8?? Stat 31<. 1JJ@. )rticle 2 of the 1J93 &onstitution than Section >. -2.the -reat )sian sub#continent! The Communication )ct of 7<L& and its 1J<1 amendment -rant the President certain po*ers in time of 6public peril or disaster!6 The other statutes provide for e"istin. ?. )merican Constitutional Law. Po*er of the President. the State may temporarily ta/e over or direct the operation of any privately o*ned public utility or business affected *ith public interest!6 122 123 )ntieau.his action! %nacted *ithin months after 1apan3s attac/ on Pearl 4arbor. 1J<2.he $ederal Ci*il "efense )ct of 7<6' contemplated an attac/ or series of 130 . 1JJ@.-rasshoppers. Commission on Election.office in 1J33 proclaimed that 6heavy and un*arranted *ithdra*als of -old and currency from P ban/in.elief )ct of 7<LL opened *ith a declaration that the 53o2oC63 A5D.Legaspi *.

epublic of the Philippines .the Free %"ercise by the People of their Ri-ht Peaceably to )ssemble and Petition the . 2>J SC 2d 9?9+ . )rkansas. A64a4<5.!R! No! 1913J?. cert den 2@0 ES ?10.io 4rande Conser*ancy "ist. pp! 291#293! . . 212 ES 322. 4ans Ioechler.on 6The Enited Nations. Professor of Philosophy at the Eniversity of 'nnsbruc/ 8)ustria: and President of the 'nternational Pro-ress (r-ani0ation.6 or 6a state of civil defense emer-ency. ) Revie*er#Primer. 13@ 13J 1>0 'n a 7ecture delivered on arch 12. 4utberlett.ecretary. spea/in. pp! 291#293! 1>3 1>> )n )ct %nsurin. radiolo-ical.anitation "ist. p! J<! Record of the &onstitutional &ommission. 2001 %d!. >? )7R 1193! 3>?. A.. or atomic. 2>< P 109>.he 7<=8 Constitution of the . 90 )7R 12?1. <3 7 ed <30.. 2ol! '''.the term *hich the &ivil $efense )dministrator *ould have recourse to e"traordinary po*ers outlined in the )ct! The 5ew Fork#5ew @ersey Ci*il "efense Compact supplies an illustration in this conte"t for emer-ency cooperation! 6%mer-ency6 as used in this compact shall mean and include 627a46o2. . pp! ?>@#?>J! @> Phil! 3?@ 81J>J:! 1ren * 9agley. )rticle ''' of the 1J@9 &onstitution! Dernas. Te"t and &ases. pp! 2??#2?9! Record of the &onstitutional &onvention. 10< N% <>@! Hammond Packing Co. 3> N 9> 7 ed ?<3.!R! No! 1913J?. The 'nternational Rule of 7a* and Terrorism6 cited in the $issentin. thereof! 8 Id!.overnment for (ther Purposes! 1>< 1>? )nne" 6)6 of the emorandum in .(pinion of 1ustice Iapunan in Lim *. 132 133 13> 13< 4utierreC *. *. )dministrative 7a*.attac/s by an enemy of the Enited States *hich conceivably *ould cause substantial dama-e or in.53<6o2 or 6CC6252< Aa295. 624@. shellfire. p! <1! )nne" 6)6 of the emorandum in . 11@ (r 99. Campbell H0yI. the use of bombs. <0 S &t 1<@! 13? 139 . 2002 as part of the Supreme &ourt &entenary 7ecture Series. 2@2 P 1. 3@0 S&R) 93J! 1>1 1>2 Section 2. 211 NO 30J. iddle . )pril 11. 2002.ochester *.!R! No! 1<1>><. Philippine Political 7a*. E:ecuti*e .. or other =o4<685 a3<6o2. 1JJ@. chemical. bacteriolo-ical means or other *eapons or processes! Such an occurrence *ould cause a 6National %mer-ency for &ivil $efense Purposes. p! 11<! Ibid. 2J S &t 390! $e 7eon and $e 7eon 1r!. p!1<#1?: 131 CruC.ury to civilian property or persons in the Enited States by any one of several means+ sabota-e.6 durin.

5< a8. 102J2< T 102J@3. pp! <09#<0@. 1! &ru0. and &ancio &! . . p! 11! No! 7#?>1?1.58a<5A 3a454 -G. Romeo 1! &alle.utierre03s 9@#pa-e ponencia *as concurred in by 10 1ustices5 &hief 1ustice )rtemio 2! Pan-aniban and 1ustices 7eonardo )! Huisumbin-.ustices participated in the decision! Senior )ssociate 1ustice Reynato S! Puno *as on leave! 1ustice )n-elina Sandoval . Commission on Elections . a2A . )ntonio T! &arpio. 11? E!S! ?1? 81@@?:! Transcript of Steno-raphic Notes. 1J92. No.arcia! Doth the &hief 1ustice and 1ustice Onares#Santia-o *rote separate concurrin. Ibid. (ral )r-uments. arch <. 1nited . 1JJ2. 5<3. 171(00.eyes *. 9agatsing. 5ational Press Club *.R. No! 7#?<3??. Sr!. 'N T4% PP 1019 $%&'S'(N Fourteen of the 1< S& . 171(09. Po*ers of the President $urin. &onsuelo Onares Santia-o. @1 7! %d! 29@! . No4.opinion *as . inita 2! &hico#Na0ario.!R! Nos! 102?<3.tates. and &alle. Sr! 1ustice $ante (! Tin-a3s dissentin.&risis. 133 S&R) @1?! 1<2 $issentin.opinions! The &hief 1ustice3s concurrin.R.. 1J@>. 1r! EN %ANC G. 171396 . 200?. )pplication re-uirements # )ll applications for a permit shall comply *ith the follo*in. &onchita &arpio orales.(pinion.oined by 1ustices &arpio. a! )licia )ustria# artine0.oined by 1ustices Renato &! &orona and Presbitero 1! 2elasco.. pp! >32#>33! Ibid.o. $ecember 2?. 209 S&R) 1! 1<3 1<> 9oyd *.1>9 Ibid. . November J. ARRO"O. DAVID 5< a8. <9 S! &t! 2<<. p! >90! 1<< 1<? 1<9 1<@ SE )RO (F T4% 2(T'N. he shall immediately inform the applicant *ho must be heard on the matter! 1>@ 1>J 1<0 1<1 Petition in . 12< S&R) <<3! S53<6o2 *.!R! No! 191>00. Smith and &otter.-uidelines5 GGGGGG 8c: 'f the mayor is of the vie* that there is imminent and -rave dan-er of a substantive evil *arrantinthe A526a8 or CoA6>63a<6o2 of the permit. &arpio orales. 1J@3. 171()*.opinion *as . p! 1>?! arch 9. . 171(2( a2A 171()9. 171()3. 2JJ E!S! 3<3.o. )dolfo S! )0cuna.

I now write. the distinguished r.inga!s "issenting Opinion H"OI. this Court if it allows such misad*enture and refuses to strike down abuse at its inception. PP 7'78 may be a paper tiger. &(&7 and the so#called Calibrated Preempti*e .inga concedes that under PP 7'78. if the . during the last two weeks.+ Bith due respect.esponse policy.inga!s "issenting Opinion has made that hope an impossibility. I respectfully disagree. it decided with one *oice two e-ually contentious and nationally significant contro*ersies in*ol*ing E:ecuti*e Order 5o. they may one day wittingly or unwittingly burn down the country. Let us face it. )nd e*en for those who deeply care for the President.he "issent dismisses all the Petitions. and finds nothing wrong with PP 7'78. not only to e:press my full concurrence in the thorough and elegantly written ponencia of the esteemed me. .7MI* 8. . Perhaps this country would ne*er ha*e had to e:perience the wrenching pain of dictatorship/ and a past President would not ha*e fallen into the precipice of authoritarianism. but ## to borrow the colorful words of an erstwhile )sian leader ## it has nuclear teeth that must indeed be defanged. PA+)A+I#A+ Chief @ustice "ootnotes . History will ne*er forget. . much less forgi*e.upreme Court then had the moral courage to remind him steadfastly of his mortality and the ine*itable historical damnation of despots and tyrants. Let not this Court fall into that same rut.P. Borse. the police ## +to some minds+ ## +may ha*e flirted with power. AR.hey are playing with fire. its dogged determination to perform its constitutional duty at all times and against all odds. It labels the PP a harmless pronouncement ## +an utter superfluity+ ## and denounces the ponencia as an +immodest show of brawn+ that +has imprudently placed the Court in the business of defanging paper tigers. politely but firmly. this is a masterful understatement. 2006 G &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& G CONCURRING OPINION %JI was hoping until the last moment of our deliberations on these consolidated cases that the Court would be unanimous in its "ecision. and unless prudently restrained.+ 1nder this line of thinking.ome of those who drafted PP 7'78 may be testing the outer limits of presidential prerogati*es and the perse*erance of this Court in safeguarding the people!s constitutionally enshrined liberty. but more urgently to e:press a little comment on @ustice .oC@89a<5A o21 May 3.ando*al#4utierreC. it is timely and wise for this Court to set down the parameters of power and to make known. our people will surely condemn the misuse of legal hocus pocus to ?ustify this trifling with constitutional sanctities. E*en @ustice . it would be perfectly legal for the President to reissue PP 7'78 under its present language and nuance. )fter all. . grants no reliefs to petitioners. @ustice )ngelina . % Howe*er. @ustice "ante O.

5o.upreme Court @ustice 9en?amin CardoCo once wrote.espondents. %adi51 et al. % E5 9)5C 4.espondents.Loren #. ember of the 9ritish Labor Party.. 4. Lomibao1 . 787&=< = Jose Anselmo I.1 Petitioners1 ersus 9onorable Secretary 7duardo 7rmita and 9onorable 6irector )eneral Arturo %. 787&'' --. 4. 5o.1 . 5o.. 787L<( --.IA)*1 J."rancis Josep$ ). 7rmita1 et al. 5o. Laski.1 Petitioners. the scorn and derision of those who ha*e no patience with general principles..espondents. Ermita. the erosion of small encroachments. 5o. ersus )loria Macapagal-Arroyo1 as President and %ommander-in-%$ie!1 et al1 ..1 Petitioners.1 . ersus President )loria Macapagal-Arroyo1 in $er capacity as President and %ommander-in-%$ie!1 et al.1 . 787&'< --...+ine5 %ac$o-*li ares and . 4.7 . the eminent 1.1 . 4. Labog and Secretary )eneral Joel Maglunsod1 et al. the e:pediency of the passing hour.he ideals of liberty and e-uality. 787&=L --. 9ayan *. Professor of 4o*ernment and H7<7<I..Pro!essor Randol! S.. 4. %''( : ######################################################################################## : %*+%:RRI+) *PI+I*+ >+AR7S-SA+.ribune Publis$ing %o.ecuti e Secretary1 7duardo 7rmita1 et al.Alternati e Law )roups1 Inc. 7'78 HPP 7'78I under which President 4loria acapagal )rroyo declared a .. )pril %'.tate ... . Petitioners1 ersus 7duardo R. #Harold @..espondents. the indispensable condition.4ilusang Mayo :no1 represented by its %$airperson 7lmer %.1 Inc. 5o..1. %''(.ecuti e Secretary 7duardo 7rmita1 et al.. are preser*ed against the assaults of opportunism. ersus 9er 7. 7 In an open and democratic society. 5o. ersus 9on. 7(<888. 7(<=L=. ersus 7.1 Petitioners. 4. (AL)<1 Petitioners. 5o. 787&%& --. Legarda1 Petitioner.he only real security for social well#being is the free e:ercise of men!s minds.. 6a id1 et al.espondents. )pril %6.enate *.. 4. 7. 4.. Ermita. )uthority in the odern . % I share the *iew that Presidential Proclamation 5o. %''(. 7scudero1 et al. freedom of thought and e:pression is the matri:.cellency President )loria Macapagal Arroyo1 et al.. of nearly e*ery other form of freedom.espondents. 787&=6 --. in his book. 5o.espondents/ PromulgatedK ay L.

he notion of terrorism. the principle of checks and balances as applicable to the political branches of go*ernment. I agree that it is unconstitutional insofar as it mandates the armed forces and the national police +to pre*ent and suppress acts of terrorism and lawless *iolence in the country. of e:pression. . Bith regard to 4O 5o. a right that en?oys primacy in the realm of constitutional protection. is at best fraught with ambiguity. . )rticle AII of the Constitution.he same does not allow the President to promulgate decrees with the force and effect similar or e-ual to laws as this power is *ested by the Constitution with the legislature. . such +calling out+ power does not authoriCe the President to direct the armed forces or the police to enforce laws not related to lawless *iolence.+ . issued by the President pursuant to the same proclamation are both partly unconstitutional. the said pro*ision refers to the temporary takeo*er by the . )s such. I fully agree with the pronouncement that PP 7'78 is no more than the e:ercise by the President. . )rticle MII of the Constitution as the constitutional basis for the declaration of a state of national emergency is misplaced.his is a featured component of the doctrine of separation of powers.he President. It is not a sanction to impose any form of prior restraint on the freedom of the press or e:pression or to curtail the freedom to peaceably assemble or frustrate fundamental constitutional rights. )rticle MII can only pertain to Congress. the said pro*ision is not self#e:ecuting as to be *alidly in*oked by the President without congressional authoriCation. the e:ecuti*e and the legislature. it cannot be taken to mean as authoriCing the President to e:ercise +takeo*er+ powers pursuant to a declaration of a state of national emergency. specifically. In such a case.he pro*ision merely declares a state economic policy during times of national emergency.hese rights constitute the *ery basis of a functional democratic polity.. in*asion or rebellion. or classifies what acts are punishable as acts of terrorism.ection 7=. It is therefore sub?ect to different interpretations by the law enforcement agencies. with all the powers *ested in her by )rticle AII. and cannot e:tend to )rticle MII without the appro*al of Congress. 6I. whose powers are limited to the powers *ested in her by )rticle AII. .his pro*ision can be found under the article on 5ational Economy and Patrimony which presupposes that +national emergency+ is of an economic. . and of the press. .ection 78.tate+ as well as the reference to +reasonable terms+ under . . 5either is it a license to conduct searches and seiCures or arrests without warrant e:cept in cases pro*ided in the . oreo*er. )s can be gleaned from the facts.his is allowed under . the President!s authority to act in times of national emergency is still sub?ect to the limitations e:pressly prescribed by Congress.ection 78. of her power to call out such armed forces w$ene er it becomes necessary to pre*ent or suppress lawless iolence1 in asion or rebellion . )Ccuna emphasiCed that the right to peaceably assemble and petition for redress of grie*ances is. together with freedom of speech. and 4eneral Order 5o.tate of any pri*ately#owned public utility or business affected with public interest in times of national emergency. 6 H4O 5o.hus. the takeo*er is authoriCed when the public interest so re-uires and sub?ect to +reasonable terms+ which the . In the case of 9ayan *. and not political. .he use of the word +. without which all the other rights would be meaningless and unprotected.tate may prescribe. . the lack of a clear definition of what constitutes +terrorism+ ha*e led the law enforcement officers to necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application gi*ing rise to unrestrained *iolations of the fundamental guarantees of freedom of peaceable assembly and freedom of the press. . nature. as well as acts constituti*e thereof.here is presently no law enacted by Congress that defines terrorism. ErmitaL this Court thru @ustice )dolfo . the direct reference to .o do so would constitute an ultra *ires act on the part of the Chief E:ecuti*e.ules of Court. In other words. . cannot arrogate unto herself the power to take o*er or direct the operation of any pri*ately owned public utility or business affected with public interest without Congressional authoriCation.state of national emergency. On the other hand. as the Commander#in#Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines. Howe*er. 6.

97 "*R7)*I+).L> )RA+.. $inally. must be borne in mind. .hus.his rationale for in*ocation of that doctrine was of special concern in this case because of the potential for arbitrary suppression of the fundamental liberties concerning freedom of speech and e:pression. . constitutional liberties must always be accorded supreme importance in the conduct of daily life. : : : It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears. Lawson. it cannot be gainsaid that go*ernment action to stifle constitutional liberties guaranteed under the 9ill of . .he wide difference between ad*ocacy and incitement. 7(<=L=. % L & . or that the past conduct furnished reason to belie*e that such ad*ocacy was then contemplated. 7(<==7. howe*er reprehensible morally. Be should bear in mind that in a democracy. L'% 1.tate of Connecticut. 6 ordering the armed forces to carry out measures to pre*ent or suppress +acts of terrorism+ must be declared unconstitutional as well.o ?ustify suppression of free speech there must be reasonable ground to belie*e that the danger apprehended is imminent.. L6% H7<=LI. selecti*e enforcement on constitutionally suspect basis by police officers. . )s succinctly articulated by @ustice Louis ".. Conse-uently. but more importantly. In order to support a finding of clear and present danger it must be shown either that immediate serious *iolence was to be e:pected or was ad*ocated. while I recogniCe that the President may declare a state of national emergency as a statement of a factual conditionpursuant to our ruling in . the pro*isions which purport to *est in the President additional powers not theretofore *ested in her must be struck down. 5os. 9randeisK $ear of serious in?ury cannot alone ?ustify suppression of free speech and assembly. the petitions. 4. Briting for the ma?ority.& the 1nited . )pril %6. between preparation and attempt.+ in a manner of speaking.( I+ 8I7? *" . is not a ?ustification for denying free speech where the ad*ocacy falls short of incitement and there is nothing to indicate that the ad*ocacy would be immediately acted on.anlakas *.he pro*ision under 4O 5o.ights cannot be preempti*e in meeting any and all percei*ed or potential threats to the life of the nation.andra "ay O!Connor noted that the most important aspect of *agueness doctrine was the imposition of guidelines that prohibited arbitrary.tate action is proper only if there is a clear and present danger of a substanti*e e*il which the state has a right to pre*ent.tates . 9.In 0olender *. %*+S:7L* >+AR7S-SA+. 5ature of @udicial Process. as well as restriction on the freedom of mo*ement. I *ote to PAR. )t the heart of these liberties lies freedom of speech and thought 3 not merely in the propagation of ideas we lo*e. . .. 7<%7. or at least gra*ely imminent. E:ecuti*e . in the ad*ocacy of ideas we may oftentimes loathe.upreme Court nullified a state statute re-uiring persons who loitered or wandered on streets to pro*ide +credible and reliable+ identification and to account for their presence when re-uested to do so by a police officer. . . &(7 1. L7< H7<L8I. %''(. . : : : 9ut e*en ad*ocacy of *iolation.o allow go*ernment to preempt the happening of any e*ent would be akin to +putting the cart before the horse.ecretary.. Palko *.uch threats must be actual. between assembling and conspiracy.here must be reasonable ground to belie*e that the e*il to be pre*ented is a serious one. @ustice .. 7(<=&=. while PP 7'78 is *alid as a declaration of a factual condition.6 I wish to emphasiCe that the same does not grant her any additional powers.IA)* )ssociate @ustice "ootnotes 7 CardoCo. . to warrant go*ernment to take proper action.

Loretta )nn P. . by its ruling today. Pascual. CadiC. @r. +o. L68 H7<%8I. *.R.atur C.andolf . &(&C'A H5iEeC Cacho#Oli*ares and . $lorencio 4. )ntonio C. . artin Custodio.C.osales.ecretary. CarranCa. 4ilbert C. . Lt. LiCa L.heresa Honti*eros#9ara-uel.aEada III. @. &(&@AB HProf.eodoro ). +o. . represented by )mado 4at Inciong.he immodest show of brawn unfortunately comes at the e:pense of an e:hibition by the Court of a fundamental but sophisticated understanding of the e:tent and limits of e:ecuti*e powers and prerogati*es. Hon. )morado. "5" . *.isos# Aidal. 4ary .ecretary Eduardo L. 9olastig. Chief. 9ernard L. "agcuta.. Honorable .antiago. petitioners. Labog and . . @ose )mor . H. ario 4.. petitioners. . 9autista. CruC.. .A. &(&C'' H)lternati*e Law 4roups.enga. Ermita.enga. 9randeis.ecretary Eduardo Ermita.egalado 9agares.ecretary Eduardo Ermita.taff. and "irector 4eneral )rturo Lomibao. agtubo. . Chief of .enga.ribune Publishing Co. aCa. *. *. %8& 1.al*ador t. $ebruary L. @osel 4. Christopher $. President 4loria acapagal#)rroyo. +o. $elimon C. .I+) *PI+I*+ .enato 9. Airador. )rturo Lomibao. %''&.$.ayel. Imee . 76<7'L. 4arcia and Integrated 9ar of the Philippines HI9PI. . . "apulang. as well as those assigned to the . Harry L.I ).taff of the )rmed $orces of the Philippine H)$PI/ and Eduardo Ermita. Legarda.I )..C. Eduardo . Puno.ecretary. 5eri @a*ier Colmenares. )$P Chief of . @oselito *. 4loria acapagal#)rroyo. Aillanue*a. in his capacity as P5P Chief. and the P5P "irector 4eneral.ecretary 4eneral @oel aglunsod.ogelio A. Imelda C..9. +o. )-uino. petitioners.R.uiC 9utuyan. respondents. . in her capacity as President and Commander#in# Chief/ )rturo Lomibao. )licia ). &(&CD. E:ecuti*e . and . petitioners. *. "arlene )ntonio#Custudio. *. &(&CDA H@ose )nselmo I. 9ernabe. anuel P. 4eneral 4eneroso . ( ). .enga. *. Emmanuel @osel @. in his capacity as "irector#4eneral of the Philippine 5ational Police HP5PI/ 4eneroso . as President and Commander#in#Chief.. petitioner. 5icolas. 5os. H$rancis @oseph 4. .omulo . petitioner. arcos. .6 4.enga. )rmed $orces of the Philippines. .ecretary. Philippine 5ational Police. Ocampo. .he Chief of . +o.. "IL4.) (6(. 4eneroso . . E:ecuti*e .I ).R. respondents.taff. ariano.ecretary.emulla.onald Llamas..ecretary Eduardo Ermita and Honorable "irector 4eneral )rturo Lomibao. 5ational $ederation of Labor 1nions#0ilusang ayo 1no H5)$L1#0 1I. Legaspi. respondents.. @oel . 4uingona III. . respondents.enga. LorenCo . &%7 .I ).i*era.eofisto "L.I :# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #: 6ISS7+. California. . . 4eneroso . @. E:ecuti*e . Ermita. petitioner. @r. .o-ue. $eliciano . +o. Escudero.onaldo A. Inc.I+)A1 JI regret to say that the ma?ority. Emilia P. 4loria acapagal#)rroyo. )*elino CruC II. Casino. u?i* .I ). . @oseph ).o-ue . Leonenen. 1stareC. @r. in his capacity as E:ecuti*e . concurring in Bhitney *. and "irecotr 4eneral )rturo Lomibao.. )gapito ).afael A. in his capacity as Chief of . 4en.R. Eduardo Ermita. Her E:cellency.R. Chipeco. +o. respondents. Inc. @ustin arc . 5oel. . "irector 4eneral )rturo Lomibao. 76<'=6. &(&CD@ H0ilusang ayo 1no.taff.R.oilo 4oleC. 4eneroso . Chief P5P. respondents. @. *.taff. Hon.I ). in his capacity as )$P Chief of . )na . )rmed $orces of the Philippines. Hataman. E:ecuti*e . )rturo Lumibao.omel . ar*ic .. )belita III.oger . . o*ement of Concerned CitiCens for Ci*il Liberties... .he Honorable E:ecuti*e .ecretary. represented by its Chairperson Elmer C. @uan Edgardo )ngara. . has imprudently placed the Court in the business of defanging paper tigers. respondents. ?oined by Holmes.. @o*y C. "a*id.. allari.. 76<7=6 J 76<7<(. H)L4I. &(&C2C HLoren 9.R. represented by its 5ational President. )gu?a. 4eneral 4eneroso .ecretary of 5ational "efense.. )*elino @. .an..9.

