Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
v.
ARROYO
G.R.
No.
171396,
May
3
2006
[Legislative
Department
-
Power
to
Declare
War
and
Delegate
Emergency
Power]
FACTS:
On
February
24,
2006,
President
Arroyo
issued
PP
No.
1017
declaring
a
state
of
emergency,
thus:
NOW,
THEREFORE,
I,
Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo,
President
of
the
Republic
of
the
Philippines
and
Commander-in-Chief
of
the
Armed
Forces
of
the
Philippines,
[calling-out
power]
by
virtue
of
the
powers
vested
upon
me
by
Section
18,
Article
7
of
the
Philippine
Constitution
which
states
that:
The
President.
.
.
whenever
it
becomes
necessary,
.
.
.
may
call
out
(the)
armed
forces
to
prevent
or
suppress.
.
.rebellion.
.
.,
and
in
my
capacity
as
their
Commander-in-Chief,
do
hereby
command
the
Armed
Forces
of
the
Philippines,
to
maintain
law
and
order
throughout
the
Philippines,
prevent
or
suppress
all
forms
of
lawless
violence
as
well
as
any
act
of
insurrection
or
rebellion
["take
care"
power]
and
to
enforce
obedience
to
all
the
laws
and
to
all
decrees,
orders
and
regulations
promulgated
by
me
personally
or
upon
my
direction;
and
[power
to
take
over]
as
provided
in
Section
17,
Article
12
of
the
Constitution
do
hereby
declare
a
State
of
National
Emergency.
On
the
same
day,
PGMA
issued
G.O.
No.
5
implementing
PP1017,
directing
the
members
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."
David,
et
al.
assailed
PP
1017
on
the
grounds
that
(1)
it
encroaches
on
the
emergency
powers
of
Congress;
(2)
it
is
a
subterfuge
to
avoid
the
constitutional
requirements
for
the
imposition
of
martial
law;
and
(3)
it
violates
the
constitutional
guarantees
of
freedom
of
the
press,
of
speech
and
of
assembly.
They
alleged
direct
injury
resulting
from
illegal
arrest
and
unlawful
search
committed
by
police
operatives
pursuant
to
PP
1017.
During
the
hearing,
the
Solicitor
General
argued
that
the
issuance
of
PP
1017
and
GO
5
have
factual
basis,
and
contended
that
the
intent
of
the
Constitution
is
to
give
full
discretionary
powers
to
the
President
in
determining
the
necessity
of
calling
out
the
armed
forces.
The
petitioners
did
not
contend
the
facts
stated
b
the
Solicitor
General.
ISSUE:
Whether
or
not
the
PP
1017
and
G.O.
No.
5
is
constitutional.
RULING:
The
operative
portion
of
PP
1017
may
be
divided
into
three
important
provisions,
thus:
First
provision:
by
virtue
of
the
power
vested
upon
me
by
Section
18,
Artilce
VII
do
hereby
command
the
Armed
Forces
of
the
Philippines,
to
maintain
law
and
order
throughout
the
Philippines,
prevent
or
suppress
all
forms
of
lawless
violence
as
well
any
act
of
insurrection
or
rebellion
Second
provision:
and
to
enforce
obedience
to
all
the
laws
and
to
all
decrees,
orders
and
regulations
promulgated
by
me
personally
or
upon
my
direction;
Third
provision:
as
provided
in
Section
17,
Article
XII
of
the
Constitution
do
hereby
declare
a
State
of
National
Emergency.
PP
1017
is
partially
constitutional
insofar
as
provided
by
the
first
provision
of
the
decree.
First
Provision:
Calling
Out
Power.
The
only
criterion
for
the
exercise
of
the
calling-out
power
is
that
whenever
it
becomes
necessary,
the
President
may
call
the
armed
forces
to
prevent
or
suppress
lawless
violence,
invasion
or
rebellion.
(Integrated
Bar
of
the
Philippines
v.
Zamora)
President
Arroyos
declaration
of
a
state
of
rebellion
was
merely
an
act
declaring
a
status
or
condition
of
public
moment
or
interest,
a
declaration
allowed
under
Section
4,
Chap
2,
Bk
II
of
the
Revised
Administration
Let
it
be
emphasized
that
while
the
President
alone
can
declare
a
state
of
national
emergency,
however,
without
legislation,
he
has
no
power
to
take
over
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.
As
of
G.O.
No.
5,
it
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.