G.R. No. 169838             April 25, 2006 Petitioners come in three groups.

BAYAN, KARAPATAN, KILUSANG MAGBUBUKID NG PILIPINAS (KMP), The first petitioners, Bayan, et al., in G.R. No. 169838,1 allege that they are
GABRIELA, Fr. Jose Dizon, Renato Constantino, Jr., Froyel Yaneza, and citizens and taxpayers of the Philippines and that their rights as organizations and
Fahima Tajar, Petitioners, individuals were violated when the rally they participated in on October 6, 2005 was
vs. violently dispersed by policemen implementing Batas Pambansa (B.P.) No. 880.
EDUARDO ERMITA, in his capacity as Executive Secretary, Manila City
Mayor LITO ATIENZA, Chief of the Philippine National Police, Gen. ARTURO
The second group consists of 26 individual petitioners, Jess del Prado, et al., in
M. LOMIBAO, NCRPO Chief Maj. Gen. VIDAL QUEROL, and Western Police
G.R. No. 169848,2 who allege that they were injured, arrested and detained when a
District Chief Gen. PEDRO BULAONG, Respondents.
peaceful mass action they held on September 26, 2005 was preempted and
violently dispersed by the police. They further assert that on October 5, 2005, a
x---------------------------------x group they participated in marched to Malacañang to protest issuances of the Palace
which, they claim, put the country under an "undeclared" martial rule, and the
protest was likewise dispersed violently and many among them were arrested and
G.R. No. 169848             April 25, 2006
suffered injuries.

Jess Del Prado, Wilson Fortaleza, Leody de Guzman, Pedro Pinlac,

The third group, Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU), et al., petitioners in G.R. No.
Carmelita Morante, Rasti Delizo, Paul Bangay, Marie Jo Ocampo, Lilia dela
169881,3 allege that they conduct peaceful mass actions and that their rights as
Cruz, Cristeta Ramos, Adelaida Ramos, Mary Grace Gonzales, Michael
organizations and those of their individual members as citizens, specifically the right
Torres, Rendo Sabusap, Precious Balute, Roxanne Magboo, Ernie Bautista,
to peaceful assembly, are affected by Batas Pambansa No. 880 and the policy of
Joseph de Jesus, Margarita Escober, Djoannalyn Janier, Magdalena Sellote,
"Calibrated Preemptive Response" (CPR) being followed to implement it.
Manny Quiazon, Ericson Dizon, Nenita Cruzat, Leonardo De los Reyes,
Pedrito Fadrigon, Petitioners,
vs. KMU, et al., claim that on October 4, 2005, a rally KMU co-sponsored was to be
EDUARDO ERMITA, in his official capacity as The Executive Secretary and in conducted at the Mendiola bridge but police blocked them along C.M. Recto and
his personal capacity, ANGELO REYES, in his official capacity as Secretary Lepanto Streets and forcibly dispersed them, causing injuries to several of their
of the Interior and Local Governments, ARTURO LOMIBAO, in his official members. They further allege that on October 6, 2005, a multi-sectoral rally which
capacity as the Chief, Philippine National Police, VIDAL QUEROL, in his KMU also co-sponsored was scheduled to proceed along España Avenue in front of
official capacity as the Chief, National Capital Regional Police Office the University of Santo Tomas and going towards Mendiola bridge. Police officers
(NCRPO), PEDRO BULAONG, in his official capacity as the Chief, Manila blocked them along Morayta Street and prevented them from proceeding further.
Police District (MPD) AND ALL OTHER PUBLIC OFFICERS GARCIA, and AND They were then forcibly dispersed, causing injuries on one of them. 4 Three other
PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS ACTING UNDER THEIR CONTROL, SUPERVISION rallyists were arrested.
AND INSTRUCTIONS, Respondents.
All petitioners assail Batas Pambansa No. 880, some of them in toto and others only
x---------------------------------x Sections 4, 5, 6, 12, 13(a), and 14(a), as well as the policy of CPR. They seek to
stop violent dispersals of rallies under the "no permit, no rally" policy and the CPR
policy recently announced.
G.R. No. 169881             April 25, 2006

B.P. No. 880, "The Public Assembly Act of 1985," provides:

KILUSANG MAYO UNO, represented by its Chairperson ELMER C. LABOG and
Secretary General JOEL MAGLUNSOD, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR
UNIONS-KILUSANG MAYO UNO (NAFLU-KMU), represented by its National Batas Pambansa Blg. 880
President, JOSELITO V. USTAREZ, ANTONIO C. PASCUAL, SALVADOR T.
CARRANZA, GILDA SUMILANG, FRANCISCO LASTRELLA, and ROQUE M.
An Act Ensuring The Free Exercise By The People Of Their Right Peaceably To
TAN, Petitioners,
Assemble And Petition The Government [And] For Other Purposes
vs.
THE HONORABLE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, PNP DIRECTOR GENRAL ARTURO
LOMIBAO, HONORABLE MAYOR LITO ATIENZA, and PNP MPD CHIEF SUPT. Be it enacted by the Batasang Pambansa in session assembled:
PEDRO BULAONG, Respondents.
Section 1. Title. – This Act shall be known as "The Public Assembly Act of 1985."
DECISION
Sec. 2. Declaration of policy. – The constitutional right of the people peaceably to
AZCUNA, J.: assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances is essential and
vital to the strength and stability of the State. To this end, the State shall ensure activity; and the probable number of persons participating, the transport
the free exercise of such right without prejudice to the rights of others to life, liberty and the public address systems to be used.
and equal protection of the law.
(b) The application shall incorporate the duty and responsibility of the
Sec. 3. Definition of terms. – For purposes of this Act: applicant under Section 8 hereof.

(a) "Public assembly" means any rally, demonstration, march, parade, (c) The application shall be filed with the office of the mayor of the city or
procession or any other form of mass or concerted action held in a public municipality in whose jurisdiction the intended activity is to be held, at
place for the purpose of presenting a lawful cause; or expressing an least five (5) working days before the scheduled public assembly.
opinion to the general public on any particular issue; or protesting or
influencing any state of affairs whether political, economic or social; or
(d) Upon receipt of the application, which must be duly acknowledged in
petitioning the government for redress of grievances.
writing, the office of the city or municipal mayor shall cause the same to
immediately be posted at a conspicuous place in the city or municipal
The processions, rallies, parades, demonstrations, public meetings and building.
assemblages for religious purposes shall be governed by local
ordinances; Provided, however, That the declaration of policy as provided
Sec. 6. Action to be taken on the application. –
in Section 2 of this Act shall be faithfully observed.

(a) It shall be the duty of the mayor or any official acting in his behalf to
The definition herein contained shall not include picketing and other
issue or grant a permit unless there is clear and convincing evidence that
concerted action in strike areas by workers and employees resulting from a
the public assembly will create a clear and present danger to public order,
labor dispute as defined by the Labor Code, its implementing rules and
public safety, public convenience, public morals or public health.
regulations, and by the Batas Pambansa Bilang 227.

(b) The mayor or any official acting in his behalf shall act on the application
(b) "Public place" shall include any highway, boulevard, avenue, road,
within two (2) working days from the date the application was filed, failing
street, bridge or other thoroughfare, park, plaza, square, and/or any open
which, the permit shall be deemed granted. Should for any reason the
space of public ownership where the people are allowed access.
mayor or any official acting in his behalf refuse to accept the application for
a permit, said application shall be posted by the applicant on the premises
(c) "Maximum tolerance" means the highest degree of restraint that the of the office of the mayor and shall be deemed to have been filed.
military, police and other peace keeping authorities shall observe during a
public assembly or in the dispersal of the same.
(c) If the mayor is of the view that there is imminent and grave danger of
a substantive evil warranting the denial or modification of the permit, he
(d) "Modification of a permit" shall include the change of the place and shall immediately inform the applicant who must be heard on the matter.
time of the public assembly, rerouting of the parade or street march, the
volume of loud-speakers or sound system and similar changes.
(d) The action on the permit shall be in writing and served on the
applica[nt] within twenty-four hours.
Sec. 4. Permit when required and when not required. – A written permit shall be
required for any person or persons to organize and hold a public assembly in a
(e) If the mayor or any official acting in his behalf denies the application or
public place. However, no permit shall be required if the public assembly shall be
modifies the terms thereof in his permit, the applicant may contest the
done or made in a freedom park duly established by law or ordinance or in private
decision in an appropriate court of law.
property, in which case only the consent of the owner or the one entitled to its legal
possession is required, or in the campus of a government-owned and operated
educational institution which shall be subject to the rules and regulations of said (f) In case suit is brought before the Metropolitan Trial Court, the Municipal
educational institution. Political meetings or rallies held during any election Trial Court, the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, the Regional Trial Court, or
campaign period as provided for by law are not covered by this Act. the Intermediate Appellate court, its decisions may be appealed to the
appropriate court within forty-eight (48) hours after receipt of the same.
No appeal bond and record on appeal shall be required. A decision granting
Sec. 5. Application requirements. – All applications for a permit shall comply with
such permit or modifying it in terms satisfactory to the applicant shall be
the following guidelines:
immediately executory.