.ights and Obligations/ and Cannot 9e Enforced or In*oked in a CourtN Of Law $irst.he President has inherent powers. while confirmed by statutory grant. as Commander#in#Chief. cannot create or suspend any constitutional or statutory rights or obligations.77 powers e:pressly *ested by the Constitution.tate and $oreign . 7% ) proclamation. . not a doubtful and argumentati*e implication. are a species of issuances of e:tremely limited efficacy.he concerns raised by the ma?ority relating to PP 7'78 and 4eneral Order 5os. .he e:istence of in*asion or rebellion could allow the President to either suspend the pri*ilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. as it proceeds to rule on non# ?usticiable issues based on fears that ha*e not materialiCed. . E:ecuti*e .he Constitution *ests on the President the e:ecuti*e power. and powers e:pressly conferred by statutes. which +only gi*es notice to the nation that such a state e:ists and that the armed forces may be called to pre*ent or suppress it+.?udicial branch. 7'78 HPP 7'78I.here would be need of a complementing law or regulation referred to in the proclamation should such act indeed put into operation any law or regulation by fi:ing a date or declaring a status or condition of a public moment or interest related to such law or regulation. e*en though the President is the administrati*e head of the E:ecuti*e "epartment and maintains e:ecuti*e control thereof. )s defined in the )dministrati*e Code. but I cannot ?oin the ma?ority opinion. L . . e:cept in the conte:t of entering into contractual or treaty obligations by *irtue of his>her position as the head of . is to +call out such armed forces to pre*ent or suppress lawless *iolence. and +cannot diminish or *iolate constitutionally protected rights. )nd should the proclamation allow the operationaliCation of such law or regulation. 6 can be easily dis-uieted by applying this well#settled principle. as they are.= 5either does the President ha*e to power to create rights and obligations with binding legal effect on the $ilipino citiCens. that construction should be preferred. among the constitutional powers of the President.anlakas *. there are significant limitations to the office of the President.he Constitution likewise imposes limitations on certain powers of the President that are normally inherent in the office. such declaration should be regarded as both regarded as +an utter superfluity+. I respectfully dissent. but there is a fairly elaborate constitutional procedure to be obser*ed in such a case. 1nder .+ I submit that the same conclusions should be reached as to Proclamation 5o.he President deri*es these constitutional mandates from direct election from the people. declaring a +state of rebellion+ in %''L. % )lso well#settled as a rule of construction is that where thee are two possible constructions of law or e:ecuti*e issuance one of which is in harmony with the Constitution.ecretary.he power of the President to make proclamations. 7L . & and the Commander#in#Chief of the )rmed $orces. the chief of the E:ecuti*e 9ranch. PP 7'78Has 5o Legal 9inding Effect/ Creates 5o . in*asion or rebellion+. $ollowing the cardinal precept that the acts of the e:ecuti*e are presumed constitutional is the e-ually important doctrine that to warrant unconstitutionality. departing as they do from the plain language of the challenged issuances to the e:tent of second#guessing the Chief E:ecuti*e. &%8 HPP &%8I. and +de*oid of any legal significance+. I agree with the ma?ority on some points.he key perspecti*e from which I *iew these present petitions is my own ponencia in . proclamations are merely +acts of the President fi:ing a date or declaring a status or condition of public moment or interest upon the e:istence of which the operation of a specific law or regulation is made to depend+. Fet no matter the powers and prestige of the presidency. there must be a clear and une-ui*ocal breach of the Constitution.he President is the Chief of .he President does not ha*e the power to make or legislate laws. 9ut proclamations.ection 7=. . $or e:ample. I.7 which centered on Presidential Proclamation 5o. )rticle AII of the Constitution.tate.he Court therein concluded that while the declaration was constitutional. is nonetheless rooted in an inherent power of the presidency and not e:pressly sub?ected to constitutional limitations. all subse-uent resultant acts cannot e:ceed or supersede the law or regulation that was put into effect. . including . on its own.he President stands as the most recogniCable representati*e symbol of go*ernment and of the Philippine state. . 8 or disobey those laws passed by Congress. the fundamentals. ( . < the President is precluded from arbitrarily terminating the *ast ma?ority of employees in the ci*il ser*ice whose right to security of tenure is guaranteed by the Constitution.6 .elations. to the e:tent that foreign leaders who speak with the President do so with the understanding that they are speaking to the Philippine state.7' .

hese were the premises that ultimately informed the Court!s decision in .me to declare a state of rebellion! 'n vie* of the fore-oin-. a state of lawless *iolence. )rticle 2'' of the &onstitution. do hereby command the )rmed Forces of the Philippines. but the President did not do so.+ as it could not +cannot diminish or *iolate constitutionally protected rights. '. President of the Republic of the Philippines and &ommander#in#&hief of the )rmed Forces of the Philippines. the e:istence of lawless *iolence. which +only gi*es notice to the nation that such a state e:ists and that the armed forces may be called to pre*ent or suppress it. PP &%8 PP 7'78 N(C. . ' . )rticle AII allows for the President to respond with the appropriate measured and proportional response. as well as the a*ailability of ?udicial re*iew.anlakas in*ol*ed PP &%8. T4%R%F(R%. in*asion and rebellion. )rticle 12 of the &onstitution do hereby declare a State of National %mer-ency! .+ . orders and re-ulations promul-ated by me personally or upon my direction+ and as provided in Section 19. by virtue of the po*ers vested upon me by Section 1@.ection 7=.7(R') )&)P). which declared the e:istence of a +state of rebellion. the +calling out+ power does not authoriCe the President or the members of the )rmed $orces to break the law. in*oked the +calling out+ of the )rmed $orces to pre*ent lawless *iolence. Howe*er. compellin. Indeed. . it can only renew emphasis on the duty of the President to e:ecute already e:isting laws without e:tending a corresponding mandate to proceed e:tra#constitutionally or e:tra#legally.eneral (rder No! > in accordance *ith Section 1@. )rticle 9 of the Philippine &onstitution *hich states that5 6The President! ! ! *henever it becomes necessary. hereby confirm the e"istence of an actual and on#-oinrebellion. in*asion or rebellion could be *ariable in scope.uch declaration could ostensibly predicate the suspension of the pri*ilege of the writ of habeas corpus or the declaration of martial law. magnitude and gra*ity/ and . such as the enactment of new laws. . to maintain la* and order throu-hout the Philippines. it should be both regarded as +an utter superfluity+. PP &%8. in*asion or rebellion does not ipso facto cause the +calling out+ of the armed forces.+ and +de*oid of any legal significance. and the accompanying 4eneral Order 5o. $or the utiliCation of the +calling out+ power alone cannot *est unto the President any new constitutional or statutory powers. )t most.hus. Instead.anlakas.loria acapa-al#)rroyo.congressional affirmation or re*ocation of such suspension or declaration.out the )rmed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police to immediately carry out the necessary actions and measures to suppress and Auell the rebellion *ith due re-ard to constitutional ri-hts! N(C. ) comparati*e analysis of PP &%8 and PP 7'78. and for as long as only truly necessary. the diminution of any constitutional rights through the suspension of the pri*ilege of the writ or the declaration of martial law is deemed as +strong medicine+ to be used sparingly and only as a last resort. particularly their operati*e clauses. the suspension of habeas corpus or the declaration of martial law O it remains within the discretion of the President to engage in any of these three acts should said conditions arise.. Indeed. prevent or suppress all forms of la*less violence as *ell any act of insurrection or rebellion and to enforce obedience to all the la*s and to all decrees. ! ! ! may call out 8the: armed forces to prevent or suppress! ! ! rebellion! ! !.he same premises apply as to PP 7'78. ' am issuin. callin. .+ . the mere in*ocation of the +calling out+ power stands as a balanced means of enabling a heightened alertness in dealing with the armed threat.6 and in my capacity as their &ommander#in#&hief. but without ha*ing to suspend any constitutional or statutory rights or cause the creation of any new obligations. by virtue of the po*ers vested in me by la*. )ppreciably. &. T4%R%F(R%. is in order. but which emphasiCed that for legal intents and purposes.)7# )RR(O(. which affirmed the declaration of a +state of rebellion+ as within the +calling out+ power of the President.

as Commander#in#Chief of the )rmed $orces. the President may call the armed forces 2to suppress lawless *iolence. the declaration could stand as the first step towards constitutional authoriCation for the e:ercise by the President. and when the public interest so re-uires. Howe*er.ection 7=. the ma?ority attempts to draw a distinction between . )rticle AII mandated two conditions O actual rebellion or in*asion and the re-uirement of public safety O before the suspension of the pri*ilege of the writ ofhabeas corpus or the declaration of martial law could be declared. affirmed the President!s order. or the grant by Congress to the President of emergency powers. the Congress or the . .ection 78. 1nless the petitioner can show that the e:ercise of such discretion was gra*ely abused. the declaration alone cannot put into operation these e:traordinary powers and prerogati*es.hese propositions were affirmed in . the Court in . Damora. 9oth PP &%8 and PP 7'78 are characteriCed by two distinct phases.7& the Court was beseeched upon to re*iew an order of President Estrada commanding the deployment of the arines in patrols around etro anila.ection 7=. in *iew of an increase in crime.+ such act in*ol*es either an order for the takeo*er or actual takeo*er by the . to e:ercise powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy. . 1nder .+7( .tate. a +state of rebellion+ in PP &L8. )rticle AII.+ 78 It was also maintained in Integrated 9ar that while . the e:istence of a +state of rebellion+ is sufficient premise for either the suspension of the pri*ilege of the writ of habeas corpus or the declaration of martial law. 1nder .ection 7=.ection %LH%I. 76 . for a limited period and sub?ect to such restrictions as it may prescribe. though in accordance with the strict guidelines under the same pro*ision. In Integrated 9ar *. Instead.anlakas. the Constitution did not re-uire the President to make a declaration of a state of rebellion. during the emergency.he first is the declaration itself of a status or condition. under reasonable terms prescribed by it. wherein the in*ocation of the calling out power was e:pressly made by President )rroyo.he Court noted that for the purpose of e:ercising the calling out power. .tate of public utilities or businesses imbued with public interest or the authoriCation by Congress for the President to e:ercise emergency powers. )rticle AII.ection 7=. as the declaration must be followed through with a separate act pro*iding for the actual utiliCation of such powers. the e:istence of a state of national emergency may also allow Congress to authoriCe the President. )rticle MII.he only criterion is that 2whene*er it becomes necessary!.anlakas acknowledged that +the President!s authority to declare a state of rebellion springs in the main from her powers as chief e:ecuti*e and1 at t$e same time1 draws strengt$ !rom $er %ommander-in-%$ie! powers.+7= .ellingly. the e:istence of a state of national emergency is sufficient ground for the . to temporarily take o*er or direct the operation of any pri*ately#owned public utility or business affected with public interest. particularly the pro*ision . both declarations led to the in*ocation of the calling out power of the President under . but +the power in*ol*ed may be no more than the maintenance of peace and order and promotion of the general welfare. )rticle AI. 9oth +state of rebellion+ and +state of national emergency+ are terms within constitutional contemplation. In the case of the +state of rebellion.tate of e:traordinary powers and prerogati*es. in*asion or rebellion. +these conditions are not re-uired in the case of the power to call out the armed forces. full discretion to call forth the military when in his ?udgment it is necessary to do so in order to pre*ent or suppress lawless *iolence. the declaration of a +state of rebellion+ did not lead to the suspension of the writ or the declaration of martial law.anlakas and the present petitions by that the statutory authority to declare a +state of rebellion+ emanates from the )dministrati*e Code of 7<=8.%' )t the same time. In the case of the +state of national emergency. speaking through @ustice .+ I agree with the ponencia!s holding that PP 7'78 in*ol*es the e:ercise by the President of the +calling out+ power under . in*asion or rebellion. which the ma?ority correctly characteriCes as in*ol*ing only +ordinary police action. the declaration of a +state of national emergency+ did not lead to an authoriCation for the takeo*er or actual takeo*er of any utility or business. In PP &%8.he Court concluded that the implication was +that the President is gi*en full discretion and wide latitude in the e:ercise of the power to call as compared to the two other powers. the order of deployment by President Estrada was affirmed by the Court e*en though we held the *iew that the power then in*ol*ed was not the +calling out+ power.he Court. In PP 7'78. and a +state of national emergency+ under PP 7'78. the President!s e:ercise of ?udgment deser*es to be accorded respect from this Court. asserting that +it is the unclouded intent of the Constitution to *est upon the President.Let us begin with the similarities.+%7 $or still unclear reasons. 1nder .+ such act in*ol*es the suspension of the writ or declaration of martial law. Certainly. )rticle AII.antiago 0apunan.+ 7< .

