Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

DAVIDVS.

MACAPAGAL-ARROYO
G.R.No.171396,May32006

FACTS:
On February 24, 2006, as the nation celebrated the 20thAnniversary of theEDSA
People Power I, President Arroyo issuedPresidential Proclamation No. 1017 (PP
1017)declaringaStateofNationalEmergency.Onthesameday,thePresidentissued
GeneralOrderNo.5(G.O.No.5)implementingPP1017.Theproximatecausebehind
the executive issuances was the conspiracy among some military officers, leftist
insurgents of the New Peoples Army (NPA), and some members of the political
opposition in a plot to unseat or assassinate President Arroyo. The President
considered the aim to oust or assassinate the President and take-over the reign of
government as a clear and present danger. All programs and activities related to the
20thanniversary celebration ofEDSA People Power I are cancelled. Likewise, all
permits to hold rallies issued earlier by the local governments are revoked. Justice
SecretaryRaulGonzalesstatedthatpoliticalrallies,whichtothePresidentsmindwere
organized for purposes of destabilization, are cancelled.Presidential Chief of Staff
Michael Defensor announced that warrantless arrests and take-over of facilities,
includingmedia,canalreadybeimplemented.Duringthedispersaloftherallyistsalong
EDSA, police arrested (without warrant) petitioner Randolf S. David, a professor at the
University of the Philippines and newspaper columnist.

Exactly one week after the declaration of a state of national emergency, the President
liftedPP1017byissuingProclamationNo.1021.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the issuance of PP 1021 renders the petitions moot and academic.

HELD:
Mootandacademiccase-onethatceasestopresentajusticiablecontroversybyvirtue
of supervening events, so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or
value. Generally, courts decline jurisdiction over such case or dismiss it on ground of
mootness.
TheCourtholdsthatPresidentArroyosissuanceofPP1021didnotrenderthepresent
petitions moot and academic.During the eight (8) days that PP 1017 was operative,
the police officers, according to petitioners, committed illegal acts in implementing
it.Are PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5 constitutional or valid?Do they justify these alleged
illegalacts?Thesearethevitalissuesthatmustberesolvedinthepresentpetitions.It
must be stressed that an unconstitutional act is not a law, it confers no rights, it
imposesnoduties,itaffordsnoprotection;itisinlegalcontemplation,inoperative.

The moot and academic principle is not a magical formula that can automatically
dissuade the courts in resolving a case.Courts will decide cases, otherwise moot and
academic,if:first,thereisagraveviolationoftheConstitution;second,theexceptional
character of the situation and the paramount public interest is involved; third, when
constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the
bench,thebar,andthepublic;andfourth,thecaseiscapableofrepetitionyetevading
review.

All the foregoing exceptions are present here and justify this Courts assumption of
jurisdiction over the instant petitions.Petitioners alleged that the issuance of PP 1017
and G.O. No. 5 violates the Constitution.There is no question that the issues being
raised affect the publics interest, involving as they do the peoples basic rights to
freedomofexpression,ofassemblyandofthepress.Moreover,theCourthastheduty
toformulateguidingandcontrollingconstitutionalprecepts,doctrinesorrules.Ithasthe
symbolic function of educating the bench and the bar, and in the present petitions,the
military and the police, on the extent of the protection given by constitutional
guarantees. And lastly, respondents contested actions are capable of
repetition.Certainly,thepetitionsaresubjecttojudicialreview.Readfulltext

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi