declaration does not authorize the President to
Cases take over privately-owned public utility or
Topic: Legislative Power in General
1. David v. Macapagal Arroyo
2. Imbong v. Ochoa
DAVID v. MACAPAGAL ARROYO
Facts: During the anniversary of People Power I
on February 24, 2006, President Arroyo issued
Presidential Proclamation 1017 (PP 1017)
which served as a declaration for a state of
national emergency due to a conspiracy between
the political opposition and authoritarians of the
extreme left represented by NDF-CPP-NPA and
extreme right represented by military
adventurists to overthrow the government elected
in May 2004. General Order NO. 5 (G.O No.
5) was the implementing rule for PP 1017. A
week after the declaration, President Arroyo
lifted PP 1017 through the issuance of
Proclamation No.1021 which declared that the
state of national emergency has ceased to exist.
The petitioners, in their seven petitions for
certiorari, challenged the said proclamations as
void due to their unconstitutionality and that
President Arroyo committed grave abuse of
discretion.
STATCON ISSUE: Whether or not the
concurrence of Congress is necessary whenever
the alarming powers incident to Martial Law are
used; usurpation of legislative powers.
HELD: WHEREFORE, the Petitions are partly
granted. The Court rules that PP 1017
is CONSTITUTIONAL insofar as it constitutes
a call by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on
the AFP to prevent or suppress lawless
violence. However, the provisions of PP 1017
commanding the AFP to enforce laws not related
to lawless violence, as well as decrees
promulgated by the President, are
declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL. In addition,
the provision in PP 1017 declaring national
emergency under Section 17, Article VII of the
Constitution is CONSTITUTIONAL, but such
GILDA FLORES 1J SBU LAW
business affected with public interest without
prior legislation.
G.O. No. 5 is CONSTITUTIONAL since it
provides a standard by which the AFP and the
PNP should implement PP 1017, i.e. whatever is
"necessary and appropriate actions and
measures to suppress and prevent acts of
lawless violence." Considering that "acts of
terrorism" have not yet been defined and made
punishable by the Legislature, such portion of
G.O. No. 5 is
declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
The warrantless arrest of Randolf S. David and
Ronald Llamas; the dispersal and warrantless
arrest of the KMU and NAFLU-KMU members
during their rallies, in the absence of proof that
these petitioners were committing acts
constituting lawless violence, invasion or
rebellion and violating BP 880; the imposition of
standards on media or any form of prior restraint
on the press, as well as the warrantless search of
the Tribune offices and whimsical seizure of its
articles for publication and other materials, are
declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
NOTES:
 Article 2 Section 4 – defense and
preservation of democratic institutions
and the State is the primary duty of the
government.
- Section 4. The prime duty of the
Government is to serve and protect
the people. The Government may call
upon the people to defend the State
and, in the fulfillment thereof, all
citizens may be required, under
conditions provided by law, to
render personal, military or civil
service.
 Authoritarians of the extreme left
represented by NDF-CPP-NPA extreme
right represented by military adventurists
 - HISTORICAL enemies of the
democratic Philippine State.
 The activities of said enemies were
deemed to have a clear and present
danger to the safety and integrity of
Philippine State and its people.
- Clear and present danger
test: "The question in every case is
whether the words used are used in
such circumstances and are of such a
nature as to create a clear and
present danger that they will bring
about the substantive evils that
Congress has a right to prevent. It is
a question of proximity and degree.”
 President Arroyo directed the Chief of
Staff of the AFP and the Chief of the
PNP, as well as the officers and men of
the AFP and PNP to immediately carry
out the necessary and appropriate actions
and measures to suppress and prevent
acts of terrorism and lawless violence.
- Article VII, Section 18 and Article
XII, Section 17 of the 1987
Constitution – related to the
declaration of a state of national
emergency.
(1) Section 18. The President shall
be the Commander-in-Chief of
all armed forces of the
Philippines and whenever it
becomes necessary, he may call
out such armed forces to prevent
or suppress lawless violence,
invasion or rebellion. In case of
invasion or rebellion, when the
public safety requires it, he may,
for a period not exceeding sixty
days, suspend the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus or place
the Philippines or any part
thereof under martial law.
Within forty-eight hours from
the proclamation of martial law
or the suspension of the privilege
GILDA FLORES 1J SBU LAW
of the writ of habeas corpus, the
President shall submit a report in
person or in writing to the
Congress. The Congress, voting
jointly, by a vote of at least a
majority of all its Members in
regular or special session, may
revoke such proclamation or
suspension, which revocation
shall not be set aside by the
President. Upon the initiative of
the President, the Congress may,
in the same manner, extend such
proclamation or suspension for a
period to be determined by the
Congress, if the invasion or
rebellion shall persist and public
safety requires it.
(2) Section 17. In times of national
emergency, when the public
interest so requires, the State
may, during the emergency and
under reasonable terms
prescribed by it, temporarily take
over or direct the operation of
any privately owned public
utility or business affected with
public interest.
Proximate Cause of proclamations
– the conspiracy of the enemies of
the state to overthrow the
government.
On March 7, 2006, oral arguments
were held but there was no refutation
from the petitioners.
- The Solicitor General argued that
the intent of the Constitution was to
give full discretionary powers to
President in determining the
necessity of calling out the armed
forces.
 Several bits of information were
intercepted regarding the possible ouster
 of President Arroyo in the early half of Rossiter – Accorded to legislature a far
2006 due to the plans and concerted greater power in emergency situation. He
actions of the said “enemies of the state.” would secure to Congress the final
 On February 23, 2006, President Arroyo responsibility for declaring the existence
convened her security advisers and of termination of an emergency.
several cabinet members. She then
 Our Constitution has fairly coped with
suspended classes for the NCR to protect
the problem of allotting increasing areas
the students and also announced the
of discretionary power to the Chief
cancellation of all activities and
Executive, while insuring that such
programs related to the 20th anniversary
powers will be exercised with a sense of
celebration of Edsa People Power I,
political responsibility and under
revoked permits to rally and
effective limitations and checks.
implemented warrantless arrests, and
take-over of facilities.  The executive, legislative, and judicial
powers are dispersed to the President,
 Despite the announcement,
Congress, and SC, respectively. None of
demonstrators still carried on. The police
them have monopoly of power in times
used water cannons, fiber glass shields
of emergency. Each branch is given a
and tear gas to stop the marching groups.
role to serve as a limitation or check
They cited PP 1017 as a ground for the
upon the other. This does not weaken the
dispersal of the assemblies.
president, it limits him.
 Media outlets were also raided. Michael
 Petitioners contend that PP 1017 is void
Defenso, Arroyo’s Chief of Staff
on its face because of its overbreadth.
justified the raid by saying that it was
meant to show a strong presence in order - They claim that there was also a
to tell media outlets not to connive or do violation of Article III, Section4 of
the Constitution
anything that would help the rebels in
bringing down this government. - Section 4. No law shall be passed
abridging the freedom of speech, of
 ”In times of war or national emergency,
expression, or of the press, or the
the president must be given absolute
right of the people peaceably to
control for the very life of the nation and
assemble and petition the
the government is in great peril. The
government for redress of
President, it intoned, is answerable only
grievances.
to his conscience, the People, and God.”
(Garcia Padilla v. Enrile)  Petitioners argue that PP 1017 is
unconstitutional as it arrogated upon
 John Locke – In times of danger to the
President Arroyo the power to enact laws
nation, positive law enacted by
in decrees in violation of Section 1 of
legislature might be inadequate or even
Article VI of the Constitution, which
a fatal obstacle to the promptness of
vests the power to enact laws in
action necessary to avert catastrophe.
Congress.
Thus, the prerogative of crown with the
- The petitioners assailed the clause to
power to act according to discretion for
enforce obedience to all the laws
the public good, without the proscription
and o all decrees, orders, and
of the law and sometimes even against it.
regulations promulgated by me
- But Locke admitted defeat to this
personally or upon my direction.”
sentiment since it was not enough to
- Said statement was also lifted from
prevent abuse of prerogative.
Marcos’ proclamation no. 1081.

