CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

ATTY. ALIANNA ARNICA MAMBATAO

DAVID V. ARROYO
G.R. NO. 171396 | May 3, 2006
Justice Sandoval-Gutierrez

FACT/S: On February 24, 2006, as the Filipino nation celebrated the 20th Anniversary of
the EDSA People Power I, President Arroyo issued PP 1017, implemented by G.O.
No. 5, declaring a state of national emergency. In their presentation of the
factual bases of PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5, respondents stated that the proximate
cause behind the executive issuances was the conspiracy among some
military officers, leftist insurgents of the New People’s Army, and some members
of the political opposition in a plot to unseat or assassinate President
Arroyo. They considered the aim to oust or assassinate the President and
take-over the reins of government as a clear and present danger. Petitioners
David and Llamas were arrested without warrants on February 24, 2006 on their
way to EDSA. Meanwhile, the offices of the newspaper Daily Tribune, which
was perceived to be anti-Arroyo, was searched without warrant at about
1:00 A.M. on February 25, 2006. Seized from the premises –in the absence of
any official of the Daily Tribune except the security guard of the building –were
several materials for publication. The law enforcers, a composite team of
PNP and AFP officers, cited as basis of the warrantless arrests and the
warrantless search and seizure was Presidential Proclamation 1017 issued
by then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in the exercise of her constitutional
power to call out the Armed Forces of the Philippines to prevent or
suppress lawless violence.

ISSUE/S: Whether or not the warrantless arrests of petitioners David, et al., made
pursuant to PP 1017, are valid.2. Whether or not PP 11017 is constitutional.

RULING/S: 1. No, the warrantless arrests of petitioners David, et al., made pursuant to PP
1017, were notvalid.Searches, seizures and arrests are normally unreasonable
unless authorized by a validly issued search warrant or warrant of arrest. Section
5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure provides [for the
following circumstances of valid warrantless arrests:

Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. -A peace officer or a private person
may, without a warrant, arrest a person:

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed,

is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense.

(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause
to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the
person to be arrested has committed it; and Justice Mendoza also stated that PP
1017 is not a declaration of Martial Law. It is no more than a call by the
President to the armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence. As
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
ATTY. ALIANNA ARNICA MAMBATAO

such, it cannot be used to justify acts that only under a valid declaration of
Martial Law can be done. Its use for any other purpose is a perversion of its
nature and scope, and any act done contrary to its command is ultra vires.
Justice Mendozafurther stated that specifically, (a) arrests and seizures without
judicial warrants; (b) ban on public assemblies; (c) take-over of news
media and agencies and press censorship; and (d) issuance of Presidential
Decrees, are powers which can be exercised by the President as Commander-in-
Chief only where there is a valid declaration of Martial Law or suspension of
the writ of habeas corpus. Based on the above disquisition, it is clear that
PP 1017 is not a declaration of Martial Law. It is merely an exercise of President
Arroyos calling-out power for the armed forces to assist her in preventing or
suppressing lawless violence.

2. Partially. 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
promulgatedby the President, are declared unconstitutional. In addition, the
provision in PP 1017 declaring national emergency under Section 17,
Article VII of the Constitution is constitutional, but such declaration does not
authorize the President to take over privately-owned public utility or business
affected with public interest without prior legislation. The Court partially granted
the petitions.