! ! ! may call out 8the: armed forces to prevent or suppress! ! ! rebellion! ! !. was issued by President arcos in 7<8% as the instrument of declaring martial law.ection 78. to maintain la* and order throu-hout the Philippines. )rticle AII.tra-constitutional or e.ection 7. and in my capacity as their commander#in#chief. 9ut there are nuances to the calling out power in*oked in PP 7'78 which the ma?ority does not discuss. orders and re-ulations promul-ated by me .he operati*e pro*isions readK P". or the commander#in# chief clause. Ferdinand %! arcos.ection 7. PP 7'78 does not dictate the suspension of any of the people!s guarantees under the 9ill of . thereof. or any officer of the law. 7'=7 PP 7'78 No*. prevent or suppress all forms of la*less violence as *ell any act of insurrection or rebellion and to enforce obedience to all the la*s and to all decrees. and as Commander#in#Chief. )rticle AII. oreo*er. T4%R%F(R%. in *iew of the directi*e to the )rmed $orces of the Philippines to +suppress all forms of lawless *iolence+. in*asion. 7'=7. . )rticle AII. Insofar as PP 7'78 is concerned. our national police being ci*ilian in character. by virtue of the po*ers vested upon me by Section 1@. the calling out of the police is sourced from the power of the President as Chief E:ecuti*e under .he +calling out+ of the police does not deri*e from .he said issuance.ection 7=.tra-legal acts in t$e name o! PP &'&( may be subEected to t$e appropriate ci il1 criminal or administrati e liability . the )rmed $orces of the Philippines. orders and re-ulations promul-ated by me personally or upon my direction! 'n addition.he directi*e +to suppress all forms of lawless *iolence+ is addressed not only to the )rmed $orces but to the police as well. let us now compare PP 7'78 with a different presidential issuance.%% . President (f the Philippines. under . ' . do hereby command the )rmed Forces of the Philippines. '. one that was intended to diminish constitutional and ci*il rights of the people. Section 1. wide latitude is accorded to the discretion of the Chief E:ecuti*e in the e:ercise of the +calling out+ power due to a recognition that the said power is of limited import. )s such. the police can be commanded by the President to e:ecute all laws without distinction in light of the presidential duty to e:ecute all laws. insofar as . and incapable of imposing any binding legal effect on the citiCens and other branches of the Philippines. )rticle 9 of the Philippine &onstitution *hich states that5 6The President! ! ! *henever it becomes necessary. +was merely an act declaring a status or condition of public moment or interest. )rticle AII is concerned. Any public o!!icer w$o nonet$eless engaged or is engaging in suc$ e.+ pursuant to statutory authority. of the &onstitution under martial la*. to maintain la* and order throu-hout the Philippines. 5othing in its operati*e pro*isions authoriCe the President. Presidential Proclamation 5o. )rticle AII. Instead. . Indeed. . the declaration of a +state of rebellion. while the permissible scope of military action is limited to acts in furtherance of suppressing lawless *iolence. the calling out power is definitely in*ol*ed. ' do hereby order that all persons presently N(C.authoriCing the President to make proclamations.+ . Para-raph 82: of the &onstitution. .6 and in my capacity as their &ommander#in#&hief. under . . directed only to the )rmed $orces of the Philippines. PP 7'78 does not purport otherwise.till. do hereby command the arned forces of the Philippines.ights. to perform any e:tra#constitutional or e:tra#legal acts.ection 78. prevent or suppress all forms of la*less violence as *ell as any act of insurrection or rebellion and to enforce obedience to all the la*s and decrees. which e:pressly roots the declaration of a state of rebellion from the wedded powers of the Chief E:ecuti*e.pression1 peaceable assembly and association and ot$er constitutional or statutory rig$ts. and the power of e:ecuti*e control under .loria acapa-al#)rroyo. President of the Republic of the Philippines and &ommander#in#&hief of the )rmed Forces of the Philippines.he ma?ority grossly misreads . I! it cannot be made more clear1 neit$er t$e declaration o! a state o! emergency under PP &'&( nor t$e in ocation o! t$e calling out power t$erein aut$ori5es warrantless arrests1 searc$es or sei5ures2 t$e in!ringement o! t$e rig$t to !ree e.anlakas. do hereby place the entire Philippines as defined in the article '. )rticle AII.o pro*e this point. by virtue of the po*ers vested upon me by article 2''. rebellion.ection 7=. Section 10.

detained, as *ell as others *ho may hereafter be similarly detained for the crimes of insurrection or rebellion, and all other crimes and offenses committed in furtherance or on the occasion thereof, or incident thereto, or in connection there*ith, for crimes a-ainst national security and the la* of nations, crimes, a-ainst the fundamental la*s of the state, crimes a-ainst public order, crimes involvinusurpation of authority, ran/, title and improper use of names, uniforms and insi-nia, crimes committed by public officers, and for such other crimes as *ill be enumerated in (rders that ' shall subseAuently promul-ate, as *ell as crimes as a conseAuence of any violation of any decree, order or re-ulation promul-ated by me personally or promul-ated upon my direction shall be /ept under detention until other*ise ordered released by me or by my duly desi-nated representative! 8emphasis supplied:

personally or upon my direction+ and as provided in Section 19, )rticle 12 of the &onstitution do hereby declare a State of National %mer-ency!

Let us e:amine the differences between PP 5o. 7'=7 and PP 7'78. $irst, while PP 7'78 merely declared the e:istence of a state of rebellion, an act ultimately obser*ational in character, PP 7'=7 +placed the entire Philippines under martial law,+ an acti*e implement%L that, by itself, substituted ci*ilian go*ernmental authority with military authority. 1nlike in the 7<=( Constitution, which was appropriately crafted with an a*ersion to the e:cesses of arcosian martial rule, the 7<L6 Constitution under which PP 7'=7 was issued left no inter*ening safeguards that tempered or limited the declaration of martial law. E*en the contrast in the *erbs used, +place+ as opposed to +declare,+ betrays some significance. .o declare may be simply to acknowledge the e:istence of a particular condition, while to place ineluctably goes beyond mere acknowledgement, and signifies the imposition of the actual condition e*en if it did not e:ist before. 9oth PP 7'=7 and PP 7'78 e:pressly in*oke the calling out power. Howe*er, the conte:ts of such power are wildly distaff in light of PP 7'=7!s accompanying declaration of martial law. ,ince martial law in*ol*es the substitution of the military in the ci*ilian functions of go*ernment, the calling out power in*ol*ed in PP 7'=7 is significantly greater than the one in*ol*ed in PP 7'78, which could only contemplate the enforcement of e:isting laws in relation to the suppression of lawless *iolence, rebellion or in*asion and the maintenance of general peace and order. $urther proof that PP 7'=7 intended a wholesale suspension of ci*il liberties in the manner that PP 7'78 does not e*en ponder upon is the subse-uent paragraph cited, which authoriCes the detention and continued detention of persons for a plethora of crimes not only directly related to the rebellion or lawless *iolence, but of broader range such as those +against national security,+ or +public order.+ .he order of detention under PP 7'=7 arguably includes e*ery crime in the statute book. )nd most alarmingly, any person detained by *irtue of PP 7'=7 could remain in perpetual detention unless otherwise released upon order of President arcos or his duly authoriCed representati*e. )nother worthy point of contrast concerns how the ,upreme Court, during the martial law era, dealt with the challenges raised before it to martial law rule and its effects on ci*il liberties. Bhile martial law stood as a *alid presidential prerogati*e under the 7<L6 Constitution, a ruling committed to safeguard ci*il rights and liberties could ha*e stood ground against e*en the most fundamental of human rights abuses ostensibly protected under the 7<L6 and 7<8L constitutions and under international declarations and con*entions. Fet a perusal of )-uino *. Enrile, %& the case that decisi*ely affirmed the *alidity of martial law rule, shows that most of the @ustices then sitting e:hibited diffidence guised though as deference towards the declaration of martial law. 5ote these few e:cerpts from the se*eral opinions submitted in that case which stand as typical for those timesK .he present state of martial law in the Philippines is peculiarly $ilipino and fits into no traditional patterns or ?udicial precedents. ::: In the first place I am con*inced Has are the other @usticesI, without need of recei*ing e*idence as in an ordinary ad*ersary court proceeding, that a state of rebellion e:isted in the country when Proclamation 5o. 7'=7 was issued. It was a matter of

