Bayan, Et Al. vs. Eduardo Ermita, Et

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 8/20/2019 Bayan, Et Al. vs. Eduardo Ermita, Et

    1/30

    BAYAN, ET AL. VS. EDUARDO ERMITA, ET ...

    Republic of the Philippines

    SUPREME COURT

    Manila

    EN BANC

    G.R. No. 169838 April 25, 2006

    BAYAN, KARAPATAN, K!USANG MAGBUBUK" NG P!PNAS #KMP$,

    GABRE!A, %r. &o'( "i)o*, R(*+o Co*'+*i*o, &r., %ro-(l Y+*()+, +* %+/i+ T++r,

    Petitioners,

    vs.

    E"UAR"O ERMTA, i* /i' +p+i- +' E(4i( S(r(+r-, M+*il+ Ci- M+-or !TO

    ATENA, C/i(7 o7 /( P/ilippi*( N+io*+l Poli(, G(*. ARTURO M. !OMBAO,

    NCRPO C/i(7 M+. G(*. "A! UERO!, +* :('(r* Poli( "i'ri C/i(7 G(*.PE"RO BU!AONG, Respondents.

    x---------------------------------x

    G.R. No. 1698;8 April 25, 2006

    &('' "(l Pr+o, :il'o* %or+l()+, !(o- ( G4)+*, P(ro Pi*l+, C+r(li+ Mor+*(,

    R+'i "(li)o, P+4l B+*

  • 8/20/2019 Bayan, Et Al. vs. Eduardo Ermita, Et

    2/30

    Pr('i(*, &OSE!TO . USTARE, ANTONO C. PASCUA!, SA!A"OR T.

    CARRANA, G!"A SUM!ANG, %RANCSCO !ASTRE!!A, +* ROUE M. TAN,

    Petitioners,vs.

    T>E >ONORAB!E E@ECUTE SECRETARY, PNP "RECTOR GENRA! ARTURO

    !OMBAO, >ONORAB!E MAYOR !TO ATENA, +* PNP MP" C>E% SUPT.PE"RO BU!AONG, Respondents.

    D E C ! " N

    ACUNA,  J.:

    Petitioners co#e in three $roups.

    %he first petitioners, B+-+*, ( +l., in &.R. No. '()*+*,' alle$e that the are citiens and

    taxpaers of the Philippines and that their ri$hts as or$aniations and individuals ere violated

    hen the rall the participated in on "ctober (, /001 as violentl dispersed b police#eni#ple#entin$ Batas Pa#bansa 2B.P.3 No. **0.

    %he second $roup consists of /( individual petitioners, &('' (l Pr+o, ( +l., in &.R. No.'()*4*,/ ho alle$e that the ere in5ured, arrested and detained hen a peaceful #ass action

    the held on !epte#ber /(, /001 as pree#pted and violentl dispersed b the police. %he

    further assert that on "ctober 1, /001, a $roup the participated in #arched to Malaca6an$ to

     protest issuances of the Palace hich, the clai#, put the countr under an 7undeclared7 #artialrule, and the protest as li8eise dispersed violentl and #an a#on$ the# ere arrested and

    suffered in5uries.

    %he third $roup, Kil4'+*< M+-o U*o #KMU$, ( +l., petitioners in &.R. No. '()**',

    +

     alle$ethat the conduct peaceful #ass actions and that their ri$hts as or$aniations and those of theirindividual #e#bers as citiens, specificall the ri$ht to peaceful asse#bl, are affected b Batas

    Pa#bansa No. **0 and the polic of 7Calibrated Pree#ptive Response7 2CPR3 bein$ folloed to

    i#ple#ent it.

    KMU, ( +l., clai# that on "ctober 4, /001, a rall 9M: co-sponsored as to be conducted at

    the Mendiola brid$e but police bloc8ed the# alon$ C.M. Recto and ;epanto !treets and forcibl

    dispersed the#, causin$ in5uries to several of their #e#bers. %he further alle$e that on "ctober

    (, /001, a #ulti-sectoral rall hich 9M: also co-sponsored as scheduled to proceed alon$Espa6a Avenue in front of the :niversit of !anto %o#as and $oin$ toards Mendiola brid$e.

    Police officers bloc8ed the# alon$ Morata !treet and prevented the# fro# proceedin$ further.%he ere then forcibl dispersed, causin$ in5uries on one of the#.4 %hree other rallists erearrested.

    All petitioners assail Batas Pa#bansa No. **0, so#e of the# in toto and others onl !ections 4,

    1, (, '/, '+2a3, and '42a3, as ell as the polic of CPR. %he see8 to stop violent dispersals of

    rallies under the 7no per#it, no rall7 polic and the CPR polic recentl announced.

    http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#fnt1

  • 8/20/2019 Bayan, Et Al. vs. Eduardo Ermita, Et

    3/30

    B.P. No. **0, 7%he Public Asse#bl Act of ')*1,7 provides<

    Batas Pa#bansa Bl$. **0

    An Act Ensurin$ %he =ree Exercise B %he People "f %heir Ri$ht Peaceabl %o Asse#ble And

    Petition %he &overn#ent >And? =or "ther Purposes

     Be it enacted by the Batasang Pambansa in session assembled:

    !ection '. Title. @ %his Act shall be 8non as 7%he Public Asse#bl Act of ')*1.7

    !ec. /. Declaration of policy. @ %he constitutional ri$ht of the people peaceabl to asse#ble and

     petition the $overn#ent for redress of $rievances is essential and vital to the stren$th and

    stabilit of the !tate. %o this end, the !tate shall ensure the free exercise of such ri$ht ithout pre5udice to the ri$hts of others to life, libert and eual protection of the la.

    !ec. +. Definition of terms. @ =or purposes of this Act<

    2a3 7Public asse#bl7 #eans an rall, de#onstration, #arch, parade, procession or an

    other for# of #ass or concerted action held in a public place for the purpose of presentin$ a laful cause or expressin$ an opinion to the $eneral public on an particular 

    issue or protestin$ or influencin$ an state of affairs hether political, econo#ic or

    social or petitionin$ the $overn#ent for redress of $rievances.

    %he processions, rallies, parades, de#onstrations, public #eetin$s and asse#bla$es forreli$ious purposes shall be $overned b local ordinances Provided, however , %hat the

    declaration of polic as provided in !ection / of this Act shall be faithfull observed.

    %he definition herein contained shall not include pic8etin$ and other concerted action in

    stri8e areas b or8ers and e#ploees resultin$ fro# a labor dispute as defined b the;abor Code, its i#ple#entin$ rules and re$ulations, and b the Batas Pa#bansa Bilan$

    //.

    2b3 7Public place7 shall include an hi$ha, boulevard, avenue, road, street, brid$e or

    other thorou$hfare, par8, plaa, suare, andor an open space of public onership herethe people are alloed access.

    2c3 7Maxi#u# tolerance7 #eans the hi$hest de$ree of restraint that the #ilitar, police

    and other peace 8eepin$ authorities shall observe durin$ a public asse#bl or in thedispersal of the sa#e.

    2d3 7Modification of a per#it7 shall include the chan$e of the place and ti#e of the public

    asse#bl, reroutin$ of the parade or street #arch, the volu#e of loud-spea8ers or sound

    sste# and si#ilar chan$es.

  • 8/20/2019 Bayan, Et Al. vs. Eduardo Ermita, Et

    4/30

    !ec. 4. Permit when required and when not required . @ A ritten per#it shall be reuired for an

     person or persons to or$anie and hold a public asse#bl in a public place. oever, no per#it

    shall be reuired if the public asse#bl shall be done or #ade in a freedo# par8 dul established b la or ordinance or in private propert, in hich case onl the consent of the oner or the one

    entitled to its le$al possession is reuired, or in the ca#pus of a $overn#ent-oned and operated

    educational institution hich shall be sub5ect to the rules and re$ulations of said educationalinstitution. Political #eetin$s or rallies held durin$ an election ca#pai$n period as provided for

     b la are not covered b this Act.

    !ec. 1. Application requirements. @ All applications for a per#it shall co#pl ith the folloin$

    $uidelines<

    2a3 %he applications shall be in ritin$ and shall include the na#es of the leaders or

    or$aniers the purpose of such public asse#bl the date, ti#e and duration thereof, and

     place or streets to be used for the intended activit and the probable nu#ber of persons

     participatin$, the transport and the public address sste#s to be used.

    2b3 %he application shall incorporate the dut and responsibilit of the applicant under

    !ection * hereof.

    2c3 %he application shall be filed ith the office of the #aor of the cit or #unicipalit

    in hose 5urisdiction the intended activit is to be held, at least five 213 or8in$ das before the scheduled public asse#bl.

    2d3 :pon receipt of the application, hich #ust be dul ac8noled$ed in ritin$, the

    office of the cit or #unicipal #aor shall cause the sa#e to i##ediatel be posted at a

    conspicuous place in the cit or #unicipal buildin$.

    !ec. (. Action to be taken on the application. @ 

    2a3 t shall be the dut of the #aor or an official actin$ in his behalf to issue or $rant a

     per#it unless there is clear and convincin$ evidence that the public asse#bl ill create a

    clear and present dan$er to public order, public safet, public convenience, public #oralsor public health.

    2b3 %he #aor or an official actin$ in his behalf shall act on the application ithin to

    2/3 or8in$ das fro# the date the application as filed, failin$ hich, the per#it shall

     be dee#ed $ranted. !hould for an reason the #aor or an official actin$ in his behalf

    refuse to accept the application for a per#it, said application shall be posted b theapplicant on the pre#ises of the office of the #aor and shall be dee#ed to have been

    filed.

    2c3 f the #aor is of the vie that there is i##inent and $rave dan$er of a substantiveevil arrantin$ the denial or #odification of the per#it, he shall i##ediatel infor# the

    applicant ho #ust be heard on the #atter.

  • 8/20/2019 Bayan, Et Al. vs. Eduardo Ermita, Et

    5/30

    2d3 %he action on the per#it shall be in ritin$ and served on the applica>nt? ithin

    tent-four hours.

    2e3 f the #aor or an official actin$ in his behalf denies the application or #odifies theter#s thereof in his per#it, the applicant #a contest the decision in an appropriate court

    of la.

    2f3 n case suit is brou$ht before the Metropolitan %rial Court, the Municipal %rial Court,

    the Municipal Circuit %rial Court, the Re$ional %rial Court, or the nter#ediate Appellatecourt, its decisions #a be appealed to the appropriate court ithin fort-ei$ht 24*3 hours

    after receipt of the sa#e. No appeal bond and record on appeal shall be reuired. A

    decision $rantin$ such per#it or #odifin$ it in ter#s satisfactor to the applicant shall be i##ediatel executor.

    2$3 All cases filed in court under this section shall be decided ithin tent-four 2/43

    hours fro# date of filin$. Cases filed hereunder shall be i##ediatel endorsed to the

    executive 5ud$e for disposition or, in his absence, to the next in ran8.

    2h3 n all cases, an decision #a be appealed to the !upre#e Court.

    2i3 %ele$raphic appeals to be folloed b for#al appeals are hereb alloed.

    !ec. . se of Public throroughfare. @ !hould the proposed public asse#bl involve the use, for

    an appreciable len$th of ti#e, of an public hi$ha, boulevard, avenue, road or street, the

    #aor or an official actin$ in his behalf #a, to prevent $rave public inconvenience, desi$natethe route thereof hich is convenient to the participants or reroute the vehicular traffic to another 

    direction so that there ill be no serious or undue interference ith the free flo of co##erce

    and trade.

    !ec. *. !esponsibility of applicant . @ t shall be the dut and responsibilit of the leaders andor$aniers of a public asse#bl to ta8e all reasonable #easures and steps to the end that the

    intended public asse#bl shall be conducted peacefull in accordance ith the ter#s of the

     per#it. %hese shall include but not be li#ited to the folloin$<

    2a3 %o infor# the participants of their responsibilit under the per#it"avvphi"#net 

    2b3 %o police the ran8s of the de#onstrators in order to prevent non-de#onstrators fro#disruptin$ the laful activities of the public asse#bl

    2c3 %o confer ith local $overn#ent officials concerned and la enforcers to the end that

    the public asse#bl #a be held peacefull

    2d3 %o see to it that the public asse#bl underta8en shall not $o beond the ti#e stated inthe per#it and

  • 8/20/2019 Bayan, Et Al. vs. Eduardo Ermita, Et

    6/30

    2e3 %o ta8e positive steps that de#onstrators do not #olest an person or do an act

    undul interferin$ ith the ri$hts of other persons not participatin$ in the public

    asse#bl.

    !ec. ). $on%interference by law enforcement authorities. @ ;a enforce#ent a$encies shall not

    interfere ith the holdin$ of a public asse#bl. oever, to adeuatel ensure public safet, ala enforce#ent contin$ent under the co##and of a responsible police officer #a be detailed

    and stationed in a place at least one hundred 2'003 #eters aa fro# the area of activit read to#aintain peace and order at all ti#es.

    !ec. '0. Police assistance when requested . @ t shall be i#perative for la enforce#ent a$encies,

    hen their assistance is reuested b the leaders or or$aniers, to perfor# their duties alas#indful that their responsibilit to provide proper protection to those exercisin$ their ri$ht

     peaceabl to asse#ble and the freedo# of expression is pri#ordial. %oards this end, la

    enforce#ent a$encies shall observe the folloin$ $uidelines<

    2a3 Me#bers of the la enforce#ent contin$ent ho deal ith the de#onstrators shall bein co#plete unifor# ith their na#eplates and units to hich the belon$ displaed

     pro#inentl on the front and dorsal parts of their unifor# and #ust observe the polic of

    7#axi#u# tolerance7 as herein defined

    2b3 %he #e#bers of the la enforce#ent contin$ent shall not carr an 8ind of firear#s but #a be euipped ith baton or riot stic8s, shields, crash hel#ets ith visor, $as

    #as8s, boots or an8le hi$h shoes ith shin $uards

    2c3 %ear $as, s#o8e $renades, ater cannons, or an si#ilar anti-riot device shall not be

    used unless the public asse#bl is attended b actual violence or serious threats of

    violence, or deliberate destruction of propert.

    !ec# ''. Dispersal of public assembly with permit . @ No public asse#bl ith a per#it shall be

    dispersed. oever, hen an asse#bl beco#es violent, the police #a disperse such public

    asse#bl as follos<

    2a3 At the first si$n of i#pendin$ violence, the ran8in$ officer of the la enforce#ent

    contin$ent shall call the attention of the leaders of the public asse#bl and as8 the latter

    to prevent an possible disturbance

    2b3 f actual violence starts to a point here roc8s or other har#ful ob5ects fro# the

     participants are thron at the police or at the non-participants, or at an propert causin$da#a$e to such propert, the ran8in$ officer of the la enforce#ent contin$ent shall

    audibl arn the participants that if the disturbance persists, the public asse#bl ill be

    dispersed

    2c3 f the violence or disturbance prevailin$ as stated in the precedin$ subpara$raph

    should not stop or abate, the ran8in$ officer of the la enforce#ent contin$ent shall

  • 8/20/2019 Bayan, Et Al. vs. Eduardo Ermita, Et

    7/30

    audibl issue a arnin$ to the participants of the public asse#bl, and after alloin$ a

    reasonable period of ti#e to lapse, shall i##ediatel order it to forthith disperse

    2d3 No arrest of an leader, or$anier or participant shall also be #ade durin$ the publicasse#bl unless he violates durin$ the asse#bl a la, statute, ordinance or an

     provision of this Act. !uch arrest shall be $overned b Article '/1 of the Revised PenalCode, as a#ended

    2e3 solated acts or incidents of disorder or breach of the peace durin$ the publicasse#bl shall not constitute a $round for dispersal.

    !ec. '/. Dispersal of public assembly without permit . @ Fhen the public asse#bl is held

    ithout a per#it here a per#it is reuired, the said public asse#bl #a be peacefull

    dispersed.

    !ec. '+. Prohibited acts. @ %he folloin$ shall constitute violations of the Act<

    2a3 %he holdin$ of an public asse#bl as defined in this Act b an leader or or$anier

    ithout havin$ first secured that ritten per#it here a per#it is reuired fro# the office

    concerned, or the use of such per#it for such purposes in an place other than those setout in said per#it

  • 8/20/2019 Bayan, Et Al. vs. Eduardo Ermita, Et

    8/30

    4. the carrin$ of firear#s b #e#bers of the la enforce#ent unit

    1. the interferin$ ith or intentionall disturbin$ the holdin$ of a public asse#bl

     b the use of a #otor vehicle, its horns and loud sound sste#s.

    !ec. '4. Penalties. @ An person found $uilt and convicted of an of the prohibited acts definedin the i##ediatel precedin$ section shall be punished as follos<

    2a3 violation of subpara$raph 2a3 shall be punished b i#prison#ent of one #onth and

    one da to six #onths

    2b3 violations of subpara$raphs 2b3, 2c3, 2d3, 2e3, 2f3, and ite# 4, subpara$raph 2$3 shall be punished b i#prison#ent of six #onths and one da to six ears

    2c3 violation of ite# ', subpara$raph 2$3 shall be punished b i#prison#ent of six

    #onths and one da to six ears ithout pre5udice to prosecution under Presidential

    Decree No. '*((

    2d3 violations of ite# /, ite# +, or ite# 1 of subpara$raph 2$3 shall be punished bi#prison#ent of one da to thirt das.

    !ec. '1. &reedom parks. @ Ever cit and #unicipalit in the countr shall ithin six #onths

    after the effectivit of this Act establish or desi$nate at least one suitable 7freedo# par87 or #all

    in their respective 5urisdictions hich, as far as practicable, shall be centrall located ithin the poblacion here de#onstrations and #eetin$s #a be held at an ti#e ithout the need of an

     prior per#it.

    n the cities and #unicipalities of Metropolitan Manila, the respective #aors shall establish thefreedo# par8s ithin the period of six #onths fro# the effectivit this Act.

    !ec. '(. 'onstitutionality. @ !hould an provision of this Act be declared invalid or

    unconstitutional, the validit or constitutionalit of the other provisions shall not be affected

    thereb.

    !ec. '. !epealing clause. @ All las, decrees, letters of instructions, resolutions, orders,ordinances or parts thereof hich are inconsistent ith the provisions of this Act are hereb

    repealed, a#ended, or #odified accordin$l.

    !ec. '*# (ffectivity. @ %his Act shall ta8e effect upon its approval.

    Approved, "ctober //, ')*1.

    CPR, on the other hand, is a polic set forth in a press release b Malaca6an$ dated !epte#ber/', /001, shon in Annex 7A7 to the Petition in &.R. No. '()*4*, thus<

    Malaca6an$ "fficial

  • 8/20/2019 Bayan, Et Al. vs. Eduardo Ermita, Et

    9/30

    Manila, Philippines NEF!

    Release No. / !epte#ber /', /001

    !%A%EMEN% "= EGEC:%HE !ECRE%ARI ED:ARD" ERM%A

    )n nlawful *ass Actions

    n vie of intelli$ence reports pointin$ to credible plans of anti-$overn#ent $roups to infla#ethe political situation, so disorder and incite people a$ainst the dul constituted authorities, e

    have instructed the PNP as ell as the local $overn#ent units to strictl enforce a 7no per#it, no

    rall7 polic, disperse $roups that run afoul of this standard and arrest all persons violatin$ thelas of the land as ell as ordinances on the proper conduct of #ass actions and de#onstrations.

