Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 32 views

    David vs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo G.R. No. 171396 CASE DIGEST

    Uploaded by

    Brenda de la Gente
    This case involves 7 petitions challenging the validity of Proclamation No. 1017 issued by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo declaring a state of national emergency. The issues are whether PP 1017 arrogated upon the President the power to enact laws and decrees, and if so, whether PP 1017 is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court rules that while the President has the power to ensure that laws are faithfully executed, PP 1017 is unconstitutional insofar as it grants the President the authority to promulgate "decrees", as legislative power belongs solely with Congress. The Court also finds that the President cannot enforce decrees, as they are void, nor can she use the military to enforce all laws

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    David vs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo G.R. No. 171396 CASE DIGEST

    Uploaded by

    Brenda de la Gente
    32 views3 pages
    This case involves 7 petitions challenging the validity of Proclamation No. 1017 issued by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo declaring a state of national emergency. The issues are whether PP 1017 arrogated upon the President the power to enact laws and decrees, and if so, whether PP 1017 is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court rules that while the President has the power to ensure that laws are faithfully executed, PP 1017 is unconstitutional insofar as it grants the President the authority to promulgate "decrees", as legislative power belongs solely with Congress. The Court also finds that the President cannot enforce decrees, as they are void, nor can she use the military to enforce all laws

    Original Description:

    David vs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo G.R. No. 171396 CASE DIGEST

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves 7 petitions challenging the validity of Proclamation No. 1017 issued by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo declaring a state of national emergency. The issues are whether PP 1017 arrogated upon the President the power to enact laws and decrees, and if so, whether PP 1017 is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court rules that while the President has the power to ensure that laws are faithfully executed, PP 1017 is unconstitutional insofar as it grants the President the authority to promulgate "decrees", as legislative power belongs solely with Congress. The Court also finds that the President cannot enforce decrees, as they are void, nor can she use the military to enforce all laws

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    32 views3 pages

    David vs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo G.R. No. 171396 CASE DIGEST

    Uploaded by

    Brenda de la Gente
    This case involves 7 petitions challenging the validity of Proclamation No. 1017 issued by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo declaring a state of national emergency. The issues are whether PP 1017 arrogated upon the President the power to enact laws and decrees, and if so, whether PP 1017 is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court rules that while the President has the power to ensure that laws are faithfully executed, PP 1017 is unconstitutional insofar as it grants the President the authority to promulgate "decrees", as legislative power belongs solely with Congress. The Court also finds that the President cannot enforce decrees, as they are void, nor can she use the military to enforce all laws

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    Prof. Randolf S. David vs.

    Gloria
    Macapagal-Arroyo G.R. No. 171396,
    May 3, 2006
    Prof. Randolf S. David vs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo

    G.R. No. 171396, May 3, 2006

    FACTS:

    These 7 consolidated petitions question the validity of PP


    1017 (declaring a state of national emergency) and
    General Order No. 5 issued by President Gloria
    Macapagal-Arroyo. While the cases are pending,
    President Arroyo issued PP 1021, declaring that the state
    of national emergency has ceased to exist, thereby, in
    effect, lifting PP 1017.

    ISSUE:

    * Whether or not PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5 arrogated upon


    the President the power to enact laws and decrees
    * If so, whether or not PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5 are
    unconstitutional

    HELD:

    “Take-Care” Power

    This refers to the power of the President to ensure that the


    laws be faithfully executed, based on Sec. 17, Art. VII:
    “The President shall have control of all the executive
    departments, bureaus and offices. He shall ensure that the
    laws be faithfully executed.”

    As the Executive in whom the executive power is vested,


    the primary function of the President is to enforce the laws
    as well as to formulate policies to be embodied in existing
    laws. He sees to it that all laws are enforced by the
    officials and employees of his department. Before
    assuming office, he is required to take an oath or
    affirmation to the effect that as President of the
    Philippines, he will, among others, “execute its laws.” In
    the exercise of such function, the President, if needed,
    may employ the powers attached to his office as the
    Commander-in-Chief of all the armed forces of the
    country, including the Philippine National Police under the
    Department of Interior and Local Government.

    The specific portion of PP 1017 questioned is the enabling


    clause: “to enforce obedience to all the laws and to all
    decrees, orders and regulations promulgated by me
    personally or upon my direction.”

    Is it within the domain of President Arroyo to promulgate


    “decrees”?

    The President is granted an Ordinance Power under


    Chap. 2, Book III of E.O. 292. President Arroyo’s
    ordinance power is limited to those issuances mentioned
    in the foregoing provision. She cannot issue decrees
    similar to those issued by Former President Marcos under
    PP 1081. Presidential Decrees are laws which are of the
    same category and binding force as statutes because they
    were issued by the President in the exercise of his
    legislative power during the period of Martial Law under
    the 1973 Constitution.

    This Court rules that the assailed PP 1017 is


    unconstitutional insofar as it grants President Arroyo the
    authority to promulgate “decrees.” Legislative power is
    peculiarly within the province of the Legislature. Sec. 1,
    Art. VI categorically states that “the legislative power shall
    be vested in the Congress of the Philippines which shall
    consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.” To
    be sure, neither Martial Law nor a state of rebellion nor a
    state of emergency can justify President Arroyo’s exercise
    of legislative power by issuing decrees.

    But can President Arroyo enforce obedience to all decrees


    and laws through the military?

    As this Court stated earlier, President Arroyo has no


    authority to enact decrees. It follows that these decrees
    are void and, therefore, cannot be enforced. With respect
    to “laws,” she cannot call the military to enforce or
    implement certain laws, such as customs laws, laws
    governing family and property relations, laws on
    obligations and contracts and the like. She can only order
    the military, under PP 1017, to enforce laws pertinent to its
    duty to suppress lawless violence.

    You might also like