contemporary history within the cogniCance not only of the courts but of all obser*ant people residing here at that time. ::: .he state of rebellion continues up to the present. .he argument that while armed hostilities go on in se*eral pro*inces in indanao there are none in other regions e:cept in isolated pockets in LuCon, and that therefore there is no need to maintain martial law all o*er the country, ignores the sophisticated nature and ramifications of rebellion in a modern setting. It does not consist simply of armed clashes between organiCed and identifiable groups on fields of their own choosing. It includes sub*ersion of the most subtle kind, necessarily clandestine and operating precisely where there is no actual fighting. 1nderground propaganda, through printed newssheets or rumors disseminated in whispers/ recruiting of armed and ideological adherents, raising of funds, procurement of arms and materiel, fifth#column acti*ities including sabotage and intelligence O all these are part of the rebellion which by their nature are usually conducted far from the battle fronts. .hey cannot be counteracted effecti*ely unless recogniCed and dealt with in that conte:t.%6 ::: P.Qhe fact that courts are open cannot be accepted as proof that the rebellion and insurrection, which compellingly called for the declaration of martial law, no longer imperil the public safety. 5or are the many surface indicia ad*erted to by the petitioners Hthe increase in the number of tourists, the choice of anila as the site of international conferences and of an international beauty contestI to be regarded as e*idence that the threat to public safety has abated. .here is actual armed combat, attended by the somber panoply of war, raging in ,ulu and Cotabato, not to mention the 9icol region and Cagayan Aalley. I am hard put to say, therefore, that the 4o*ernment!s claim is baseless. I am not insensiti*e to the plea made here in the name of indi*idual liberty. 9ut to paraphrase E: parte oyer, if it were the liberty alone of the petitioner "iokno that is in issue we would probably resol*e the doubt in his fa*or and grant his application. 9ut the ,olicitor 4eneral, who must be deemed to represent the President and the E:ecuti*e "epartment in this case, has manifested that in the President!s ?udgment peace and tran-uility cannot be speedily restored in the country unless the petitioners and others like them meantime remain in military custody. $or, indeed, the central matter in*ol*ed is not merely the liberty of isolated indi*iduals, but the collecti*e peace, tran-uility and security of the entire nation. %( ::: It may be that the e:istence or non#e:istence or imminence of a rebellion of the magnitude that would ?ustify the imposition of martial law is an ob?ecti*e fact capable of ?udicial notice, for a rebellion that is not of general knowledge to the public cannot concei*ably be dangerous to public safety. 9ut precisely because it is capable of ?udicial notice, no in-uiry is needed to determine the propriety of the E:ecuti*e!s action. )gain, while the e:istence of a rebellion may be widely known, its real e:tent and the dangers it may actually pose to the public safety are not always easily perceptible to the unpracticed eye. In the present day practices of rebellion, its inseparable sub*ersion aspect has pro*en to be more effecti*e and important than +the rising Hof personsI publicly and taking arms against the 4o*ernment+ by which the ;e*ised Penal Code characteriCes rebellion as a crime under its sanction. ,ub*ersion is such a co*ert kind of anti#go*ernment acti*ity that it is *ery difficult e*en for army intelligence to determine its e:act area of influence and effect, not ot mention the details of its forces and resources. 9y sub*ersion, the rebels can e:tend their field of action unnoticed e*en up to the highest le*els of the go*ernment, where no one can always be certain of the political comple:ion of the man ne:t to him, and this does not e:clude the courts. )rms, ammunition and all kinds of war e-uipment tra*el and are transferred in deep secrecy to strategic locations, which can be one!s neighborhood without him ha*ing any idea of what is going on. .here are so many insidious ways in which sub*ersi*es act, in fact too many to enumerate, but the point that immediately suggests itself is that they are mostly incapable of being pro*en in court, so how are Be to make a ?udicial in-uiry about them that can satisfy our ?udicial conscience. .he Constitution definitely commits it to the E:ecuti*e to determine the factual bases and to forthwith act as promptly as possible to meet the emergencies of rebellion and in*asion which may be crucial to the life of the nation. He must do this with unwa*ering con*iction, or any hesitancy or indecision on his part will surely detract from the needed precision in his choice of the means he would employ to repel the aggression. .he apprehension that his decision might be held by the ,upreme Court to be a

transgression of the fundamental law he has sworn to 2defend and preser*e! would deter him from acting when precisely it is most urgent and critical that he should act, since the enemy is about to strike the mortal blow. %8 ::: .o start with, Congress was not unaware of the worsening conditions of peace and order and of, at least, e*ident insurgency, what with the numerous easily *erifiable reports of open rebellious acti*ities in different parts of the country and the series of rallies and demonstrations, often bloody, in anila itself and other centers of population, including those that reached not only the portals but e*en the session hall of the legislature, but the legislators seemed not to be sufficiently alarmed or they either were indifferent or did not know what to do under the circumstances. Instead of taking immediate measures to alle*iate the conditions denounced and decried by the rebels and the acti*ists, they debated and argued long on palliati*es without coming out with anything substantial much less satisfactory in the eyes of those who were seditiously shouting for reforms. In any e*ent, in the face of the inability of Congress to meet the situation, and prompted by his appraisal of a critical situation that urgently called for immediate action, the only alternati*e open to the President was to resort to the other constitutional source of e:traordinary powers, the Constitution itself.%= ::: Proclamation 7'=7 is in no sense any more constitutionally offensi*e. In fact, in ordering detention of persons, the Proclamation pointedly limits arrests and detention only to those +presently detained, as well as others who may hereafter be similarly detained for the crimes of insurrection or rebellion, and all other crimes and offences committed in furtherance or on the occasion thereof, or incident thereto, or in connection therewith, for crimes against national security and the law of nations, crimes, against the fundamental laws of the state, crimes against public order, crimes in*ol*ing usurpation of authority, rank, title and improper use of names, uniforms and insignia, crimes committed by public officers, and for such other crimes as will be enumerated in Orders that I shall subse-uently promulgate, as well as crimes as a conse-uence of any *iolation of any decree, order or regulation promulgated by me personally or promulgated upon my direction.+ Indeed, e*en in the affected areas, the Constitution has not been really suspended much less discarded. )s contemplated in the fundamental law itself, it is merely in a state of anaesthesia, to the end that the much needed ma?or surgery to sa*e the nation!s life may be successfully undertaken. %< ::: .he -uoted lines of reasoning can no longer be sustained, on many le*els, in these more enlightened times. $or one, as a direct reaction to the philosophy of ?udicial inhibition so fre-uently e:hibited during the arcos dictatorship, our present Constitution has e:plicitly mandated ?udicial re*iew of the acts of go*ernment as part of the ?udicial function. )s if to rebuff )-uino, the 7<=8 Constitution e:pressly allows the ,upreme Court to re*iew the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law and decide the same within L' days from the filing of the appropriate case. L' .he Constitution also emphasiCes that a state of martial law did not suspend the operation of the Constitution or supplant the functioning of the ?udicial and legislati*e branches.L7 .he e:pediency of hiding behind the political -uestion doctrine can no longer be resorted to. $or another, the renewed emphasis within domestic and international society on the rights of people, as can be seen in worldwide democratic mo*ements beginning with our own in 7<=(, makes it more difficult for a go*ernment established and go*erned under a democratic constitution, to engage in official acts that run contrary to the basic tenets of democracy and ci*il rights. If a go*ernment insists on proceeding otherwise, the courts will stand in defense of the basic constitutional rights of the people. ,till, the restoration of rule under law, the establishment of national go*ernmental instrumentalities, and the principle of republicanism all ensure that the constitutional go*ernment retains significant powers and prerogati*es, for it is through such measures that it can e:ercise so*ereign will in behalf of the people. Concession to those presidential pri*ileges and prerogati*es should be made if due. .he abuses of past e:ecuti*e go*ernments should not detract from these basic go*ernmental powers, e*en as they may warrant a greater degree of wariness from those institutions that balance power and the people themsel*es. )nd the rule of law should pre*ail abo*e all. .he damage done by martial rule was not merely personal but institutional, and the

+relating the one to the other. Otherwise. )t the same time. . whether they be in the form of the arcos presidential decrees. +Laws and decrees+ do not relate only to those promulgated by President )rroyo. not e*en a single decree was issued by President )rroyo during the se*eral days PP 7'78 was in effect. Certainly. It is a ran0 insult to t$ose o! us w$o su!!ered or stood by t$ose oppressed under PP &'D& to e en suggest t$at t$e innocuous PP &'&( is o! eFui alent import. . ) similar command was made under PP 7'=7. those subsisting presidential decrees issued by President arcos in the e:ercise of his legislati*e powers are included in the e-uation.he use of the con?unction +and+ denotes a ?oinder or union. or during her term thus far for that matter. or any issuance by any President since )-uino. the grouping of +laws+ and +decrees+ separately from +orders+ and +regulations+ signifies that the President has not arrogated unto herself the power to issue decrees in the mold of the infamous arcos decrees. PP 7'78 would be ridiculous in the sense that the obedience to be enforced only relates to laws promulgated by President )rroyo since she assumed office in %''7. 9y no measure of contemplation could PP 7'78 be interpreted as reinstating to the President the power to issue . per the 7<=8 Constitution they still remain as part of the law of the land unless particularly stricken down or repealed by subse-uent enactments. . harped upon by some of the petitioners and alluded to by the ma?ority.+ which necessarily refers only to orders and regulations.+ $or one. orders and regulations. e*en assuming that PP 7'78 was intended to apply to decrees which the current President could not *ery well issue. . )gain. the power to promulgate laws. if pursued to its logical end. such intention is of no conse-uence.+ LL . thus permitting the application of the doctrine of noscitur a sociis to construe +decrees+ as those decrees which at present ha*e the force of law.he Power to Issue "ecrees . comes e*en close to matching PP 7'=7. PP 7'78 "oes 5ot Purport or Pretend that the President Has .e*ised Penal Code.he particular passage in PP 7'78 reads ++to enforce obedience to all the laws and to all decrees. which are in the mold of enactments from Congress. belong to the same class. since the proclamation does not intend or pretend to grant the President such power in the first place. such a -ualification sufficiently addresses the fears of the ma?ority that PP 7'78 somehow empowers or recogniCes the ability of the current President to promulgate decrees. and e*en those e:ecuti*e issuances of President )-uino in the e:ercise of her legislati*e powers.+ with the phrases +all the laws and to all decrees+ separated by a comma from +orders and regulations promulgated by me. superior in the hierarchy of laws than +orders and regulations. it should be made clear that the President currently has no power to issue decrees.his *iew is supported by the rules of statutory construction. when the President calls upon the )rmed $orces to enforce the laws. L% 5othing in PP 7'78.he ma?ority howe*er considers that since the President does not ha*e the power to issue decrees. or acts enacted by the )merican 4o*ernor#4eneral such as the .hat in itself should not be a cause of surprise. orders and regulations by Pthe PresidentQ+. Indeed. laws and those decrees issued by President arcos in the e:ercise of his legislati*e powers. $urther proof that +laws and decrees+ stand as a class distinct from +orders and regulations+ is the -ualifying phrase +promulgated by me. Certainly then.he use of +and+ establishes an association between laws and decrees distinct from orders and regulations. PP 7'78 is unconstitutional insofar as it enforces obedience +to all decrees. since both PP 7'78 and PP 7'=7 e:pressly in*oked the +calling out+ power.here is one seeming similarity though in the language of PP 7'78 and PP 7'=7. and PP 7'78 by no measure seeks to restore such power to the President. Instead.+ Inherently. suggests that the President by *irtue of PP 7'78 is also arrogating unto herself.he di*iding comma further signifies the segregation of concepts between +laws and decrees+ on one hand.proper rebuke to the caprices and whims of the ini-uitous past is to respect the confines of the restored rule of law. PP 7'78 contains a command to the )rmed $orces +to enforce obedience to all the laws and to all decrees. oreo*er. but other laws enacted by past so*ereigns. in this respect.+ . albeit in different conte:ts. and +orders and regulations+ on the other. the ma?ority pushes an interpretation that. . such power did once belong to the President during the arcos era and was e:tensi*ely utiliCed by President arcos. It has to be remembered that chafed as we may ha*e under some of the arcos decrees.