    %he rule of calibrated pree#ptive response is no in force, in lieu of #axi#u# tolerance. %he

    authorities ill not stand aside hile those ith ill intent are herdin$ a ittin$ or unittin$ #ass

    of people and incitin$ the# into actions that are ini#ical to public order, and the peace of #indof the national co##unit.

    :nlaful #ass actions ill be dispersed. %he #a5orit of la-abidin$ citiens have the ri$ht to

     be protected b a vi$ilant and proactive $overn#ent.

    Fe appeal to the detractors of the $overn#ent to en$a$e in laful and peaceful conduct befittin$

    of a de#ocratic societ.

    %he PresidentJs call for unit and reconciliation stands, based on the rule of la.

    Petitioners B+-+*, ( +l., contend that Batas Pa#bansa No. **0 is clearl a violation of theConstitution and the nternational Covenant on Civil and Political Ri$hts and other hu#an ri$hts

    treaties of hich the Philippines is a si$nator.1

    %he ar$ue that B.P. No. **0 reuires a per#it before one can sta$e a public asse#bl re$ardless

    of the presence or absence of a clear and present dan$er. t also curtails the choice of venue and

    is thus repu$nant to the freedo# of expression clause as the ti#e and place of a public asse#bl

    for# part of the #essa$e for hich the expression is sou$ht. =urther#ore, it is not content-neutral as it does not appl to #ass actions in support of the $overn#ent. %he ords 7laful

    cause,7 7opinion,7 7protestin$ or influencin$7 su$$est the exposition of so#e cause not espoused

     b the $overn#ent. Also, the phrase 7#axi#u# tolerance7 shos that the la applies to

    asse#blies a$ainst the $overn#ent because the are bein$ tolerated. As a content-basedle$islation, it cannot pass the strict scrutin test.

    Petitioners &('' (l Pr+o, ( +l., in turn, ar$ue that B.P. No. **0 is unconstitutional as it is a

    curtail#ent of the ri$ht to peacefull asse#ble and petition for redress of $rievances because it puts a condition for the valid exercise of that ri$ht. t also characteries public asse#blies

    ithout a per#it as ille$al and penalies the# and allos their dispersal. %hus, its provisions are

    not #ere re$ulations but are actuall prohibitions.

    http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#fnt5

  • 8/20/2019 Bayan, Et Al. vs. Eduardo Ermita, Et

    10/30

    =urther#ore, the la dele$ates poers to the Maor ithout providin$ clear standards. %he to

    standards stated in the las 2clear and present dan$er and i##inent and $rave dan$er3 are

    inconsistent.

    Re$ardin$ the CPR polic, it is void for bein$ an ultra vires act that alters the standard of

    #axi#u# tolerance set forth in B.P. No. **0, aside fro# bein$ void for bein$ va$ue and for lac8of publication.

    =inall, petitioners KMU, ( +l., ar$ue that the Constitution sets no li#its on the ri$ht toasse#bl and therefore B.P. No. **0 cannot put the prior reuire#ent of securin$ a per#it. And

    even assu#in$ that the le$islature can set li#its to this ri$ht, the li#its provided are

    unreasonable< =irst, alloin$ the Maor to den the per#it on clear and convincin$ evidence of aclear and present dan$er is too co#prehensive. !econd, the five-da reuire#ent to appl for a

     per#it is too lon$ as certain events reuire instant public asse#bl, otherise interest on the

    issue ould possibl ane.

    As to the CPR polic, the ar$ue that it is pree#ptive, that the $overn#ent ta8es action even before the rallists can perfor# their act, and that no la, ordinance or executive order supports

    the polic. =urther#ore, it contravenes the #axi#u# tolerance polic of B.P. No. **0 and

    violates the Constitution as it causes a chillin$ effect on the exercise b the people of the ri$ht to

     peaceabl asse#ble.

    Respondents in G.R. No. 169838 are E4+ro Eri+, as Executive !ecretar, Manila Cit

    M+-or !io Ai(*)+, Chief, of the Philippine National Police 2PNP3 G(*. Ar4ro !oi=+o,

     National Capital Re$ion Police "ffice 2NCRP"3 Chief, PNP M+. G(*. i+l 4(rol, andManila Police District 2MPD3 Chief G(*. P(ro B4l+o*

  • 8/20/2019 Bayan, Et Al. vs. Eduardo Ermita, Et

    11/30

    reference to content of re$ulated speech 2b3 B.P. No. **0 is narrol tailored to serve a

    si$nificant $overn#ental interest, i#e., the interest cannot be euall ell served b a

    #eans that is less intrusive of free speech interests and 2c3 B.P. No. **0 leaves openalternative channels for co##unication of the infor#ation.(

    +. B.P. No. **0 is content-neutral as seen fro# the text of the la. !ection 1 reuires thestate#ent of the public asse#blJs ti#e, place and #anner of conduct. t entails traffic re-

    routin$ to prevent $rave public inconvenience and serious or undue interference in thefree flo of co##erce and trade. =urther#ore, nothin$ in B.P. No. **0 authories the

    denial of a per#it on the basis of a rallJs pro$ra# content or the state#ents of the

    spea8ers therein, except under the constitutional precept of the 7clear and present dan$ertest.7 %he status of B.P. No. **0 as a content-neutral re$ulation has been reco$nied in

    )sme+a v# 'omelec. 

    4. Adiong v# 'omelec* held that B.P. No. **0 is a content-neutral re$ulation of the ti#e,

     place and #anner of holdin$ public asse#blies and the la passes the test for such

    re$ulation, na#el, these re$ulations need onl a substantial $overn#ental interest tosupport the#.

    1. angalang v# -ntermediate Appellate 'ourt ) held that a local chief executive has the

    authorit to exercise police poer to #eet 7the de#ands of the co##on $ood in ter#s oftraffic decon$estion and public convenience.7 =urther#ore, the discretion $iven to the

    #aor is narrol circu#scribed b !ections 1 2d3, and ( 2a3, 2b3, 2c3, 2d3, 2e3, '+ and '1

    of the la.

    (. %he standards set forth in the la are not inconsistent. 7Clear and convincin$ evidence

    that the public asse#bl ill create a clear and present dan$er to public order, public

    safet, public convenience, public #orals or public health7 and 7i##inent and $ravedan$er of a substantive evil7 both express the #eanin$ of the 7clear and present dan$ertest.7'0

    . CPR is si#pl the responsible and 5udicious use of #eans alloed b existin$ las and

    ordinances to protect public interest and restore public order. %hus, it is not accurate to

    call it a ne rule but rather it is a #ore pro-active and dna#ic enforce#ent of existin$las, re$ulations and ordinances to prevent chaos in the streets. t does not replace the

    rule of #axi#u# tolerance in B.P. No. **0.

    Respondent Maor Koselito Atiena, for his part, sub#itted in his Co##ent that the petition in

    &.R. No. '()*+* should be dis#issed on the $round that Republic Act No. '(0 $ives the Maor  poer to den a per#it independentl of B.P. No. **0 that his denials of per#its ere under the

    7clear and present dan$er7 rule as there as a cla#or to stop rallies that disrupt the econo# and

    to protect the lives of other people that .# B# /# !eyes v# Bagatsing ,''  Primicias v# &ugoso,'/ and .acinto v# ' A,'+ have affir#ed the constitutionalit of reuirin$ a per#it that the per#it is for

    the use of a public place and not for the exercise of ri$hts and that B.P. No. **0 is not a content-

     based re$ulation because it covers all rallies.

    http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#fnt12

  • 8/20/2019 Bayan, Et Al. vs. Eduardo Ermita, Et

    12/30

    %he petitions ere ordered consolidated on =ebruar '4, /00(. After the sub#ission of all the

    Co##ents, the Court set the cases for oral ar$u#ents on April 4, /00(,'4 statin$ the principal

    issues, as follos<

    '. "n the constitutionalit of Batas Pa#bansa No. **0, specificall !ections 4, 1, (, '/

    '+2a3 and '42a3 thereof, and Republic Act No. '(0<

    2a3 Are these content-neutral or content-based re$ulationsL

    2b3 Are the void on $rounds of overbreadth or va$uenessL

    2c3 Do the constitute prior restraintL

    2d3 Are the undue dele$ations of poers to MaorsL

    2e3 Do the violate international hu#an ri$hts treaties and the :niversal

    Declaration of u#an Ri$htsL

    /. "n the constitutionalit and le$alit of the polic of Calibrated Pree#ptive Response

    2CPR3<

    2a3 s the polic void on its face or due to va$uenessL

    2b3 s it void for lac8 of publicationL

    2c3 s the polic of CPR void as applied to the rallies of !epte#ber /( and

    "ctober 4, 1 and (, /001L

    Durin$ the course of the oral ar$u#ents, the folloin$ develop#ents too8 place and ere

    approved andor noted b the Court<

    '. Petitioners, in the interest of a speed resolution of the petitions, ithdre the portions

    of their petitions raisin$ factual issues, particularl those raisin$ the issue of hether B.P.

     No. **0 andor CPR is void as applied to the rallies of !epte#ber /0, "ctober 4, 1 and (,

    /001.

    /. %he !olicitor &eneral a$reed ith the observation of the Chief Kustice that CPR should

    no lon$er be used as a le$al ter# inas#uch as, accordin$ to respondents, it as #erel a

    7catchord7 intended to clarif hat as thou$ht to be a #isunderstandin$ of the#axi#u# tolerance polic set forth in B.P. No. **0 and that, as stated in the affidavit

    executed b Executive !ecretar Eduardo Er#ita and sub#itted to the "#buds#an, it

    does not replace B.P. No. **0 and the #axi#u# tolerance polic e#bodied in that la.

    %he Court ill no proceed to address the principal issues, ta8in$ into account the fore$oin$develop#ents.

    http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#fnt14

  • 8/20/2019 Bayan, Et Al. vs. Eduardo Ermita, Et

    13/30

    PetitionersJ standin$ cannot be seriousl challen$ed. %heir ri$ht as citiens to en$a$e in peaceful

    asse#bl and exercise the ri$ht of petition, as $uaranteed b the Constitution, is directl affected

     b B.P. No. **0 hich reuires a per#it for all ho ould publicl asse#ble in the nationJsstreets and par8s. %he have, in fact, purposel en$a$ed in public asse#blies ithout the

    reuired per#its to press their clai# that no such per#it can be validl reuired ithout violatin$

    the Constitutional $uarantee. Respondents, on the other hand, have challen$ed such action ascontrar to la and dispersed the public asse#blies held ithout the per#it.

    !ection 4 of Article of the Constitution provides<

    !ec. 4. No la shall be passed abrid$in$ the freedo# of speech, of expression, or of the press, or

    the ri$ht of the people peaceabl to asse#ble and petition the $overn#ent for redress of$rievances.

    %he first point to #ar8 is that the ri$ht to peaceabl asse#ble and petition for redress of

    $rievances is, to$ether ith freedo# of speech, of expression, and of the press, a ri$ht that en5os

     pri#ac in the real# of constitutional protection. =or these ri$hts constitute the ver basis of afunctional de#ocratic polit, ithout hich all the other ri$hts ould be #eanin$less and

    unprotected. As stated in .acinto v# 'A,'1 the Court, as earl as the onset of this centur, in ## v#

     Apurado,'( alread upheld the ri$ht to asse#bl and petition, as follos<

    %here is no uestion as to the petitionersJ ri$hts to peaceful asse#bl to petition the $overn#entfor a redress of $rievances and, for that #atter, to or$anie or for# associations for purposes not

    contrar to la, as ell as to en$a$e in peaceful concerted activities. %hese ri$hts are $uaranteed

     b no less than the Constitution, particularl !ections 4 and * of the Bill of Ri$hts, !ection /213of Article G, and !ection + of Article G. Kurisprudence abounds ith halloed

     pronounce#ents defendin$ and pro#otin$ the peopleJs exercise of these ri$hts. As earl as the

    onset of this centur, this Court in ## vs# Apurado, alread upheld the ri$ht to asse#bl and petition and even ent as far as to ac8noled$e<

    7t is rather to be expected that #ore or less disorder ill #ar8 the public asse#bl of the people

    to protest a$ainst $rievances hether real or i#a$inar, because on such occasions feelin$ is

    alas rou$ht to a hi$h pitch of excite#ent, and the $reater, the $rievance and the #ore intense

    the feelin$, the less perfect, as a rule ill be the disciplinar control of the leaders over theirirresponsible folloers. But if the prosecution be per#itted to seie upon ever instance of such

    disorderl conduct b individual #e#bers of a crod as an excuse to characterie the asse#bl

    as a seditious and tu#ultuous risin$ a$ainst the authorities, then the ri$ht to asse#ble and to petition for redress of $rievances ould beco#e a delusion and a snare and the atte#pt to

    exercise it on the #ost ri$hteous occasion and in the #ost peaceable #anner ould expose all

    those ho too8 part therein to the severest and #ost un#erited punish#ent, if the purposeshich the sou$ht to attain did not happen to be pleasin$ to the prosecutin$ authorities. f

    instances of disorderl conduct occur on such occasions, the $uilt individuals should be sou$ht

    out and punished therefor, but the ut#ost discretion #ust be exercised in drain$ the line beteen disorderly and seditious conduct and beteen an essentiall peaceable asse#bl and a

    tu#ultuous uprisin$.7

    http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#fnt16

  • 8/20/2019 Bayan, Et Al. vs. Eduardo Ermita, Et

    14/30

    A$ain, in Primicias v# &ugoso,' the Court li8eise sustained the pri#ac of freedo# of speech

    and to asse#bl and petition over co#fort and convenience in the use of streets and par8s.

     Next, hoever, it #ust be re#e#bered that the ri$ht, hile sacrosanct, is not absolute. n Primicias, this Court said<

    %he ri$ht to freedo# of speech, and to peacefull asse#ble and petition the $overn#ent for

    redress of $rievances, are funda#ental personal ri$hts of the people reco$nied and $uaranteed

     b the constitutions of de#ocratic countries. But it is a settled principle $roin$ out of the natureof ell-ordered civil societies that the exercise of those ri$hts is not absolute for it #a be so

    re$ulated that it shall not be in5urious to the eual en5o#ent of others havin$ eual ri$hts, nor

    in5urious to the ri$hts of the co##unit or societ. %he poer to re$ulate the exercise of suchand other constitutional ri$hts is ter#ed the soverei$n 7police poer,7 hich is the poer to

     prescribe re$ulations, to pro#ote the health, #orals, peace, education, $ood order or safet, and

    $eneral elfare of the people. %his soverei$n police poer is exercised b the $overn#ent

    throu$h its le$islative branch b the enact#ent of las re$ulatin$ those and other constitutional

    and civil ri$hts, and it #a be dele$ated to political subdivisions, such as tons, #unicipalitiesand cities b authoriin$ their le$islative bodies called #unicipal and cit councils to enact

    ordinances for the purpose.'*

     !eyes v# Bagatsing ') further expounded on the ri$ht and its li#its, as follos<

    '. t is thus clear that the Court is called upon to protect the exercise of the co$nate ri$hts

    to free speech and peaceful asse#bl, arisin$ fro# the denial of a per#it. %he

    Constitution is uite explicit< 7No la shall be passed abrid$in$ the freedo# of speech, or of the press, or the ri$ht of the people peaceabl to asse#ble and petition the &overn#ent

    for redress of $rievances.7 =ree speech, li8e free press, #a be identified ith the libert

    to discuss publicl and truthfull an #atter of public concern ithout censorship or punish#ent. %here is to be then no previous restraint on the co##unication of vies orsubseuent liabilit hether in libel suits, prosecution for sedition, or action for da#a$es,

    or conte#pt proceedin$s unless there be a 7clear and present dan$er of a substantive evil

    that >the !tate? has a ri$ht to prevent.7 =reedo# of asse#bl connotes the ri$ht of the people to #eet peaceabl for consultation and discussion of #atters of public concern. t

    is entitled to be accorded the ut#ost deference and respect. t is not to be li#ited, #uch

    less denied, except on a shoin$, as is the case ith freedo# of expression, of a clear and present dan$er of a substantive evil that the state has a ri$ht to prevent. Even prior to the

    ')+1 Constitution, Kustice Malcol# had occasion to stress that it is a necessar

    conseuence of our republican institutions and co#ple#ents the ri$ht of free speech. %o

     paraphrase the opinion of Kustice Rutled$e, spea8in$ for the #a5orit of the A#erican!upre#e Court in %ho#as v. Collins, it as not b accident or coincidence that the ri$hts

    to freedo# of speech and of the press ere coupled in a sin$le $uarantee ith the ri$hts

    of the people peaceabl to asse#ble and to petition the $overn#ent for redress of$rievances. All these ri$hts, hile not identical, are inseparable. n ever case, therefore,

    here there is a li#itation placed on the exercise of this ri$ht, the 5udiciar is called upon

    to exa#ine the effects of the challen$ed $overn#ental actuation. %he sole 5ustification for a li#itation on the exercise of this ri$ht, so funda#ental to the #aintenance of de#ocratic

    http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#fnt19

  • 8/20/2019 Bayan, Et Al. vs. Eduardo Ermita, Et

    15/30

    institutions, is the dan$er, of a character both $rave and i##inent, of a serious evil to

     public safet, public #orals, public health, or an other le$iti#ate public interest.

    /. Nohere is the rationale that underlies the freedo# of expression and peaceableasse#bl better expressed than in this excerpt fro# an opinion of Kustice =ran8furter< 7t

    #ust never be for$otten, hoever, that the Bill of Ri$hts as the child of theEnli$hten#ent. Bac8 of the $uarant of free speech la faith in the poer of an appeal to

    reason b all the peaceful #eans for $ainin$ access to the #ind. t as in order to avertforce and explosions due to restrictions upon rational #odes of co##unication that the

    $uarant of free speech as $iven a $enerous scope. But utterance in a context of

    violence can lose its si$nificance as an appeal to reason and beco#e part of an instru#entof force. !uch utterance as not #eant to be sheltered b the Constitution.7 Fhat as

    ri$htfull stressed is the abandon#ent of reason, the utterance, hether verbal or printed,

     bein$ in a context of violence. t #ust alas be re#e#bered that this ri$ht li8eise provides for a safet valve, alloin$ parties the opportunit to $ive vent to their vies,

    even if contrar to the prevailin$ cli#ate of opinion. =or if the peaceful #eans of

    co##unication cannot be availed of, resort to non-peaceful #eans #a be the onlalternative. Nor is this the sole reason for the expression of dissent. t #eans #ore than

     5ust the ri$ht to be heard of the person ho feels a$$rieved or ho is dissatisfied ith

    thin$s as the are. ts value #a lie in the fact that there #a be so#ethin$ orth hearin$

    fro# the dissenter. %hat is to ensure a true fer#ent of ideas. %here are, of course, ell-defined li#its. Fhat is $uaranteed is peaceable asse#bl. "ne #a not advocate disorder

    in the na#e of protest, #uch less preach rebellion under the cloa8 of dissent. %he

    Constitution frons on disorder or tu#ult attendin$ a rall or asse#bl. Resort to force isruled out and outbrea8s of violence to be avoided. %he ut#ost cal# thou$h is not

    reuired. As pointed out in an earl Philippine case, penned in ')0 to be precise, :nited

    !tates v. Apurado< 7t is rather to be expected that #ore or less disorder ill #ar8 the

     public asse#bl of the people to protest a$ainst $rievances hether real or i#a$inar, because on such occasions feelin$ is alas rou$ht to a hi$h pitch of excite#ent, and

    the $reater the $rievance and the #ore intense the feelin$, the less perfect, as a rule, ill

     be the disciplinar control of the leaders over their irresponsible folloers.7 t bearsrepeatin$ that for the constitutional ri$ht to be invo8ed, riotous conduct, in5ur to

     propert, and acts of vandalis# #ust be avoided. %o $ive free rein to oneJs destructive

    ur$es is to call for conde#nation. t is to #a8e a #oc8er of the hi$h estate occupied bintellectual libert in our sche#e of values.