GILDA FLORES 1J SBU LAW

Is it within the domain of President Arroyo to
promulgate decrees?
ANSWER:
The President is granted an Ordinance Power
under Chapter 2, Book III of Executive Order No.
292 (Administrative Code of 1987). She may
issue any of the following:
Sec. 2. Executive Orders. — Acts of the President
providing for rules of a general or permanent
character in implementation or execution of
constitutional or statutory powers shall be
promulgated in executive orders.
Sec. 3. Administrative Orders. — Acts of the
President which relate to particular aspect of
governmental operations in pursuance of his
duties as administrative head shall be
promulgated in administrative orders.
Sec. 4. Proclamations. — Acts of the President
fixing a date or declaring a status or condition of
public moment or interest, upon the existence of
which the operation of a specific law or
regulation is made to depend, shall be
promulgated in proclamations which shall have
the force of an executive order.
Sec. 5. Memorandum Orders. — Acts of the
President on matters of administrative detail or of
subordinate or temporary interest which only
concern a particular officer or office of the
Government shall be embodied in memorandum
orders.
Sec. 6. Memorandum Circulars. — Acts of the
President on matters relating to internal
administration, which the President desires to
bring to the attention of all or some of the
departments, agencies, bureaus or offices of the
Government, for information or compliance,
shall be embodied in memorandum circulars.
Sec. 7. General or Special Orders. — Acts and
commands of the President in his capacity as
Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines shall be issued as general or special
orders.
GILDA FLORES 1J SBU LAW
President Arroyo’s ordinance power is limited to
the foregoing issuances. She cannot
issue decrees similar to those issued by Former
President Marcos under PP 1081. Presidential
Decrees are laws which are of the same category
and binding force as statutes because they were
issued by the President in the exercise of his
legislative power during the period of Martial
Law under the 1973 Constitution.
- This Court rules that the assailed
PP 1017 is unconstitutional insofar
as it grants President Arroyo the
authority to promulgate
"decrees." Legislative power is
peculiarly within the province of the
Legislature. Section 1, Article VI
categorically states that "[t]he
legislative power shall be vested in
the Congress of the Philippines
which shall consist of a Senate and
a House of Representatives." To be
sure, neither Martial Law nor a state
of rebellion nor a state of emergency
can justify President Arroyo’s
exercise of legislative power by
issuing decrees.
Can President Arroyo enforce obedience to all
decrees and laws through the military?
- As this Court stated earlier, President
Arroyo has no authority to enact
decrees. It follows that these decrees
are void and, therefore, cannot be
enforced. With respect to "laws," she
cannot call the military to enforce or
implement certain laws, such as
customs laws, laws governing family
- and property relations, laws on
obligations and contracts and the
like. She can only order the military,
under PP 1017, to enforce laws
pertinent to its duty to suppress
lawless violence.
PROMULGATE vs. ENACT
(Black Law’s Dictionary)
 1. Promulgate - to publish; to
announce officially; the formal
act of announcing a statute
2. Enact- to establish by law, to
perform or effect.
Petitioners claim that Arroyo’s
inclusion of Section 17, Art. XII in
PP 1017 is an encroachment on the
legislature’s emergency powers.
 “declare a state of national
emergency” - granted through Section
18, VII. No legitimate constitutional
objection may be raised.
 “exercise emergency powers” – Section
Article VI of the Constitution.
 SEC. 23. (1) The Congress, by a vote of
two-thirds of both Houses in joint session
assembled, voting separately, shall have
the sole power to declare the existence
of a state of war.
 (2) In times of war or other national
emergency, the Congress may, by law,
authorize the President, for a limited
period and subject to such restrictions as
it may prescribe, to exercise powers
necessary and proper to carry out a
declared national policy. Unless sooner
withdrawn by resolution of the Congress,
such powers shall cease upon the next
adjournment thereof.
- the exercise of emergency powers,
such as the taking over of privately
owned public utility or business
affected with public interest, is a
different matter. This requires a
delegation from Congress.
Conditions in the grant of emergency powers
to the President
1. There must be war or other emergency
2. The delegation must be for a limited