here is the common e:pectation that the President should stand as the political. but a statement that the President. to be merely responsi*e. the uni-ue nature of the office affords the President the opportunity to profoundly influence the public discourse. magnitude. . when the President issues a declaration or proclamation of a state of national mourning after a disaster with massi*e casualties. as head of state. and without them nothing. in line with his belief that the President was the steward of the people limited only by the specific restrictions and prohibitions appearing in the Constitution.he President. I ha*e dwelt on the legal effects of PP 7'78. the President is e*erything. in the e:ercise of such role. . In fact. as President 0ennedy did when by a mere congressional address. .. . as after a mass tragedy or calamity. Indeed.till. dynamic chief e:ecuti*e with an ability to identify problems or concerns at their incipience and to respond to them with all legal means at the earliest possible time. )part from the constitutional powers *ested on the President lie those powers rooted in the symbolic functions of the office.awyerL& on the uni-ue nature of the presidency.uch are among the *agaries of the political office.oose*elt populariCed the notion of the presidency as a +bully pulpit+. @ustice . grie*es o*er the loss of life and e:tends condolences in behalf of the people to the berea*ed. his decisions so far o*ershadow any others that almost alone he fills the public eye and ear. and generally beyond ?udicial relief or remedy. 9y his prestige as head of state and his influence upon public opinion he e:erts a le*erage upon those who are supposed to check and balance his power which often cancels their effecti*eness. 1. but by making such *ital stands. since the implementation of PP 7'78 will not *est on the President the power to issue such decrees. .obert @ackson!s astute obser*ation in Foungstown . is not the formalistic e:ercise of tradition. or impleaded by Congress under its constitutional powers.hus far.he President. and the sad decline of his own e*entual presidency is no better proof of the ma:im.heet J . but e:pected as a matter of tradition. and finality. non#e:istent as they may be in relation to the citiCenry. he put )merica on track to the goal of placing a man on the moon. as the representati*e of the $ilipino people. has been widely -uotedK E:ecuti*e power has the ad*antage of concentration in a single head in whose choice the whole 5ation has a part. an e:pectation not referred to in of the oath of office. but specially by the mere e:pediency of taking a stand on the issues of the day. any times. L6 Correspondingly. as head of state. Indeed. *. making him the focus of public hopes and e:pectations.he popular e:pectation in fact is of a pro#acti*e. .heodore . ) solemn declaration that the phrase is unconstitutional would be like killing a flea with dynamite when insect powder would do. *ery well has the capacity to use the office to garner support for those great national -uests that define a ci*iliCation. I cannot see how the phrase +enforce obedience to decrees+ can be the source of constitutional mischief. it can do so with the e:pediency of one sentence or e*en a footnote. Boodrow Bilson once obser*ed that with the People. . while perhaps de rigeur. In drama. simply because the President has failed to win o*er the hearts and minds of the citiCens. )s a Princeton academic. and faithfully e:ecuted those laws that e:ist.decrees. . President . the President e:ercises such prerogati*e as a responsi*e measure.his is leadership at its most solemn. . 5o other personality in public life can begin to compete with him in access to the public mind through modern methods of communications. the President is e:pected to e:ercise leadership not merely through the proposal and enactment of laws. moral and social leader of the nation. is cast in a uni-ue role in our polity matched by no other indi*idual or institution.he Presidency . If the Court truly feels the need to clarify this point.. not necessarily through the enactment or enforcement of laws. a President may be cast in crisis e*en if the Chief E:ecuti*e has broken no law. there is another purpose and dimension behind PP 7'78 that fall within the *alid prerogati*es of the President. Fet the President is not precluded. the courts or on Congress.hose memorable presidential speeches memoriCed .raditional in the Office of . PP 7'78 ) Aalid E:ercise of Prerogati*es Inherent and .ube Co.

by himself. by themsel*es. but was not itself free of legal -uestions. and should be *iewed with suspicion if actually enforced.ection 78. 9ut no less *ital. )rticle MII actually relates of PP 7'78.ection 78. made operati*e any law.e:as stood before a Congress populated by many powerful bigots. )rticle MII. alter the ci*il and legal status of an entire class of persons was dubious then and now. +we shall o*ercome. in short form.he proclamation. but of )merican democratic principles. and the e:ercise of emergency powers under . L( 5otwithstanding the legal haCe surrounding it. )t the same time. and fully committed himself as no other President before to the cause of ci*il rights with his intonation of those lines from the ci*il rights anthem. It may be remembered to this day not e:actly as an operational means by which sla*es were actually freed. $or one. did not in*ol*e the actual takeo*er of any . . . the Emancipation Proclamation still stands as a defining e:ample not only of the Lincoln Presidency. . II. I submit that it would be proper for the Court to recogniCe that PP 7'78 strikes a commendable balance between the Constitution. )rticle MII of the Constitution In .he President as Chief 4o*ernment . yet it will not fully suffice as a defense of democracy. when an )merican President from . )rticle MII of the Constitution without prior congressional authoriCation..ection 78. the Proclamation itself does not *iolate the Constitution as it does not call for or put into operation the suspension or withdrawal of any constitutional rights. .ection 78. Perhaps there was no more dramatic e:ample of the use of the +bully pulpit+ for such noble purposes than in 7<(&. it should be recogniCed that PP 7'78. I assert that the declaration of a state of emergency. falls within such proper functions of the President as the defender of the Constitution. ci*ilian control o*er the armed forces. . Fet -ualifications are in order with regard to how .he +calling out+ power assures the President such capability to a great e:tent. Constitution to legally abolish in*oluntary ser*itude. but help profoundly influence towards the right direction. I agree with the ma?ority that a distinction should be asserted as between the power of the President to declare a state of emergency. yet respects constitutional and statutory guarantees of the people.here is a need for the President to rally the people to defend the Constitution which guarantees the democratic way of life. I agree that the power of the . the +calling out+ power. )rticle MII. +freed the sla*es+. through means other than coerci*e. and it e*entually took the enactment of the .elation to PP 7'78 y ne:t issue with the ma?ority pertains to the assertion that the President does not ha*e the power to take o*er public utilities or businesses impressed with public interest under . but as a clear rhetorical statement that sla*ery could no longer thenceforth stand. Lincoln!s Emancipation Proclamation stands out as a presidential declaration which clearly staked )merican polity on the side of the democratic ideal. although President Lincoln did ?ustify his action as in the e:ercise of his powers as commander#in#chief during wartime. It was designed to inform the people of the e:istence of such a threat. with the e:pectation that the citiCenry would not aid or abet those who would o*erturn through force the democratic go*ernment. but they ser*ed not only merely symbolic functions. )t the same time. .+ oreo*er.hirteenth )mendment of the 1. or e*en create or diminish any substanti*e rights.. PP 7'78 keeps within the scope and limitations of these three standards. is the role of the President as the Chief "efender of the democratic way of life. on its face and as applied.by schoolchildren may ha*e not. it has been pointed out that the Proclamation only freed those sla*es in those states which were then in rebellion.+ $rom an earlier era in )merican history. the public opinion in the discourse of the times. and the inherent function of the Presidency as defender of the democratic constitution.tate to take o*er such utilities and businesses is highly limited.ection 78.pokesperson of the democratic ideals is entrusted with a heady but comfortable pursuit.he President would ha*e the power to declare a state of emergency e*en without . It asserts the primacy of the democratic order. +as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing PtheQ rebellion. the notion that the President could. e*en though the proclamation itself was of dubitable legal *alue. if somewhat gra*er. on premises of a looming armed threat which ha*e hardly been disputed.

5otably.ection 78. )rticle MII. the taking o*er of a pri*ately owned public utility or business affected with public interest would in*ol*e an infringement on the right of pri*ate enterprise to profit/ or perhaps e*en e:propriation for a limited period.L< most pertinent of which readsK +.tate in e:ercising the powers under . . . )rticle MII by citing the entire pro*ision. . as does )rticle AI. It may be so that since PP 7'78 did make e:press reference to . yet ultimately the newspaper was able to independently publish without police interference or court in?unction.he first power under . .public utility or business impressed with public interest. the ma?ority cites portions of )raneta *. 6'L on ( "ecember 7<=<. it may be difficult.ection 78. the notion that congressional authority is re-uired under . deri*ed from other constitutional sources.he fact that . such as in e:treme situations wherein obtention of congressional authority is impossible or ine:pedient considering the emergency. it enacted .ection 78 stands as the best assurance that due process of law would be obser*ed. the taking of property can only be accomplished with due process of law.ection 78. the *iew that . . It is not within the realm of impossibility that by reason of a particularly sudden and gra*e emergency. 9ut no such situation obtains in this case. Congress may not be able to con*ene to grant the necessary congressional authority to the President. howe*er. "inglasan. I maintain that in such e:treme situations. especially as it e:tends to whether under constitutional contemplation. the President may e:ercise such powers under . )rticle MII.tate under .ection 78.ection LHLI of the law authoriCed the President +to temporarily takeo*er or direct the operation of any pri*ately#owned public utility or business affected with public interest that *iolates the herein declared national policy+.he declaration was subse-uently reaffirmed by Congress when two weeks after. but it should be remembered that the constitutional pro*ision refers to a two#fold power of the .tate to take o*er a utility or business under . President )-uino issued issued Proclamation 5o.ection 78. )rticle MII would ultimately be obiter dictum.ection %LH%I. and not the take#o*er pro*ision in .ection 78 is purposely ambi*alent as to whether the President may e:ercise the power therein with or without congressional appro*al leads me to conclude that it is constitutionally permissible to recogniCe e:ceptions.tate to declare a national emergency and to take o*er such utilities and enterprises. Constitutionally.ection 78. thus lea*ing the impression that the authoriCation can come from the President. and any discussion relating to the power of the .ection 78.o some minds.epublic )ct 5o. full consideration of the import of . )fter all. the President may act in behalf of the .ection 78. legislation is preser*ed for Congress all the time. )rticle MII only under the grant of congressional appro*al. . to re-uire con*ening Congress before the President may e:ercise the functions under . I will e:press agreement that as a general rule. 9ernas notes that . in these petitions. .ection 78. such authority was granted by Congress e:pressly +pursuant to )rticle AI.till.ection 78.he point is. under this framework of go*ernment. )rticle MII. not e:cepting periods of crisis no matter . )rticle MII is not e*ident from the pro*ision. L8 )fter the 7<=< coup d!etat.he proposition of the ma?ority may be desirable as the general rule. )rticle MII re-uires prior congressional authority has some no*elty to it.ection 78 as re-uiring congressional authority or appro*al before the takeo*er under the pro*ision may be effected. to declare a state of national emergency. (=%(. the President may e:ercise such authority sub?ect to ?udicial re*iew. I concede that it is fundamentally sound to construe . )rticle MII would be warranted.ribune may ha*e flirted with such power. L= and the enactment of appropriate legislation prescribing the terms and conditions under which the President may e:ercise the powers of the .ection 78. if bombs from a foreign in*ader are falling o*er anila skies. . 5onetheless. .ection %LH%I of the Constitution+. and referring therein to . It should be admitted that some emergencies are gra*er and more imminent than others. need not ha*e engaged this potentially contentious issue. E*en $r. I thus dissent to any proposition that such re-uirement is absolute under all circumstances. that the authoriCation be +by law+.ection 78. declaring a state of national emergency. ) different situation would obtain though if PP 7'78 were in*oked in the actual takeo*er of a utility or business. )rticle MII. I respectfully submit that the Court. . considering that the ma?ority has chosen to speak out anyway.ellingly. Certainly.eference to . and in such case. )rticle MII is not distinct from the power of the President. Certainly. . not to mention unnecessarily onerous. the police action in relation to the "aily .ection 78 does not re-uire. In response to this argument. )rticle MII in relation to the power to declare a state of national emergency is ultimately superfluous. but the correct rule that should be adopted by the Court should not be so absolute so as to preclude the e:ercise by the President of such power under e:treme situations. E*idently.

