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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 374 views

    Primicias Vs Fugoso

    Uploaded by

    Ceresjudicata
    The document discusses a case where a mayor refused to issue a permit allowing a group to hold a public meeting. The mayor cited concerns that speeches at the meeting could undermine confidence in the government or threaten public order. The court ultimately found that the mayor's refusal violated freedom of speech, as mere fear of injury is not enough to suppress free speech and assembly.

    Copyright:

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

    Primicias Vs Fugoso

    Uploaded by

    Ceresjudicata
    374 views1 page
    The document discusses a case where a mayor refused to issue a permit allowing a group to hold a public meeting. The mayor cited concerns that speeches at the meeting could undermine confidence in the government or threaten public order. The court ultimately found that the mayor's refusal violated freedom of speech, as mere fear of injury is not enough to suppress free speech and assembly.

    Original Description:

    Crim digest

    Original Title

    Primicias vs Fugoso

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses a case where a mayor refused to issue a permit allowing a group to hold a public meeting. The mayor cited concerns that speeches at the meeting could undermine confidence in the government or threaten public order. The court ultimately found that the mayor's refusal violated freedom of speech, as mere fear of injury is not enough to suppress free speech and assembly.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    374 views1 page

    Primicias Vs Fugoso

    Uploaded by

    Ceresjudicata
    The document discusses a case where a mayor refused to issue a permit allowing a group to hold a public meeting. The mayor cited concerns that speeches at the meeting could undermine confidence in the government or threaten public order. The court ultimately found that the mayor's refusal violated freedom of speech, as mere fear of injury is not enough to suppress free speech and assembly.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    PRIMICIAS vs FUGOSO

    Facts: An action was instituted by the petitioner for the refusal of the respondent Mayor Fugoso to
    issue a permit to them to hold a public meeting in Plaza Miranda for redress of grievances to the
    government. The reason alleged by the Mayor Fugoso in his defense for refusing the permit is, "that
    there is a reasonable ground to believe, basing upon previous utterances and upon the fact that
    passions, specially on the part of the losing groups, remains bitter and high, that similar speeches will
    be delivered tending to undermine the faith and confidence of the people in their government, and in
    the duly constituted authorities, which might threaten breaches of the peace and a disruption of
    public order."
    Mayor Fugoso also invoked the delegated police power to local government. The Philippine
    Legislature has delegated the exercise of the police power to the Municipal Board of the City of
    Manila. The Municipal Board is also granted the following legislative powers, to wit: "(p) to provide
    for the prohibition and suppression of riots, affrays, disturbances and disorderly assemblies, (u) to
    regulate the use of streets, avenues, . . . parks, cemeteries and other public places" and "for the
    abatement of nuisances in the same," and "(ee) to enact all ordinances it may deem necessary and
    proper for sanitation and safety, the furtherance of prosperity and the promotion of morality, peace,
    good order, comfort, convenience, and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants."
    Section 844 of the Revised Ordinances of 1927 prohibits as an offense against public peace, and
    section 1262 of the same Revised Ordinance penalizes as a misdemeanor, "any act, in any public
    place, meeting, or procession, tending to disturb the peace or excite a riot; or collect with other
    persons in a body or crowd for any unlawful purpose; or disturb or disquiet any congregation
    engaged in any lawful assembly." Included herein is Sec. 1119, Free use of Public Place.

    Issue: Whether or Not the freedom of speech was violated.

    Held: Yes. Dealing with the ordinance, specifically, Sec. 1119, said section provides for two
    constructions: (1) the Mayor of the City of Manila is vested with unregulated discretion to grant or
    refuse, to grant permit for the holding of a lawful assembly or meeting, parade, or procession in the
    streets and other public places of the City of Manila; (2) The right of the Mayor is subject to reasonable
    discretion to determine or specify the streets or public places to be used with the view to prevent
    confusion by overlapping, to secure convenient use of the streets and public places by others, and to
    provide adequate and proper policing to minimize the risk of disorder. The court favored the second
    construction. First construction tantamount to authorizing the Mayor to prohibit the use of the
    streets. Under our democratic system of government no such unlimited power may be validly granted
    to any officer of the government, except perhaps in cases of national emergency.
    The Mayor’s first defense is untenable. Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free
    speech and assembly. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears. To
    justify suppression of free speech there must be reasonable ground to fear that serious evil will result
    if free speech is practiced. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the danger apprehended
    is imminent. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the evil to be prevented is a serious
    one. The fact that speech is likely to result in some violence or in destruction of property is not enough
    to justify its suppression. There must be the probability of serious injury to the state.

    You might also like