period only
3. The delegation must be subject to such
restrictions as the Congress may
prescribe
GILDA FLORES 1J SBU LAW
4. The emergency powers must be
exercised to carry out a national policy
declared by Congress.
- Section 17 – refers to congress not
to the president. It depends on
Congress if they would give the
president the right to exercise such
power.
What is an emergency?
- In general, emergency connotes the
existence of conditions suddenly
intensifying the degree of existing
danger to life or well-being beyond
that which is accepted as normal.
- Emergencies were classified as 1.
Economic 2. Natural disasters. 3.
National Security.
- Strikes and riots are not covered by
the term “national emergency,”
UNLESS, they are of such
proportions that they would paralyze
gov’t service.
- Military national emergency can also
be economic emergency.
- Case in point for wisdom behind
emergency power: Araneta v.
Dingsalan.
Interpretation of Section 17, Article XII
- The proclamation does not authorize
the president during emergency to
temporarily take over or direct the
operation of any privately owned
public utility or business affected
with public interest WITHOUT
authority from Congress.
- President CAN declare a state of
national emergency but without
legislation, he has NO POWER, to
take over privately owned public
utility or business affected with
public interest.
- The President cannot decide
whether exceptional circumstances
exist warranting the take over of
privately-owned public utility or
 business affected with public
interest. Nor can he determine when
such exceptional circumstances have
ceased. Likewise, without
legislation, the President has no
power to point out the types of
businesses affected with public
interest that should be taken over. In
short, the President has no absolute
authority to exercise all the powers
of the State under Section 17, Article
VII in the absence of an emergency
powers act passed by Congress.
 Settled is the rule that courts are not at
liberty to declare statutes
invalid although they may be abused
and misabused and may afford an
opportunity for abuse in the manner of
application.The validity of a statute or
ordinance is to be determined from its
general purpose and its efficiency to
accomplish the end desired, not from its
effects in a particular case.
- G.O. No. 5 was issued to carry into
effect the provisions of PP 1017.
General orders are "acts and
commands of the President in his
capacity as Commander-in-Chief of
the Armed Forces of the
Philippines." They are internal rules
issued by the executive officer to his
subordinates precisely for
the proper and efficient
administration of law. These rules
must be: REASONABLE, NOT
ARBITRARY OR CAPRICOUS.
IMBONG V. OCHOA, JR.
FACTS: Congress enacted R.A. No. 10354,
otherwise known as the Responsible Parenthood
and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 (RH Law),
The RH Law is a measure to fortify and make
effective the current laws on contraception,
women’s health and population control.
Shortly after, petitioners coming from various
sectors of society moved to assail the
GILDA FLORES 1J SBU LAW
constitutionality of RH Law. Meanwhile, the RH-
IRR for the enforcement of the assailed
legislation took effect. The Court then issued a
Status Quo Ante Order which enjoined the effects
and implementation of the assailed the RH LAW.
STATCON ISSUE: Whether or not the
delegation of the Congress to the FDA is valid.
HELD (FOR STATCON ISSUE): (See notes
below)
 Republic Act no. 10354, otherwise
known as the Responsible Parenthood
and Reproductive Health Act of 2012
(RH law) – enacted by congress on
DECEMBER 21,2012.
 The court faced an IURIS
CONTROVERSY after the president
placed his imprimatur on the said law.
Iuris Controversy - also spelled as Sui
Juris. This is a latin term which means
“one’s own right.”
Imprimatur – means “let it be printed.”
Conscientious Objector – a person
who for reasons of conscience
objects to complying with a
particular requirement.
 Right to religious freedom – not absolute.
 RH Law fails to satisfy two tests:
Clear and present danger test - The
question in every case is whether the
words used are used in such
circumstances and are of such a
nature as to create a clear and present
danger that they will bring about the
substantive evils that Congress has a
right to prevent. It is a question of
proximity and degree.”
Compelling state interest test - a
check on pleas for religious
exemption, while at the same time, it
 guarantees religious under the free EFFECTIVE in accordance with
exercise clause by requiring only the scientific and evidence-based
strictest scrutiny of regulations. medical research standards.

