David vs Arroyo was labeled by Project Jurisprudence as a “landmark” case. Initially known as the CPR case (of which CPR stands for “calibrated preemptive response”), Justice Sandoval-Gutierrez quoted then Chief Justice Panganiban on how the Court then handled the case, to wit:
Digging through my old review notes, I found some notes in Constitutional Law that might be worth salvaging. Since I feel like preserving some of these studies, I might as well post them here for everyone else to analyze as well.
Just a little disclaimer. It’s not a guarantee that they will not be asked just because the notes and cases are more than a decade old. References are included either as annotations or embedded links.
“In cases involving liberty, the scales of justice should weigh heavily against government and in favor of the poor, the oppressed, the marginalized, the dispossessed and the weak.”Justice Artemio Panganiban
This means that the measures done by the government to keep the State in order are scrutinized in the seven (7) petitions filed against the respondents seen as acting in their governmental capacity.
If you have the read decision in itself (and still made it to my article), good for you. Chances are you’re also aware of how it became a master class in political philosophy intertwined with Constitutional Law. Thanks to Professor Jimenez, the tidbits focusing on the decisions based on Constitutional Law are digested for the rest of Bar Reviewers to analyze.
Absence of Probable Cause
The President issued Proclamation No. 1017, which declared a state of national emergency. The Presidential Chief of Staff announced that warrantless arrests could be implemented. During the dispersal of a rally, petitioner was arrested without a warrant and was charged with violation of the Public Assembly Act and inciting to sedition.
HELD: The instances when a lawful warrantless arrest may be made do not justify the warrantless arrest of petitioner. All that the arresting officers could invoke was that some rallyists were wearing t-shirts with the slogan “Oust Gloria Now” and their erroneous assumption was that petitioner was the leader of the rally. Petitioner was not wearing the t-shirt. Even if he was wearing it, such fact is insufficient for charging him with inciting to sedition.David vs Arroyo, 489 SCRA 162
Freedom of the Press
The President issued Proclamation No. 1017, which declared a state of national emergency, and General Order No. 5 which directed the Armed Forced of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police to carry out the necessary and appropriate actions and measures to suppress and prevent acts of terrorism and lawless violence.
Policemen raided the office of The Daily Tribune and seized materials for publication. Policemen were stationed inside and outside the office of The Daily Tribune.
The Director General of the Philippine National Police warned that if the media do not follow the standards set by the government during the state of national emergency, he would recommend their take over. The Commissioner of the National Telecommunications Commission warned that he would not hesitate to recommend the closure of any broadcast outfit that would violate the rules for media coverage when the national security is threatened.
HELD: The search and seizure materials for publication, the stationing of policeman in the vicinity of the office of The Daily Tribune, and the arrogant warning of government officials to media are plain censorship.David vs Arroyo, 489 SCRA 162
The probability of these issues coming up in the following Bar Exams is not new. As some Bar Exam Questionnaire compilers noticed (not naming anyone), any section of the Constitutional Bill of Rights is a Bar Question favorite. For good reason. Because these issues keep getting brought up depending on the current circumstances.
So keep these notes for the sake of reviewing at law school. Know when to use them at the right time when the right circumstances require you to.