    %here can be no le$al ob5ection, absent the existence of a clear and present dan$er of a

    substantive evil, on the choice of ;uneta as the place here the peace rall ould start.

    %he Philippines is co##itted to the vie expressed in the pluralit opinion, of ')+)vinta$e, of Kustice Roberts in a$ue v. C"< 7Fhenever the title of streets and par8s #a

    rest, the have i##e#oriall been held in trust for the use of the public and, ti#e out of

    #ind, have been used for purposes of asse#bl, co##unicatin$ thou$hts beteencitiens, and discussin$ public uestions. !uch use of the streets and public places has,

    fro# ancient ti#es, been a part of the privile$es, i##unities, ri$hts and liberties of

    citiens. %he privile$e of a citien of the :nited !tates to use the streets and par8s forco##unication of vies on national uestions #a be re$ulated in the interest of all it is

  • 8/20/2019 Bayan, Et Al. vs. Eduardo Ermita, Et

    16/30

    not absolute, but relative, and #ust be exercised in subordination to the $eneral co#fort

    and convenience, and in consonance ith peace and $ood order but #ust not, in the

    $uise of re$ulation, be abrid$ed or denied.7 %he above excerpt as uoted ith approvalin Pri#icias v. =u$oso. Pri#icias #ade explicit hat as i#plicit in Municipalit of

    Cavite v. Ro5as, a ')'1 decision, here this Court cate$oricall affir#ed that plaas or

     par8s and streets are outside the co##erce of #an and thus nullified a contract thatleased Plaa !oledad of plaintiff-#unicipalit. Reference as #ade to such plaa 7bein$

    a pro#enade for public use,7 hich certainl is not the onl purpose that it could serve.

    %o repeat, there can be no valid reason h a per#it should not be $ranted for the proposed #arch and rall startin$ fro# a public par8 that is the ;uneta.

    4. Neither can there be an valid ob5ection to the use of the streets to the $ates of the :!

    e#bass, hardl to bloc8s aa at the Roxas Boulevard. Pri#icias v. =u$oso has

    resolved an lur8in$ doubt on the #atter. n holdin$ that the then Maor =u$oso of theCit of Manila should $rant a per#it for a public #eetin$ at Plaa Miranda in uiapo,

    this Court cate$oricall declared< 7"ur conclusion finds support in the decision in the

    case of Fillis Cox v. !tate of Ne a#pshire, +'/ :.!., 1(). n that case, the statute of Ne a#pshire P.;. chap. '41, section /, providin$ that no parade or procession upon

    an $round abuttin$ thereon, shall be per#itted unless a special license therefor shall first

     be obtained fro# the select#en of the ton or fro# licensin$ co##ittee,J as construed

     b the !upre#e Court of Ne a#pshire as not conferrin$ upon the licensin$ boardunfettered discretion to refuse to $rant the license, and held valid. And the !upre#e Court

    of the :nited !tates, in its decision 2')4'3 penned b Chief Kustice u$hes affir#in$ the

     5ud$#ent of the !tate !upre#e Court, held that a statute reuirin$ persons usin$ the public streets for a parade or procession to procure a special license therefor fro# the

    local authorities is not an unconstitutional abrid$#ent of the ri$hts of asse#bl or of

    freedo# of speech and press, here, as the statute is construed b the state courts, the

    licensin$ authorities are strictl li#ited, in the issuance of licenses, to a consideration ofthe ti#e, place, and #anner of the parade or procession, ith a vie to conservin$ the

     public convenience and of affordin$ an opportunit to provide proper policin$, and are

    not invested ith arbitrar discretion to issue or refuse license, O O O. 7Nor should the point #ade b Chief Kustice u$hes in a subseuent portion of the opinion be i$nored<

    7Civil liberties, as $uaranteed b the Constitution, i#pl the existence of an or$anied

    societ #aintainin$ public order ithout hich libert itself ould be lost in the excessesof unrestricted abuses. %he authorit of a #unicipalit to i#pose re$ulations in order to

    assure the safet and convenience of the people in the use of public hi$has has never

     been re$arded as inconsistent ith civil liberties but rather as one of the #eans ofsafe$uardin$ the $ood order upon hich the ulti#atel depend. %he control of travel on

    the streets of cities is the #ost fa#iliar illustration of this reco$nition of social need.

    Fhere a restriction of the use of hi$has in that relation is desi$ned to pro#ote the public convenience in the interest of all, it cannot be disre$arded b the atte#pted

    exercise of so#e civil ri$ht hich in other circu#stances ould be entitled to

     protection.7

    x x x

  • 8/20/2019 Bayan, Et Al. vs. Eduardo Ermita, Et

    17/30

    (. x x x %he principle under A#erican doctrines as $iven utterance b Chief Kustice

    u$hes in these ords< 7%he uestion, if the ri$hts of free speech and peaceable

    asse#bl are to be preserved, is not as to the auspices under hich the #eetin$ is held but as to its purpose not as to the relations of the spea8ers, but hether their utterances

    transcend the bounds of the freedo# of speech hich the Constitution protects.7 %here

    could be dan$er to public peace and safet if such a $atherin$ ere #ar8ed bturbulence. %hat ould deprive it of its peaceful character. Even then, onl the $uilt

     parties should be held accountable. t is true that the licensin$ official, here respondent

    Maor, is not devoid of discretion in deter#inin$ hether or not a per#it ould be$ranted. t is not, hoever, unfettered discretion. Fhile prudence reuires that there be a

    realistic appraisal not of hat #a possibl occur but of hat #a probably occur, $iven

    all the relevant circu#stances, still the assu#ption @ especiall so here the asse#bl is

    scheduled for a specific public place @ is that the per#it #ust be for the asse#bl bein$held there. %he exercise of such a ri$ht, in the lan$ua$e of Kustice Roberts, spea8in$ for

    the A#erican !upre#e Court, is not to be 7abrid$ed on the plea that it #a be exercised

    in so#e other place.7

    x x x

    *. B a of a su##ar. %he applicants for a per#it to hold an asse#bl should infor#

    the licensin$ authorit of the date, the public place where and the ti#e hen it ill ta8e

     place. f it ere a private place, onl the consent of the oner or the one entitled to itsle$al possession is reuired. !uch application should be filed ell ahead in ti#e to enable

    the public official concerned to appraise hether there #a be valid ob5ections to the

    $rant of the per#it or to its $rant but at another public place. t is an indispensable

    condition to such refusal or #odification that the clear and present dan$er test be thestandard for the decision reached. f he is of the vie that there is such an i##inent and

    $rave dan$er of a substantive evil, the applicants #ust be heard on the #atter. %hereafter,his decision, hether favorable or adverse, #ust be trans#itted to the# at the earliestopportunit. %hus if so #inded, the can have recourse to the proper 5udicial authorit.

    =ree speech and peaceable asse#bl, alon$ ith the other intellectual freedo#s, are

    hi$hl ran8ed in our sche#e of constitutional values. t cannot be too stron$l stressedthat on the 5udiciar, -- even #ore so than on the other depart#ents @ rests the $rave and

    delicate responsibilit of assurin$ respect for and deference to such preferred ri$hts. No

    verbal for#ula, no sanctifin$ phrase can, of course, dispense ith hat has been sofelicitiousl ter#ed b Kustice ol#es 7as the soverei$n prero$ative of 5ud$#ent.7

     Nonetheless, the presu#ption #ust be to incline the ei$ht of the scales of 5ustice on the

    side of such ri$hts, en5oin$ as the do precedence and pri#ac. x x x.

    B.P. No. **0 as enacted after this Court rendered its decision in !eyes#

    %he provisions of B.P. No. **0 practicall codif the rulin$ in !eyes<

    Rees v. Ba$atsin$ B.P. No. **0

  • 8/20/2019 Bayan, Et Al. vs. Eduardo Ermita, Et

    18/30

    2&.R. No. ;-(1+((, Nove#ber ), ')*+,

    '/1 !CRA 11+, 1()3

    *. B a of a su##ar. %he applicants for a per#it to hold an asse#bl should infor# the

    licensin$ authorit of the date, the public

     place where and the ti#e hen it ill ta8e place. f it ere a private place, onl the

    consent of the oner or the one entitled to its

    le$al possession is reuired. !uch applicationshould be filed ell ahead in ti#e to enable

    the public official concerned to appraise

    hether there #a be valid ob5ections to the

    $rant of the per#it or to its $rant but atanother public place. t is an indispensable

    condition to such refusal or #odification that

    the clear and present dan$er test be thestandard for the decision reached. f he is of

    the vie that there is such an i##inent and

    $rave dan$er of a substantive evil, theapplicants #ust be heard on the #atter.