+ &' . &L citing @ustice 0apunan. O*erbreadth and +Aoid for Aagueness+ "octrines )pplicable 5ot Only .he fact that a particular criminal statute does not infringe upon free speech does not mean that a facial challenge to the statute on *agueness grounds cannot succeed.&( LanCetta *.&8 9ouie *. while related. .agueness/ doctrine applies to criminal laws1 not merely t$ose t$at regulate speec$ or ot$er !undamental constitutional rig$t.hat the 5ational )ssembly then was able to con*ene and pass Commonwealth )ct 5o.I . notwithstanding that the law. III.ection 78.hese two concepts. . .upreme Court ?urisprudence wherein penal statutes ha*e been in*alidated on the ground that they were +*oid for *agueness. is not presented as a properly ?usticiable issue. the conte:t in which the Court made that obser*ation in )raneta is not the same conte:t within which my own obser*ations oscillate. && . )rticle MII. and may thus be entertained +in cases in*ol*ing statutes which. City of . ) similar characteriCation is made as to the +*oid for *agueness+ doctrine.. Indeed. (not merely t$ose t$at regulate speec$ or ot$er !undamental constitutional rig$ts. when it noted President RueCon!s claim that he was impelled to call for a special session of the 5ational )ssembly after foreseeing that +it was most unlikely that the Philippine Legislature would hold its ne:t regular session which was to open on @anuary 7. e*en the factual milieu recounted in )raneta conceded that such e:treme circumstance could occur.+&% )s I noted in my .+ )s I cited in . it is not beyond the realm of possibility that the emergency contemplated would be so gra*e that a sufficient number of members of Congress would be physically unable to con*ene and meet the -uorum re-uirement. by their terms. are distinct from each other. but somewhat a lu:ury nonetheless. ) *iew has been proferred that +*agueness and o*erbreadth doctrines are not applicable to penal laws. seek to regulate only 2spoken words!.he distinction may pro*e especially crucial since there has been a long line of cases in )merican . )rticle MII may be authoriCed by the President. considering that the authoriCed or actual takeo*er under . 7<&%. In truth. and that there no longer e:isted any authority on the part of the President to e:ercise such powers. 4eneral Construction Co.&6 these cases are Connally *. (87. and not conduct. an e:ceptional circumstance which the hard#line stance of the ma?ority makes no concessions for.andiganbayan. . the powers under . 5onetheless.+ . and to e*en place their *iew in the dispositi*e portion in a bid to enshrine it as doctrine.he ma?ority states that +the o*erbreadth doctrine is an analytical tool de*eloped for testing 2on their faces! statutes in free speech cases+&7. the Court!s pronouncement on this point is actually obiter. +did not in term fi: the duration of its effecti*eness+. the ma?ority has undertaken to decide this non#?usticiable issue. the obiter is not adopted as a precedent without the -ualification that in e:treme situations wherein congressional appro*al is impossible or highly impractical to obtain. which according to the ma?ority. and consistent with the general tenor. *n one $and1 t$e doctrine o! o erbreadt$ applies generally to statutes t$at in!ringe upon !reedom o! speec$. )raneta did not in*ol*e a situation wherein the President attempted to e:ercise emergency powers without congressional authority/ concerning as it did the e:ercise by President Ruirino of those emergency powers conferred se*eral years earlier by Congress to President RueCon at the onset of the Pacific phase of Borld Bar II.+ $or one.how serious. y own submission is premised on the e:treme situation wherein Congress may be physically unable to con*ene. (87 was fortunate.ection 78.tate of 5ew @ersey.omualdeC *.omualdeC *. there is a *iable distinction between +*oid for *agueness+ and +o*erbreadth+ which the ma?ority sadly ignores.peech Cases . It is hoped that should the issue become ripe for ad?udication before this Court. Clearly. Commonwealth )ct 5o. is +sub?ect to the same principles go*erning o*erbreadth doctrine S also an analytical tool for testing 2on their faces! statutes in free speech cases.andiganbayan.o $ree . 1ltimately though.eparate Opinion in . Indeed.he Court therein ruled that the emergency that ?ustified then the e:traordinary grant of powers had since e:pired. *n t$e ot$er $and1 t$e / oid-!or.

&= Papachristou *.errorism has a widely accepted meaning that encompasses many acts already punishable by our general penal laws. I thus dissent. . I submit again that this proposition is the key perspecti*e from which the petitions should be e:amined. oreo*er. since such power belongs to the legislati*e alone. but in its general sense. 4eneral Order 5o. 6& . . gra*e threats. IA. . pointing out that Congress has not yet passed a law defining and punishing terrorism or acts of terrorism. insofar as such acts are already punishable.here are se*eral 1nited 5ations and multilateral con*entions on terrorism 6L. as well as declarations made by the 1nited 5ations 4eneral )ssembly denouncing and seeking to combat terrorism. y *iew on this point has not changed. may be in*alidated on the ground of +*oid for *agueness+. but the order is not comported in such a way.he ma?ority cites a theoretical e:ample wherein a group of persons engaged in a drinking spree may be arrested by the military or police in the belief that they were committing acts of terrorism pursuant to 4eneral Order 5o. e*en though the argument that an o*erbreadth challenge can be maintained only in free speech cases has more ?urisprudential moorings. in our e:tant general penal laws. it is on the other hand *ery settled doctrine that a penal statute regulating conduct. and insofar as the ponencia would hold otherwise.tate is powerless to suppress acts of terrorism until the word +terrorism+ is defined by lawG . but does the ma?ority seriously suggest that the President or the . . such as rebellion. physical in?uries. 6. I decried the ele*ation of the suspect and radical new doctrine that the +*oid for *agueness+ challenge cannot apply other than in free speech cases. It may ha*e been a different matter had 4eneral Order 5o.uffers 5o Constitutional Infirmity . they make an unnecessary distinction with regard to +acts of terrorism+. whether ?ustified under +lawless *iolence+ or +acts of . tasked with the e:ecution of all e:isting laws. not speech. Howe*er. 6 cannot redefine statutory crimes or create new penal acts.Columbia. those acts which under normal contemplation would constitute terrorism are associated anyway with or subsumed under lawless *iolence. the re?ection of the challenge on that basis alone may pro*e unnecessarily simplistic. . as they almost always are.hat may be the case. I maintain that there is an e*en stronger ground on which the o*erbreadth and +*oid for *agueness+ arguments can be refuted O that Presidential Proclamation 7'78 HPP 7'78I neither creates nor diminishes any rights or obligations whatsoe*er. murder. and the like.o long as it is understood that +acts of terrorism+ encompasses only those acts which are already punishable under our laws.he proper course of action should be to construe +terrorism+ not in any legally defined sense.6'and City of Chicago *. . 6. $ortunately. the . 1nder the same logical framework that group of persons engaged in a drinking spree could *ery well be arrested by the military or police in the belief that they are committing acts of lawless *iolence pursuant to 4eneral Order 5o. already has a sufficient mandate to order the )rmed $orces to combat those acts of terrorism that are already punishable in our .he President. Ob*iously such act would be +abuse and oppression+ on the part of the military and the police. the . . 6 is generally constitutional. City of @ackson*ille. instead of acts of terrorism.67 4ranting that perhaps as a general rule.hus long ago. coup d!etat.here is a general sense in international law as to what constitutes terrorism. Indeed. E*en without an operati*e law specifically defining terrorism.he ma?ority correctly concludes that 4eneral Order 5o. Lawson.tate already has the power to suppress and punish such acts of terrorism. oreo*er.omualdeC. In . 4eneral Order 5o. orales. In fact. homicide. 6 . 6 does not assume to make such redefinitions. the reference is not constitutionally infirm. which is a term found in the Constitution itself. arson.tate has already seen it fit to punish such acts. o*erbreadth may find application only in +free speech+ 6% cases.e*ised Penal Code. 6 attempted to define +acts of terrorism+ in a manner that would include such acts that are not punished under our statute books. e*en if no precise definition has been adopted as binding on all nations.&< 0olender *. 4eneral Order 5o.

elating to the Indi*idual 4rie*ances .efrain aking )ny $urther "eclaration. a person would actually be arrested and charged with +acts of terrorism+.+ and such acts committed beyond such authority are considered illegal..he ma?ority adopts the tack of citing three particular in?uries alleged by the petitioners as inflicted with the implementation of PP 7'78. the directi*e to pre*ent acts of +lawless *iolence+ should be nullified as well. Bhile I disagree with the ma?ority#imposed limitations on the applicability of the +o*erbreadth+ or +*oid for *agueness+ doctrines. 6. liberty or property. )gain. it should be pointed out that only the following scenarios could ensue. but would be categoriCed in the information and charge sheet as actual crimes under our .isting ones1 it necessarily !ollows t$at )eneral *rder +o. 6 nor PP 7'78 is a penal statute. for the same reason that they should not apply to PP 7'78.elation .he same absence of any binding legal effect of these two issuances correspondingly disassociates them from the constitutional infringement of free e:pression or association. . e*en if they be geared towards suppressing acts of terrorism or lawless *iolence. and ultimately concludes that such *iolations were illegal. If the point of the ma?ority is that there are no ?usticiable standards on what constitutes acts of terrorism. I do not dispute such conclusion. and only if it the Order irreconcilably de*iates from the fundamental law should it be struck down. thus di*orcing those issuances from the conte:t of the due process clause. 6 that the military or police is limited in authority to perform those acts that are +necessary and appropriate actions and measures to suppress and pre*ent acts of terrorism and lawless *iolence. Court . seems to be positi*ely applying the arguments of +o*erbreadth+ or +*oid for *agueness+.he ma?ority analyCes the alleged in?uries. would be that such would ha*e been done with undue haste. since our statute books do not criminaliCe the specific crime of terrorism. and that the proclamation cannot be in*oked before any court to assert the *alidity of such unauthoriCed actions. arguments which they earlier re?ected as applicable only in the conte:t of free e:pression cases. by taking issue with the lack of definition and possible broad conte:t of +acts of terrorism+. I agree that PP 7'78 does not e:pand the grounds for warrantless arrests. A. as illegal. 5either 4eneral Order 5o.e*ised Penal Code. . $or one. $or 5ow. the ma?ority. e:pression or property.he inconsistency is breath#taking.he ma?ority concludes from 4eneral Order 5o. . 5either +*oid for *agueness+ nor +o*erbreadth+ therefore lie. I understand that the in?urious acts complained of by the petitioners upon the implementation of PP 7'78 are a source of gra*e . or ha*e an operati*e legal effect of infringing upon liberty.aised by the Petitioners in . searches. and without e*en impleading the particular officers who effected the arrests>searches>seiCures. neither 4eneral Order 5o. . I likewise cannot accede to the application of those doctrines in the conte:t of 4eneral Order 5o. correlates them to particular *iolations of the 9ill of . I simply cannot see how 4eneral Order 5o.o PP 7'78 I respectfully disagree with the manner by which the ma?ority would treat the +*oid as applied+ argument presented by the petitioners. 6 should be *iewed in harmony with the Constitution. but it must be emphasiCed that +necessary and appropriate actions and measures+ precisely do not authoriCe the military or police to commit unlawful and unconstitutional acts themsel*es. . . . Interestingly. 6 nor PP 7'78 can cause the depri*ation of life. seiCures and the dispersal of rallies. searches and seiCures or dispersal of rallies.hould . following the cardinal principle of legal hermeneutics earlier ad*erted to. ore probably. and such arrest or charge would be thrown out of the courts. )s such. )nother point. 4eneral Order 5o. et al. through an improper legal a*enue. . 6 could *alidate arrests and con*ictions for non#e:istent crimes. all of which entail a substantial le*el of factual determination. without the appropriate trial of facts. Fet following the logic of the ma?ority.terrorism+.he problem with this approach is that it would fore*er deem the Court as a trier or re*iewer at first instance o*er -uestions in*ol*ing the *alidity of warrantless arrests. a person will be arrested and charged for acts that may under the layperson!s contemplation constitutes acts of terrorism.ights.1 e en i! premised on a state o! emergency1 cannot aut$ori5e t$e military or police to ignore or iolate constitutional or statutory rig$ts1 or en!orce laws completely alien to t$e suppression o! lawless iolence. Indeed1 wit$ t$e emp$asis t$at PP &'&( does not create new rig$ts or obligations1 or diminis$ e. Fet the problem with directly ad?udicating that the in?uries inflicted on "a*id.

