David vs. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. No.

171396, May 3, 2006

Facts:

This is a consolidated petition challenging the Presidential Proclamation No.

1017 and General Order No. 5 promulgated by Gloria Arroyo.She called upon the
Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the Philippine National Police (PNP), to
prevent and suppress acts of terrorism and lawless violence. Further directing the AFP
and the PNP to immediately carry out the necessary and appropriate actions and
measures to suppress and prevent any violence. Included in the prohibited actions
during that time is the conduct of any rallies and public assemblies. However
notwithstanding the expressed prohibition, a group of protesters conducted otherwise
including Randolf David as well as his companion which leads to their arrest without
warrant. Furthermore operatives of the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group
(CIDG) of the PNP, on the basis of PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5, raided the Daily Tribune
offices in Manila. Authorities justified such raids as an attribute of a strong presence
to convey to all media outlets not to connive nor aid assistance in aiding the rebels.
Believed that the promulgation and execution of the executive issuance encroach the
Constitutional limitations and trampled their Constitutional Rights, they appeared
before the court questioning the validity of such authority. However, for the court to
take cognizance and assert its Constitutional duty for Judicial Review, the court has to
identify;

Issue:

Whether or not petitioners are the real-party-in-interest whose rights are legally
demandable to seek redress in public suit.

Ruling:

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the legal standing of the petitioner as the
real-party-in-interest. In this case, the petitioner filed a public suit against public
officials asserting redress against violation of public rights. In so far as the
direct-injury test is to be satisfied, David and Llamas are indeed
real-parties-in-interest. They sustained direct-injury resulting from illegal arrest and
unlawful search committed by police operatives pursuant to PP 1017. Therefore,
needless to reiterate that, the Judicial branch has the legitimate authority to exercise
judicial review for the remedy of the petitioners who sustained direct-injury resulting
from the unlawful execution of the government of their police power.