David, et. Al. - v - Arroyo, et al.

Facts:

1.       On February 24, 2006, as the nation celebrated the 20th Anniversary of the Edsa People Power I, President Arroyo issued PP 1017 declaring a state of national emergency.

2.       On the same day, the President issued G. O. No. 5 implementing PP 1017.

3.       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 NPA, 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 reigns of government as a clear and present danger.

4.       7 consolidated petitions for certiorari and prohibition allege that in issuing PP 1017  and  GO 5, President Arroyo committed grave abuse of discretion.

Issues:

A.    PROCEDURAL:

1)    WON the issuance of PP 1021 renders the petitions moot and academic. NO.

2)    WON petitioners in 171485 (Escudero et al.), G.R. Nos. 171400 (ALGI), 171483 (KMU et al.), 171489 (Cadiz et al.), and 171424 (Legarda) have legal standing. YES.

B.      SUBSTANTIVE:

1)    WON the Supreme Court can review the factual bases of PP 1017. - Burden of Petitioner. If he failed to do so, Court cannot investigate further.

2)    WON PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5 are unconstitutional. (See notes)

Ratio:

Locus standi is defined as "a right of appearance in a court of justice on a given question."

Private suits	Public Suits
governed by the "real-parties-in interest" rule the"real-party-in interest" is "the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit or the party entitled to the avails of the suit"	the plaintiff who asserts a "public right" in assailing an allegedly illegal official action, does so as a representative of the general public must have sufficient interest in the vindication of the public order and the securing of relief as a "citizen" or "taxpayer”

Taxpayer’s suit	Citizen’s suit
plaintiff is affected by the expenditure of public funds, while in the latter	he is but the mere instrument of the public concern

Court adopted the "direct injury" test in our jurisdiction. Vera doctrine - the validity of a statute must have "a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain direct injury as a result."

Taxpayers, voters, concerned citizens, and legislators may be accorded standing to sue, provided that the following requirements are met:

(1) the cases involve constitutional issues;

(2) for taxpayers, there must be a claim of illegal disbursement of public funds or that the tax measure is unconstitutional;

(3) for voters, there must be a showing of obvious interest in the validity of the election law in question;

(4) for concerned citizens, there must be a showing that the issues raised are of transcendental importance which must be settled early; and

(5) for legislators, there must be a claim that the official action complained of infringes upon their prerogatives as legislators.

Being a mere procedural technicality, the requirement of locus standi may be waived by the Court in the exercise of its discretion. Court has adopted a rule that even where the petitioners have failed to show direct injury, they have been allowed to sue under the principle of "transcendental importance.”

In application to the case at bar:

-          G.R. No. 171396 (David and Llamas), G.R. No. 171409, (Cacho-Olivares and Tribune Publishing Co. Inc) has legal standing - "direct injury" resulting from "illegal arrest" and "unlawful search" committed by police operatives pursuant to PP 1017.

-          G.R. No. 171485 (Congressmen) - in the interest of justice

-          G.R. No. 171400, (ALGI) - liberality rule, when the issue concerns a public right, it is sufficient that the petitioner is a citizen and has an interest in the execution of the laws

-          G.R. No. 171483, KMU’s assertion that PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5 violated its right to peaceful assembly deemed sufficient to give it legal standing

-          G.R. No. 171489, (Cadiz et al.) national officers of the IBP have no legal standing, having failed to allege any direct or potential injury which the IBP as an institution or its members may suffer as a consequence of the issuance of PP No. 1017 and G.O.  - too general an interest which is shared by other groups and the whole citizenry. BUT, in view of the transcendental importance of the issue, this Court declares that petitioner has locus standi.

-          G.R. No. 171424, Loren Legarda has no personality as a taxpayer to file the instant petition as there are no allegations of illegal disbursement of public funds. But considering once more the transcendental importance of the issue involved, this Court may relax the standing rules.

Question of locus standi is but corollary to the bigger question of proper exercise of judicial power. This is the underlying legal tenet of the "liberality doctrine" on legal standing. The validity of PP No. 1017 and G.O. No. 5 is a judicial question which is of paramount importance to the Filipino people thus call for the application of the "transcendental importance" doctrine.

Notes:

1.       Lifting of PP 1017 through the issuance of PP 1021 would have normally rendered this case moot and academic BUT the transcendental issues raised by the parties should not be "evaded;" they must be resolved to prevent future constitutional aberration.

2.       Court finds PP 1017 is constitutional insofar as it constitutes a call by the President for the AFP to prevent or suppress lawless violence. (Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution)

However, PP 1017’s extraneous provisions giving the President express or implied power (1) to issue decrees; (2) to direct the AFP to enforce obedience to all laws even those not related to lawless violence as well as decrees promulgated by the President; and (3) to impose standards on media or any form of prior restraint on the press, are ultra vires and unconstitutional. (Section 17, Article XII of the Constitution, the President, in the absence of a legislation, cannot take over privately-owned public utility and private business affected with public interest.)

3.       Court finds G.O. No. 5 valid. It is an Order issued by the President – acting as Commander-in-Chief – addressed to subalterns in the AFP to carry out the provisions of PP 1017. It provides a valid standard – that the military and the police should take only the "necessary and appropriate actions and measures to suppress and prevent acts of lawless violence."

But the words "acts of terrorism" found in G.O. No. 5 have not been legally defined and made punishable by Congress and should thus be deemed deleted (invalid) from the said G.O.

4.        (1) the warrantless arrest of petitioners Randolf S. David and Ronald Llamas; (2) the dispersal of the rallies and warrantless arrest of the KMU and NAFLU-KMU members; (3) the imposition of standards on media or any prior restraint on the press; and (4) the warrantless search of the Tribune offices and the whimsical seizures of some articles for publication and other materials, are not authorized by the Constitution, the law and jurisprudence. Not even by the valid provisions of PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5.

5.       Court cannot impose any civil, criminal or administrative sanctions on the individual police officers concerned. They have not been individually identified and given their day in court.

6.       During emergency, governmental action may vary in breadth and intensity from normal times, yet they should not be arbitrary as to unduly restrain our people’s liberty.

7.       It is possible to grant government the authority to cope with crises without surrendering the two vital principles of constitutionalism: 1) the maintenance of legal limits to arbitrary power, and 2) political responsibility of the government to the governed.

Note: I made this case digest when I was still a law student. The ones posted on my blog were not due for submission as part of any academic requirement. I want to remind you that there is no substitute to reading the full text of the case! Use at your own risk.