$or e:ample. if e*er lodged.concern. . criminal or administrati*e sanctions on the indi*idual police officers concerned. Certainly. we in the Court can all agree that PP 7'78 cannot be in*oked to ?ustify acts by the police or military officers that go beyond the Constitution and the laws. the Court would be left with pie on its face if these persons.66 I alluded to the fact that our legal system may run counter#intuiti*e in the sense that the seemingly or ob*iously guilty may still.ights. In my theoretical e:ample. should not yet e:tend itself to specific e:amples that ha*e not yet been properly litigated. as the ma?ority. a course which the ma?ority unfortunately +short#cuts+ in this present decision. and preser*e the integrity and order of our procedural law. e*en before trial on the merits. 9ut the course of prudence dictates that the pronouncement of such a doctrine. Indubitably. would be able to indubitably establish that their acts were actually ?ustified under law. ) haphaCard declaration by the Court that the arrests or seiCures were +illegal+ would likewise preclude any meaningful re*iew or ree*aluation of pertinent legal doctrines that otherwise could ha*e been ree:amined had these acts been properly challenged in regular order. such claims could recei*e due consideration before the courts. a declaration by the ma?ority that PP 7'78 or 4eneral Order 5o. despite the grandilo-uent pronouncement by the ma?ority that the acts complained of by the petitioners and implemented pursuant to 4eneral Order 5o. Certainly. and e*en the minority wishes to makes this point as emphatically clear. tested and e*aluated before the court. for ?ustifications independent of PP 7'78 or 4eneral Order 5o. Of course. . Fet any healthy ree:amination of 1mil.uch a declaration would s-uarely entrench the Court as a defender of the 9ill of . . with an impeccable cause of action which they could pursue against the *iolators before the appropriate courts. Perhaps worse. while enforceable in a court of law. if the officers or officials concerned ha*e basis to contend that no such rights were *iolated. which is to settle the law of the case. as these officers had not been +indi*idually identified and gi*en their day in court+. the matter of the warrantless arrests in these cases could ha*e most certainly compelled the Court to again consider the doctrine laid down in 1mil *. once +gi*en their day in court+. .andiganbayan. be properly ac-uitted or e:onerated/ to the e:tent that e*en an accused who murders another person in front of li*e tele*ision cameras broadcast to millions of sets is not yet necessarily guilty of the crime of murder or homicide. On the contrary. the necessity of a proper trial so as to allow the entire factual milieu to be presented. it could nonetheless impose ci*il. . if not moreso.amos on warrantless arrests and rebellion as a continuing crime. a doctrine that may merit renewed e*aluation.$e !unction o! t$is %ourt is to ma0e legal pronouncements not based on /ob ious/ !acts1 but on pro en !acts. .he country#wide attention that the instant petitions ha*e drawn should not make the Court lose focus on its principal mission. AI. re-uire the presentation and trial of the proper factual predicates.he same principle applies in these cases.6( Hence. >et a ruling !rom t$is %ourt1 wit$out t$e proper !actual basis or prayer !or remuneration !or t$e inEury sustained1 would ultimately be merely symbolic. 6 cannot ?ustify *iolation of statutory or constitutional rights Ha declaration which the minority would ha*e no -ualms assenting toI would sufficiently arm those petitioners and other persons whose rights may ha*e been in?ured in the implementation of PP 7'78.he credibility of the Court is ensured by making decisions in accordance with the Constitution without regard to the indi*idual personalities in*ol*ed/ . the pronouncement of the ma?ority would ha*e had the effect of pre?udging these cases. Conclusion . In my dissent in . foster enforceable means by which the in?ured could seek actual redress for the in?ury sustained. ?$ile t$e %ourt will not be $armed by a symbolic rea!!irmation o! commitment to t$e principles in t$e #ill o! Rig$ts1 it will be $armed by a ruling t$at unduly and inappropriately e. 6 deser*es redress in the appropriate ci*il or criminal proceeding. after trial. 6.pands t$e ery limited !unction o! t$e %ourt as a trier o! !acts on !irst instance. )t the same time. the highly political nature of these petitions should ser*e as forewarning for the Court to proceed e: abundante cautelam. or other precedents for that matter. lest the institution be unduly dragged into the partisan mud. 6 are illegal.e*es *. the said accused should nonetheless be ac-uitted if the presence of e:empting circumstances is established. any person whose statutory or constitutional rights were *iolated in the name of PP 7'78 or 4eneral Order 5o. Of course.

Bhen the passions of these times die down. +5o officer or employee of the ci*il ser*ice shall be remo*ed or suspended e:cept for cause pro*ided by law..C. $e. L=( H7<68I/ )lba *. 4. I *ote to "I. 7<8'.+ .+ 6 ( 8 = < 7' . 7%L .tatutory Construction. . L%878. 7<8'.C.) 6(<. 4..with sights set on posterity. )gpalo. . &%7 . )rticle AI. )rticle AII. 4.esources. $eb. 6 warrant circumspect scrutiny from those interested and tasked with preser*ing our ci*il liberties. 7'7 Phil. % +Bhen a statute is reasonably susceptible of two constructions. *. in the appropriate conte:ts. )rticle AII..hey may e*en stand. 4. Fes.. 5o.C. )gpalo. at %((/ citing utuc *. (=L H7<68I/ addumba *.ection 7. it is for the Court to pro*ide for *iable legal means to enforce and safeguard these rights and liberties.. 76<7<(. Inc.ection 78. +P.C. .ociety *.ee Constitution.. 5os.ection 7. and sober retrospect accedes. 9y deciding non#?usticiable issues and pre?udging cases and contro*ersies without a proper trial on the merits. under legal contemplation. H7<<6I.) &7L/ )merican 9ible .C. . 5o*.. It is for the poet and the politician to pen beautiful paeans to the people!s rights and liberties. as *iable partisan political issues.ee Constitution. City of anila.) %%=/ @..ection 78.. . 76<7'L.ection 7=.he plenary legislati*e power being *ested in Congress. 9ut the plain fact remains that. )rticle AII. L&6 H7<&=I/ 9enguet E:ploration.ee Constitution. Inc. 86 . %<6L&. I. . id.. .enure )dm. all the petitions. 5o.. =% Phil. the decision of this Court in these cases will be looked upon as an e:tended ad*isory opinion.. L & . . "epartment of )griculture and 5atural .ee . . L7 .) %=6 H7<88I/ "e la CruC *.. .) (6(. E*angelista. %=. . .. .I+)A )ssociate @ustice "ootnotes 7 4..ee Constitution.ed.+ . at %7. 7<88. Lrd. 5o. 76<7=6. OCaeta.ee Constitution.7 *. &%6<7. that construction in fa*or of its constitutionality shall be adopted and the construction that will render it in*alid re?ected. . CO ELEC. 76<'=6. one constitutional and the other unconstitutional. @uly %6. 6A+.. 5o. Land . L $ebruary %''&. 7=. %(. 7'' Phil. obli*ious of the popular fla*or of the day. . PP 7'78 and 4eneral Order 5o.upra note &. )rticle AII. . L( . the ma?ority has diminished the potency of this Court!s constitutional power in fa*or of rhetorical statements that afford no -uantifiable relief. these issuances are *alid on their face. and should result in no constitutional or statutory breaches if applied according to their letter. Paras. 7<=L. %7'(&. *.uason J Co.he PresidentQ shall ensure that the laws be faithfully e:ecuted.

Hon.. 9ook III.ee .ection %HLI. . *. *. at (&L. id.anada. anglapus. Id. . %6 %( %8 %= %< L' L7 L% . 7L<L%6. )-uino.he declaration of martial law then within the President to make under authority of . Id. Enrile. 5o. @. @. )rticle AII. at (L(.ection 7'H%I. @.ee i?ares *.eparate Opinion. 4. . 7% .ection 7=. L<% Phil. Constitution.. %8 October 7<=<. . 78 . @r. 6< . )-uino. Id. e. L#L66&(.. Id. at %&'#%&7. )rticle IM#9.) 8('. )rticle AII. supra note 7.C.ee. Enrile. at (%8. %L %& 5o. )rticle AII. @. . at &%L.ecretary.C.ection 7=. 8(L. at &'6#&'(. . at ((=. . Constitution.ection 7=. Id.. id... at (88. Id. Id.ee )dministrati*e Code. 9arredo.. 7% )pril %''6. Castro.) 7=L. concurring. (7= H%'''I Id. 7L 7& 76 7( 78 7= 7< %' %7 %% . arcos *. 9arredo. 9arredo. 77 . @r. Constitution.. at (&&. . at L<=#L<<. .ee Constitution. 4. ==%77. Chapter %.upra note =. Id.g.eptember 7<8&. 78= . 5o. concurring. )rticle AII of the 7<L6 Constitution. at %(%#%(L.anlakas *. E:ecuti*e .ection &. concurring.. ..

L=%#L=&. . Constitution. Id. . L8= 1..uppression of the $inancing of . at L<=. . wherein the 1.ub*ersi*e Control )cti*ities )ct on the ground of o*erbreadth as it sought to proscribe the e:ercise the right of free association.ee . L=< 1..uppression of . L6% H7<=LI.andiganbayan. Id. dissenting. L<6#&'(.uppression of )cts of 5uclear .obel.tates Constitution but a distinct right altogether from free e:pression.. @ackson. also within the $irst )mendment of the 1nited . )gpalo. at L8<. %6= H7<(8I. Id.) L87... )rticle III. &'6 1.. at pp.. 5o. at L<=#&'7. Ibid.ee @. L8 L= .. L=6. &L6 . "ecision. citing Estrada *. 7' @une 7<<<. . Id. %<'..LL . at 77=L. %< @uly %''&.upreme Court in*alidated a portion of the . @....ection 7. L&8 H7<(&I. 76%%6<. %'(. &%7 Phil.errorist 9ombings H7<<8I/ International Con*ention for the . (6L#(6&..ee . &(7 1. %''L ed. 76( H7<8%I. L&L 1.@. at 77<#7%'..... . Case 5o. . 0apunan. L& L6 L( . L(= H7<&<I. concurring.o name a few. L<L H7<%(I.errorism H%''6I. <8#77%7. L< &' &7 &% &L && &6 &( &8 &= &< 6' 67 9ut see 1nited . .. =& Phil.ee +1nited 5ations ..tates *... 6% .reaty Collection 3 6L . L'( 1. 4.tatutory Construction. 9ernas.he 7<=8 Constitution of the . %(< 1. infra.ee 4eorge $ort ilton. the Con*ention on the Pre*ention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons.he 1se of Presidential PowerK 78=<#7<&L. .errorism H7<<<I/ the International Con*ention for the .C. p.. . &67 H7<L<I.epublic of the PhilippinesK ) Commentary.... 68<. including "iplomatic )gents H7<8LI/ International Con*ention for the . @. 7<=' ed.

Con*entions on .errorism+. 78 "ecember %''&..ee.un. dissenting.. &&8 .. Id. 4.C. at L&6. 6& . )dopted by the 1nited 5ations 4eneral )ssembly on 78 $ebruary 7<<6. 76&7=%.g. . LL6#L&=. 66 6( .inga. L' )pril %''(I. &<>('.errorism.esolution 5o.asp Hlast *isited. e.org>English>. .) L'<.he Lawphil Pro?ect # )rellano Law $oundation . httpK>>untreaty. @. 5o.