EN BANC
EN BANC
EN BANC
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Decision 38<br />
G.R. Nos. 171396,<br />
171400<br />
171409, 171424, 171483<br />
171485, 171489<br />
doctrine of “constitutional dictatorship” and, eventually, to McIlwain’s<br />
“principle of constitutionalism” --- ultimately aim to solve one real problem<br />
in emergency governance, i.e., that of allotting increasing areas of<br />
discretionary power to the Chief Executive, while insuring that such<br />
powers will be exercised with a sense of political responsibility and<br />
under effective limitations and checks.<br />
Our Constitution has fairly coped with this problem. Fresh from the<br />
fetters of a repressive regime, the 1986 Constitutional Commission, in<br />
drafting the 1987 Constitution, endeavored to create a government in the<br />
concept of Justice Jackson’s “balanced power structure.” 102 Executive,<br />
legislative, and judicial powers are dispersed to the President, the Congress,<br />
and the Supreme Court, respectively. Each is supreme within its own<br />
sphere. But none has the monopoly of power in times of emergency.<br />
Each branch is given a role to serve as limitation or check upon the<br />
other. This system does not weaken the President, it just limits his<br />
power, using the language of McIlwain. In other words, in times of<br />
emergency, our Constitution reasonably demands that we repose a certain<br />
amount of faith in the basic integrity and wisdom of the Chief Executive but,<br />
at the same time, it obliges him to operate within carefully prescribed<br />
procedural limitations.<br />
a. “Facial Challenge”<br />
Petitioners contend that PP 1017 is void on its face because of its<br />
“overbreadth.” They claim that its enforcement encroached on both<br />
unprotected and protected rights under Section 4, Article III of the<br />
Constitution and sent a “chilling effect” to the citizens.<br />
A facial review of PP 1017, using the overbreadth doctrine, is<br />
uncalled for.<br />
102<br />
Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579; 72 Sup. Ct. 863; 96 L. Ed. 1153 (1952),<br />
See Concurring Opinion J. Jackson.