    %hereafter, his decision, hether favorable or 

    adverse, #ust be trans#itted to the# at the

    earliest opportunit. %hus if so #inded, the

    can have recourse to the proper 5udicialauthorit.

    !ec. 4. Permit when required and when notrequired .-- A ritten per#it shall be reuired

    for an person or persons to or$anie andhold a public asse#bl in a public place.oever, no per#it shall be reuired if the

     public asse#bl shall be done or #ade in a

    freedo# par8 dul established b la orordinance or in private propert, in hich

    case onl the consent of the oner or the one

    entitled to its le$al possession is reuired, or

    in the ca#pus of a $overn#ent-oned andoperated educational institution hich shall

     be sub5ect to the rules and re$ulations of said

    educational institution. Political #eetin$s orrallies held durin$ an election ca#pai$n

     period as provided for b la are not covered

     b this Act.

    !ec. 1. Application requirements.-- Allapplications for a per#it shall co#pl ith

    the folloin$ $uidelines<

    2a3 %he applications shall be in

    ritin$ and shall include the na#es

    of the leaders or or$aniers the purpose of such public asse#bl the

    date, ti#e and duration thereof, and place or streets to be used for the

    intended activit and the probable

    nu#ber of persons participatin$, thetransport and the public address

    sste#s to be used.

    2b3 %he application shall incorporate

    the dut and responsibilit of

    applicant under !ection * hereof.

    2c3 %he application shall be filed ith

    the office of the #aor of the cit or

    #unicipalit in hose 5urisdiction theintended activit is to be held, at least

    five 213 or8in$ das before the

  • 8/20/2019 Bayan, Et Al. vs. Eduardo Ermita, Et

    19/30

    scheduled public asse#bl.

    2d3 :pon receipt of the application,

    hich #ust be dul ac8noled$ed inritin$, the office of the cit or

    #unicipal #aor shall cause the sa#e

    to i##ediatel be posted at aconspicuous place in the cit or

    #unicipal buildin$.

    !ec. (. Action to be taken on the application. @ 

    2a3 t shall be the dut of the #aor or 

    an official actin$ in his behalf toissue or $rant a per#it unless there isclear and convincin$ evidence that

    the public asse#bl ill create a

    clear and present dan$er to public

    order, public safet, publicconvenience, public #orals or public

    health.

    2b3 %he #aor or an official actin$in his behalf shall act on the

    application ithin to 2/3 or8in$das fro# the date the application

    as filed, failin$ hich, the per#itshall be dee#ed $ranted. !hould for

    an reason the #aor or an official

    actin$ in his behalf refuse to acceptthe application for a per#it, said

    application shall be posted b the

    applicant on the pre#ises of theoffice of the #aor and shall be

    dee#ed to have been filed.

    2c3 f the #aor is of the vie that

    there is i##inent and $rave dan$er of a substantive evil arrantin$ the

    denial or #odification of the per#it,

    he shall i##ediatel infor# theapplicant ho #ust be heard on the

  • 8/20/2019 Bayan, Et Al. vs. Eduardo Ermita, Et

    20/30

    #atter.

    2d3 %he action on the per#it shall be

    in ritin$ and served on theapplica>nt? ithin tent-four hours.

    2e3 f the #aor or an official actin$

    in his behalf denies the application or#odifies the ter#s thereof in his

     per#it, the applicant #a contest the

    decision in an appropriate court ofla.

    2f3 n case suit is brou$ht before the

    Metropolitan %rial Court, theMunicipal %rial Court, the MunicipalCircuit %rial Court, the Re$ional %rial

    Court, or the nter#ediate Appellate

    Court, its decisions #a be appealed

    to the appropriate court ithin fort-ei$ht 24*3 hours after receipt of the

    sa#e. No appeal bond and record on

    appeal shall be reuired. A decision$rantin$ such per#it or #odifin$ it

    in ter#s satisfactor to the applicant

    shall be i##ediatel executor.

    2$3 All cases filed in court under thissection shall be decided ithin

    tent-four 2/43 hours fro# date of

    filin$. Cases filed hereunder shall bei##ediatel endorsed to the

    executive 5ud$e for disposition or, in

    his absence, to the next in ran8.

    2h3 n all cases, an decision #a be

    appealed to the !upre#e Court.

    2i3 %ele$raphic appeals to be folloed

     b for#al appeals are hereb

    alloed.

  • 8/20/2019 Bayan, Et Al. vs. Eduardo Ermita, Et

    21/30

    t is ver clear, therefore, that B.P. No. **0 is not an absolute ban of public asse#blies but a

    restriction that si#pl re$ulates the ti#e, place and #anner of the asse#blies. %his as adverted

    to in )sme+a v# 'omelec,/0 here the Court referred to it as a 7content-neutral7 re$ulation of theti#e, place, and #anner of holdin$ public asse#blies./'

    A fair and i#partial readin$ of B.P. No. **0 thus readil shos that it refers to +ll 8inds of publicasse#blies// that ould use public places. %he reference to 7laful cause7 does not #a8e it

    content-based because asse#blies reall have to be for laful causes, otherise the ould not be 7peaceable7 and entitled to protection. Neither are the ords 7opinion,7 7protestin$7 and

    7influencin$7 in the definition of public asse#bl content based, since the can refer to an

    sub5ect. %he ords 7petitionin$ the $overn#ent for redress of $rievances7 co#e fro# theordin$ of the Constitution, so its use cannot be avoided. =inall, #axi#u# tolerance is for the

     protection and benefit of all rallists and is independent of the content of the expressions in the

    rall.

    =urther#ore, the per#it can onl be denied on the $round of clear and present dan$er to public

    order, public safet, public convenience, public #orals or public health. %his is a reco$niedexception to the exercise of the ri$ht even under the :niversal Declaration of u#an Ri$hts and

    the nternational Covenant on Civil and Political Ri$hts, thus<

    U*i(r'+l "(l+r+io* o7 >4+* Ri

  • 8/20/2019 Bayan, Et Al. vs. Eduardo Ermita, Et

    22/30

    /. Everone shall have the ri$ht to freedo# of expression this ri$ht shall include freedo#

    to see8, receive and i#part infor#ation and ideas of all 8inds, re$ardless of frontiers,

    either orall, in ritin$ or in print, in the for# of art, or throu$h an other #edia of hischoice.

    +. %he exercise of the ri$hts provided for in para$raph / of this article carries ith itspecial duties and responsibilities. t #a therefore be sub5ect to certain restrictions, but

    these shall onl be such as are provided b la and are necessar<

    2a3 =or respect of the ri$hts or reputations of others

    2b3 =or the protection of national securit or of public order 2ordre public3, or of

     public health or #orals.

    Contrar to petitionerJs clai#, the la is ver clear and is nohere va$ue in its provisions.

    7Public7 does not have to be defined. ts ordinar #eanin$ is ell-8non. FebsterJs Dictionar

    defines it, thus<

    /+

     public, n, x x x /a< an or$anied bod of people x x x +< a $roup of people distin$uished b

    co##on interests or characteristics x x x.

     Not ever expression of opinion is a public asse#bl. %he la refers to 7rall, de#onstration,#arch, parade, procession or an other for# of #ass or concerted action held in a public place.7

    !o it does not cover an and all 8inds of $atherin$s.

     Neither is the la overbroad. t re$ulates the exercise of the ri$ht to peaceful asse#bl and

     petition onl to the extent needed to avoid a clear and present dan$er of the substantive evils

    Con$ress has the ri$ht to prevent.

    %here is, li8eise, no prior restraint, since the content of the speech is not relevant to the

    re$ulation.

    As to the dele$ation of poers to the #aor, the la provides a precise and sufficient standard @the clear and present dan$er test stated in !ec. (2a3. %he reference to 7i##inent and $rave dan$er 

    of a substantive evil7 in !ec. (2c3 substantiall #eans the sa#e thin$ and is not an inconsistent

    standard. As to hether respondent Maor has the sa#e poer independentl under Republic

    Act No. '(0/4 is thus not necessar to resolve in these proceedin$s, and as not pursued b the parties in their ar$u#ents.

    =inall, for those ho cannot ait, !ection '1 of the la provides for an alternative foru#

    throu$h the creation of freedo# par8s here no prior per#it is needed for peaceful asse#bl and petition at an ti#e<

    !ec. '1. &reedom parks. @ Ever cit and #unicipalit in the countr shall ithin six #onths

    after the effectivit of this Act establish or desi$nate at least one suitable 7freedo# par87 or #all

    in their respective 5urisdictions hich, as far as practicable, shall be centrall located ithin the

    http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#fnt24

  • 8/20/2019 Bayan, Et Al. vs. Eduardo Ermita, Et

    23/30

     poblacion here de#onstrations and #eetin$s #a be held at an ti#e ithout the need of an

     prior per#it.

    n the cities and #unicipalities of Metropolitan Manila, the respective #aors shall establish thefreedo# par8s ithin the period of six #onths fro# the effectivit this Act.

    %his brin$s up the point, hoever, of co#pliance ith this provision.

    %he !olicitor &eneral stated durin$ the oral ar$u#ents that, to his 8noled$e, onl Cebu Cit

    has declared a freedo# par8 @ =uente "s#e6a.

    %hat of Manila, the !un8en &ardens, has since been converted into a $olf course, he added.

    f this is so, the de$ree of observance of B.P. No. **0Js #andate that ever cit and #unicipalitset aside a freedo# par8 ithin six #onths fro# its effectivit in ')*1, or /0 ears a$o, ould be

     pathetic and re$rettable. %he #atter appears to have been ta8en for $ranted a#idst the sell of

    freedo# that rose fro# the peaceful revolution of ')*(.