The petitioners questioned the Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice

delegation by Congress to the FDA
of the power to determine whether
or not a supply or product is to be
included in the Essential Drugs
List.
The Court finds nothing wrong with
the delegation because the FDA has:
1. The power;
2. The competency to evaluate,
register, and cover health
services and methods;
It is also worth noting that the
FDA is the only government
entity empowered to render such
services and highly proficient to
do so.
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9711
- This case explains the philosophy
behind permitted delegation.
- For every permissible delegation, it
must be shown that the delegation is
valid.
- The wisdom/reason behind the
permissible delegation is the
increasing complexity of the task of
the government and the growing
inability of the legislature to cope
directly with the many problems
demanding its attention.
- Growth of society has ramified its
activities and created peculiar and
sophisticated problems that the
legislature cannot be expected
reasonably to comprehend.
- Specialization even in legislation has
become necessary.

- The provisions of the said act are

carried out by the Food and Drug
Administration. One of their powers
in relation to this case is to analyse
and inspect health products, as well
as to conduct appropriate tests on all
applicable health products prior to
the issuance of appropriate
authorizations to ensure safety,
efficacy, purity, and quality.
- From the enumerated functions of
the FDA in the said act, it can be
inferred that the mandate of
Congress to FDA to ensure public
health and safety by permitting only
food and medicines that are safe
includes service and methods.
- From the declared of the RH law, it
is clear that Congress intended that
the public be given only those
medicines that are proven
MEDICALLY SAFE, LEGAL,
NON-ABORTIFACIENT, AND

GILDA FLORES 1J SBU LAW