    Considerin$ that the existence of such freedo# par8s is an essential part of the laJs sste# ofre$ulation of the peopleJs exercise of their ri$ht to peacefull asse#ble and petition, the Court is

    constrained to rule that after thirt 2+03 das fro# the finalit of this Decision, no prior per#it

    #a be reuired for the exercise of such ri$ht in an public par8 or plaa of a cit or#unicipalit until that cit or #unicipalit shall have co#plied ith !ection '1 of the la. =or

    ithout such alternative foru#, to den the per#it ould in effect be to den the ri$ht. Advance

    notices should, hoever, be $iven to the authorities to ensure proper coordination and orderl proceedin$s.

    %he Court no co#es to the #atter of the CPR. As stated earlier, the !olicitor &eneral hasconceded that the use of the ter# should no be discontinued, since it does not #ean anthin$

    other than the #axi#u# tolerance polic set forth in B.P. No. **0. %his is stated in the Affidavitof respondent Executive !ecretar Eduardo Er#ita, sub#itted b the !olicitor &eneral, thus<

    '4. %he truth of the #atter is the polic of 7calibrated pree#ptive response7 is in consonance

    ith the le$al definition of 7#axi#u# tolerance7 under !ection + 2c3 of B.P. Bl$. **0, hich is

    the 7hi$hest de$ree of restraint that the #ilitar, police and other peace8eepin$ authorities shallobserve durin$ a public asse#bl or in the dispersal of the sa#e.7 :nfortunatel, hoever, the

     phrase 7#axi#u# tolerance7 has acuired a different #eanin$ over the ears. Man have ta8en

    it to #ean inaction on the part of la enforcers even in the face of #ahe# and serious threats to

     public order. More so, other felt that the need not bother secure a per#it hen holdin$ ralliesthin8in$ this ould be 7tolerated.7 Clearl, the popular connotation of 7#axi#u# tolerance7 has

    departed fro# its real essence under B.P. Bl$. **0.

    '1. t should be e#phasied that the polic of #axi#u# tolerance is provided under the sa#ela hich reuires all pubic asse#blies to have a per#it, hich allos the dispersal of rallies

    ithout a per#it, and hich reco$nies certain instances hen ater cannons #a be used. %his

    could onl #ean that 7#axi#u# tolerance7 is not in conflict ith a 7no per#it, no rall polic7

  • 8/20/2019 Bayan, Et Al. vs. Eduardo Ermita, Et

    24/30

    or ith the dispersal and use of ater cannons under certain circu#stances for indeed, the

    #axi#u# a#ount of tolerance reuired is dependent on ho peaceful or unrul a #ass action is.

    "ur la enforcers should calibrate their response based on the circu#stances on the $round iththe vie to pree#ptin$ the outbrea8 of violence.

    '(. %hus, hen stated that calibrated pree#ptive response is bein$ enforced in lieu of#axi#u# tolerance clearl as not referrin$ to its le$al definition but to the distorted and

    #uch abused definition that it has no acuired. onl anted to disabuse the #inds of the public fro# the notion that la enforcers ould shir8 their responsibilit of 8eepin$ the peace

    even hen confronted ith dan$erousl threatenin$ behavior. anted to send a #essa$e that

    e ould no lon$er be lax in enforcin$ the la but ould henceforth follo it to the letter. %hus said, 7e have instructed the PNP as ell as the local $overn#ent units to strictl enforce a no

     per#it, no rall polic . . . arrest all persons violatin$ the las of the land . . . unlaful #ass

    actions ill be dispersed.7 None of these is at lo$$erheads ith the letter and spirit of BatasPa#bansa Bl$. **0. t is thus absurd for co#plainants to even clai# that ordered # co-

    respondents to violate an la./1 

    At an rate, the Court rules that in vie of the #axi#u# tolerance #andated b B.P. No. **0,

    CPR serves no valid purpose if it #eans the sa#e thin$ as #axi#u# tolerance and is ille$al if it#eans so#ethin$ else. Accordin$l, hat is to be folloed is and should be that #andated b the

    la itself, na#el, #axi#u# tolerance, hich specificall #eans the folloin$<

    !ec. +. Definition of terms. @ =or purposes of this Act<

    x x x

    2c3 7Maxi#u# tolerance7 #eans the hi$hest de$ree of restraint that the #ilitar, police and other

     peace 8eepin$ authorities shall observe durin$ a public asse#bl or in the dispersal of the sa#e.

    x x x

    !ec. ). $on%interference by law enforcement authorities. @ ;a enforce#ent a$encies shall not

    interfere ith the holdin$ of a public asse#bl. oever, to adeuatel ensure public safet, ala enforce#ent contin$ent under the co##and of a responsible police officer #a be detailed

    and stationed in a place at least one hundred 2'003 #eters aa fro# the area of activit read to

    #aintain peace and order at all ti#es.

    !ec. '0. Police assistance when requested . @ t shall be i#perative for la enforce#ent a$encies,

    hen their assistance is reuested b the leaders or or$aniers, to perfor# their duties alas#indful that their responsibilit to provide proper protection to those exercisin$ their ri$ht

     peaceabl to asse#ble and the freedo# of expression is pri#ordial.0avvphil#net  %oards this

    end, la enforce#ent a$encies shall observe the folloin$ $uidelines<

    2a3 Me#bers of the la enforce#ent contin$ent ho deal ith the de#onstrators shall be

    in co#plete unifor# ith their na#eplates and units to hich the belon$ displaed

    http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#fnt25

  • 8/20/2019 Bayan, Et Al. vs. Eduardo Ermita, Et

    25/30

     pro#inentl on the front and dorsal parts of their unifor# and #ust observe the polic of

    7#axi#u# tolerance7 as herein defined

    2b3 %he #e#bers of the la enforce#ent contin$ent shall not carr an 8ind of firear#s but #a be euipped ith baton or riot stic8s, shields, crash hel#ets ith visor, $as

    #as8s, boots or an8le hi$h shoes ith shin $uards

    2c3 %ear $as, s#o8e $renades, ater cannons, or an si#ilar anti-riot device shall not be

    used unless the public asse#bl is attended b actual violence or serious threats ofviolence, or deliberate destruction of propert.

    ec# ''. Dispersal of public assembly with permit . @ No public asse#bl ith a per#it shall be

    dispersed. oever, hen an asse#bl beco#es violent, the police #a disperse such public

    asse#bl as follos<

    2a3 At the first si$n of i#pendin$ violence, the ran8in$ officer of the la enforce#ent

    contin$ent shall call the attention of the leaders of the public asse#bl and as8 the latterto prevent an possible disturbance

    2b3 f actual violence starts to a point here roc8s or other har#ful ob5ects fro# the participants are thron at the police or at the non-participants, or at an propert causin$

    da#a$e to such propert, the ran8in$ officer of the la enforce#ent contin$ent shall

    audibl arn the participants that if the disturbance persists, the public asse#bl ill be

    dispersed

    2c3 f the violence or disturbance prevailin$ as stated in the precedin$ subpara$raph

    should not stop or abate, the ran8in$ officer of the la enforce#ent contin$ent shall

    audibl issue a arnin$ to the participants of the public asse#bl, and after alloin$ areasonable period of ti#e to lapse, shall i##ediatel order it to forthith disperse

    2d3 No arrest of an leader, or$anier or participant shall also be #ade durin$ the public

    asse#bl unless he violates durin$ the asse#bl a la, statute, ordinance or an

     provision of this Act. !uch arrest shall be $overned b Article '/1 of the Revised PenalCode, as a#ended

    2d3 solated acts or incidents of disorder or breach of the peace durin$ the public

    asse#bl shall not constitute a $round for dispersal.

    x x x

    !ec. '/. Dispersal of public assembly without permit . @ Fhen the public asse#bl is heldithout a per#it here a per#it is reuired, the said public asse#bl #a be peacefull

    dispersed.

    !ec. '+. Prohibited acts. @ %he folloin$ shall constitute violations of the Act

  • 8/20/2019 Bayan, Et Al. vs. Eduardo Ermita, Et

    26/30

    2e3 "bstructin$, i#pedin$, disruptin$ or otherise denin$ the exercise of the ri$ht to peaceful

    asse#bl

    2f3 %he unnecessar firin$ of firear#s b a #e#ber of an la enforce#ent a$enc or an person to disperse the public asse#bl

    2$3 Acts described hereunder if co##itted ithin one hundred 2'003 #eters fro# the area of

    activit of the public asse#bl or on the occasion thereof<

    x x x

    4. the carrin$ of firear#s b #e#bers of the la enforce#ent unit

    1. the interferin$ ith or intentionall disturbin$ the holdin$ of a public asse#bl b the use of a#otor vehicle, its horns and loud sound sste#s.

    =urther#ore, there is need to address the situation adverted to b petitioners here #aors donot act on applications for a per#it and hen the police de#and a per#it and the rallists could

    not produce one, the rall is i##ediatel dispersed. n such a situation, as a necessarconseuence and part of #axi#u# tolerance, rallists ho can sho the police an application

    dul filed on a $iven date can, after to das fro# said date, rall in accordance ith their

    application ithout the need to sho a per#it, the $rant of the per#it bein$ then presu#ed under the la, and it ill be the burden of the authorities to sho that there has been a denial of the

    application, in hich case the rall #a be peacefull dispersed folloin$ the procedure of

    #axi#u# tolerance prescribed b the la.

    n su#, this Court reiterates its basic polic of upholdin$ the funda#ental ri$hts of our people,

    especiall freedo# of expression and freedo# of asse#bl. n several polic addresses, ChiefKustice Arte#io H. Pan$aniban has repeatedl voed to uphold the libert of our people and to

    nurture their prosperit. e said that 7in cases involvin$ libert, the scales of 5ustice shouldei$h heavil a$ainst the $overn#ent and in favor of the poor, the oppressed, the #ar$inalied,

    the dispossessed and the ea8. ndeed, las and actions that restrict funda#ental ri$hts co#e to

    the courts ith a heav presu#ption a$ainst their validit. %hese las and actions are sub5ectedto /(i

  • 8/20/2019 Bayan, Et Al. vs. Eduardo Ermita, Et

    27/30

    under B.P. No. **0. f, after that period, no such par8s are so identified in accordance ith

    !ection '1 of the la, all  public par8s and plaas of the #unicipalit or cit concerned shall in

    effect be dee#ed freedo# par8s no prior per#it of hatever 8ind shall be reuired to hold anasse#bl therein. %he onl reuire#ent ill be ritten notices to the police and the #aorJs

    office to allo proper coordination and orderl activities.

    :>ERE%ORE, the petitions are GRANTE" in part, and respondents, #ore particularl the

    !ecretar of the nterior and ;ocal &overn#ents, are "RECTE" to ta8e all necessar steps forthe i##ediate co#pliance ith !ection '1 of Batas Pa#bansa No. **0 throu$h the establish#ent

    or desi$nation of at least one suitable freedo# par8 or plaa in ever cit and #unicipalit of the

    countr. After thirt 2+03 das fro# the finalit of this Decision, sub5ect to the $ivin$ of advancenotices, no prior per#it shall be reuired to exercise the ri$ht to peaceabl asse#ble and petition

    in the public par8s or plaas of a cit or #unicipalit that has not et co#plied ith !ection '1

    of the la. =urther#ore, C+li=r+( Pr((pi( R('po*'( #CPR 3, insofar as it ould purportto differ fro# or be in lieu of #axi#u# tolerance, is NU!! and O" and respondents are

    EN&ONE" to RE%RAN fro# usin$ it and to STRCT!Y OBSERE the reuire#ents of

    #axi#u# tolerance. %he petitions are "SMSSE" in all other respects, and theo*'i4io*+li- of Batas Pa#bansa No. **0 is SUSTANE".

     No costs.

    SO OR"ERE".

    A"O!%O S. ACUNA

    Associate Kustice

    :E CONCUR

    ARTEMO . PANGANBAN

    Chief Kustice

    2"n ;eave3

    REYNATO S. PUNO

    Associate Kustice!EONAR"O A. USUMBNG

    Asscociate Kustice

    CONSUE!O YNARES?SANTAGO

    Associate KusticeANGE!NA SAN"OA!?GUTERRE

    Asscociate Kustice

    ANTONO T. CARPO

    Associate KusticeMA. A!CA AUSTRA?MARTNE

    Asscociate Kustice

    RENATO C. CORONA

    Associate KusticeCONC>TA CARPO MORA!ES

    Asscociate Kustice

  • 8/20/2019 Bayan, Et Al. vs. Eduardo Ermita, Et

    28/30

    ROMEO &. CA!!E&O, SR.

    Associate Kustice"ANTE O. TNGA

    Asscociate Kustice

    MNTA . C>CO?NAARO

    Associate Kustice

    CANCO C. GARCA

    Asscociate Kustice

    PRESBTERO &. E!ASCO, &R.

    Associate Kustice

    C E R % = C A % " N

    Pursuant to !ection '+, Article H of the Constitution, it is hereb certified that the conclusions

    in the above Decision ere reached in consultation before the cases ere assi$ned to the riter

    of the opinion of the Court.

    ARTEMO . PANGANBAN

    Chief Kustice

    %oo*o('

    ' Petition for Certiorari, Manda#us and Prohibition ith Praer for %e#porarRestrainin$ "rder filed b Baan, 9arapatan, 9ilusan$ Ma$bubu8id N$ Pilipinas 29MP3,

    C":RA&E, &ABRE;A, =r. Kose A. Dion, Renato Constantino, Kr., =roel Ianea, and

    =ahi#a %a5ar.

    / Petition for Prohibition, n5unction, Restrainin$ "rder and other Kust and EuitableReliefs filed b Kess Del Prado, Filson =ortalea, ;eod de &u#an, Pedro Pinlac,

    Car#elita Morante, Rasti Delio, Paul Ban$a, Marie Ko "ca#po, ;ilia dela Cru,

    Cristeta Ra#os, Adelaida Ra#os, Mar &race &onales, Michael %orres, Rendo !abusap,Precious Balute, Roxanne Ma$boo, Ernie Bautista, Koseph de Kesus, Mar$arita Escober,

    D5oannaln Kanier, Ma$dalena !ellote, Mann uiaon, Ericson Dion, Nenita Cruat,

    ;eonardo De los Rees, Pedrito =adri$on.

    + Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Manda#us ith Praer for ssuance of

    Restrainin$ "rder filed b 9ilusan$ Mao :no, represented b its Chairperson El#er C.;abo$ and !ecretar &eneral Koel Ma$lunsod, National =ederation of ;abor :nions @

    9ilusan$ Mao :no 2NA=;:-9M:3, represented b its National President, Koselito H.

    :stare, Antonio C. Pascual, !alvador %. Carrana, &ilda !u#ilan$, =rancisco ;astrella,and Roue M. %an.

    4 Petitioner &ilda !u#ilan$.

    http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#rnt4

  • 8/20/2019 Bayan, Et Al. vs. Eduardo Ermita, Et

    29/30

    1 Petition, &.R. No. '()*+*, p. /).

    ( Citin$ Adiong v# 'ommission on (lections, /0 !CRA '/ 2'))/3 nited tates v#

    )1Brien, +)' :.!. +(, /0 ;. Ed. /d (/ 2')(*3 see R.D. Rotunda, et al., %REA%!E"N C"N!%%:%"NA; ;AF< !:B!%ANCE AND PR"CED:RE 2')*(3 citin$ 'lark

    v# 'ommunity for 'reative $on%2iolence, 4(* :.!. /**, '04 !.Ct. +0(1, */ ;.Ed. /d //'2')*43.

     &.R. No. '+//+', March +', '))*, /** !CRA 44.

    * &.R. No. '0+)1(, March +', '))/, /0 !CRA '/.

    ) &.R. No. ''(), Au$ust /1, ')*), '( !CRA ').

    '0 Citin$ -glesia ni 'risto v# 'ourt of Appeals, &.R. No. '')(+, Kul /(, '))(, /1)

    !CRA 1/).

    '' &. R. No. ;-(1+((, Nove#ber ), ')*+, '/1 !CRA 11+.

    '/ *0 Phil. ' 2')4*3.

    '+ &.R. No. '/4140, Nove#ber '4, ')).

    '4 Resolution dated March /*, /00(.

    '1 +4( Phil. ((1-((( 2'))3.

    '(

      Phil. 4// 2')03.

    ' *0 Phil. ' 2')4*3.

    '*  -bid  at 1-( 2E#phasis supplied3.

    ') &.R. No. ;-(1+((, Nove#ber ), ')*+, '/1 !CRA 11+.

    /0 &.R. No. '+//+', March +', '))*, /** !CRA 44.

    /'  -bid , p. 4*.

    // Except pic8etin$ and other concerted action in stri8e areas b or8ers and e#ploees

    resultin$ fro# a labor dispute, hich are $overned b the ;abor Code and other labor

    las political #eetin$ or rallies held durin$ an election ca#pai$n period, hich are$overned b the Election Code and other election related las and public asse#blies in

    the ca#pus of a $overn#ent-oned and operated educational institution, hich shall be

    sub5ect to the rules and re$ulations of said educational institution. 2!ec. +>a? and !ec. 4 of 

    B.P. No. **03.

    http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#rnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#rnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#rnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#rnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#rnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#rnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#rnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#rnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#rnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#rnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#rnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#rnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#rnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#rnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#rnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#rnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#rnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#rnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#rnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#rnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#rnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#rnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#rnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#rnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#rnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#rnt22

  • 8/20/2019 Bayan, Et Al. vs. Eduardo Ermita, Et

    30/30

    /+ FEB!%ERJ! %RD NEF N%ERNA%"NA; DC%"NARI "= %E EN&;!

    ;AN&:A&E :NABRD&ED 2'))+ Ed3., p. '*+(.

    /4 %he ;ocal &overn#ent Code. !pecificall, !ection '( statin$ the $eneral elfareclause, thus<

    !ec. '(. 3eneral 4elfare. @ Ever local $overn#ent unit shall exercise the poers

    expressl $ranted, those necessaril i#plied therefro#, as ell as poers

    necessar, appropriate, or incidental for its efficient and effective $overnance, andthose hich are essential to the pro#otion of the $eneral elfare. Fithin their

    respective territorial 5urisdictions, local $overn#ent units shall ensure and support

    a#on$ other thin$s, the preservation and enrich#ent of culture, pro#ote healthand safet, enhance the ri$ht of the people to a balanced ecolo$, encoura$e and

    support the develop#ent of appropriate and self-reliant scientific and

    technolo$ical capabilities, i#prove public #orals, enhance econo#ic prosperit

    and social 5ustice, pro#ote full e#plo#ent a#on$ their residents, #aintain peace

    and order, and preserve the co#fort and convenience of their inhabitants./1 RespondentsJ Consolidated Me#orandu#, pp. +0-+' 2E#phasis supplied b

    respondents3.

    /( Chief Kustice Arte#io H. Pan$aniban, /iberty and Prosperity, =ebruar '1, /00(.

    http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#rnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#rnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#rnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#rnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#rnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#rnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#rnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.html#rnt26