(a) The applications shall be in writing and shall include the names of the
leaders or organizers; the purpose of such public assembly; the date, time
and duration thereof, and place or streets to be used for the intended
 (g) All cases filed in court under this section shall be decided within freedom of expression is primordial. Towards this end, law enforcement agencies
twenty-four (24) hours from date of filing. Cases filed hereunder shall be shall observe the following guidelines:
immediately endorsed to the executive judge for disposition or, in his
absence, to the next in rank.
(a) Members of the law enforcement contingent who deal with the
demonstrators shall be in complete uniform with their nameplates and
(h) In all cases, any decision may be appealed to the Supreme Court. units to which they belong displayed prominently on the front and dorsal
parts of their uniform and must observe the policy of "maximum tolerance"
as herein defined;
(i) Telegraphic appeals to be followed by formal appeals are hereby
allowed.
(b) The members of the law enforcement contingent shall not carry any
kind of firearms but may be equipped with baton or riot sticks, shields,
Sec. 7. Use of Public throroughfare. – Should the proposed public assembly involve
crash helmets with visor, gas masks, boots or ankle high shoes with shin
the use, for an appreciable length of time, of any public highway, boulevard,
guards;
avenue, road or street, the mayor or any official acting in his behalf may, to prevent
grave public inconvenience, designate the route thereof which is convenient to the
participants or reroute the vehicular traffic to another direction so that there will be (c) Tear gas, smoke grenades, water cannons, or any similar anti-riot
no serious or undue interference with the free flow of commerce and trade. device shall not be used unless the public assembly is attended by actual
violence or serious threats of violence, or deliberate destruction of
property.
Sec. 8. Responsibility of applicant. – It shall be the duty and responsibility of the
leaders and organizers of a public assembly to take all reasonable measures and
steps to the end that the intended public assembly shall be conducted peacefully in Sec. 11. Dispersal of public assembly with permit. – No public assembly with a
accordance with the terms of the permit. These shall include but not be limited to permit shall be dispersed. However, when an assembly becomes violent, the police
the following: may disperse such public assembly as follows:

(a) To inform the participants of their responsibility under the permit;| (a) At the first sign of impending violence, the ranking officer of the law
avvphi|.net enforcement contingent shall call the attention of the leaders of the public
assembly and ask the latter to prevent any possible disturbance;
(b) To police the ranks of the demonstrators in order to prevent non-
demonstrators from disrupting the lawful activities of the public assembly; (b) If actual violence starts to a point where rocks or other harmful objects
from the participants are thrown at the police or at the non-participants, or
at any property causing damage to such property, the ranking officer of the
(c) To confer with local government officials concerned and law enforcers
law enforcement contingent shall audibly warn the participants that if the
to the end that the public assembly may be held peacefully;
disturbance persists, the public assembly will be dispersed;

(d) To see to it that the public assembly undertaken shall not go beyond
(c) If the violence or disturbance prevailing as stated in the preceding
the time stated in the permit; and
subparagraph should not stop or abate, the ranking officer of the law
enforcement contingent shall audibly issue a warning to the participants of
(e) To take positive steps that demonstrators do not molest any person or the public assembly, and after allowing a reasonable period of time to
do any act unduly interfering with the rights of other persons not lapse, shall immediately order it to forthwith disperse;
participating in the public assembly.
(d) No arrest of any leader, organizer or participant shall also be made
Sec. 9. Non-interference by law enforcement authorities. – Law enforcement during the public assembly unless he violates during the assembly a law,
agencies shall not interfere with the holding of a public assembly. However, to statute, ordinance or any provision of this Act. Such arrest shall be
adequately ensure public safety, a law enforcement contingent under the command governed by Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended;
of a responsible police officer may be detailed and stationed in a place at least one
hundred (100) meters away from the area of activity ready to maintain peace and
(e) Isolated acts or incidents of disorder or breach of the peace during the
order at all times.
public assembly shall not constitute a ground for dispersal.

Sec. 10. Police assistance when requested. – It shall be imperative for law

Sec. 12. Dispersal of public assembly without permit. – When the public assembly is
enforcement agencies, when their assistance is requested by the leaders or
held without a permit where a permit is required, the said public assembly may be
organizers, to perform their duties always mindful that their responsibility to provide
peacefully dispersed.
proper protection to those exercising their right peaceably to assemble and the
Sec. 13. Prohibited acts. – The following shall constitute violations of the Act: (a) violation of subparagraph (a) shall be punished by imprisonment of one
month and one day to six months;
(a) The holding of any public assembly as defined in this Act by any leader
or organizer without having first secured that written permit where a (b) violations of subparagraphs (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), and item 4,
permit is required from the office concerned, or the use of such permit for subparagraph (g) shall be punished by imprisonment of six months and
such purposes in any place other than those set out in said one day to six years;
permit: Provided, however, That no person can be punished or held
criminally liable for participating in or attending an otherwise peaceful
(c) violation of item 1, subparagraph (g) shall be punished by
assembly;
imprisonment of six months and one day to six years without prejudice to
prosecution under Presidential Decree No. 1866;
(b) Arbitrary and unjustified denial or modification of a permit in violation
of the provisions of this Act by the mayor or any other official acting in his
(d) violations of item 2, item 3, or item 5 of subparagraph (g) shall be
behalf;
punished by imprisonment of one day to thirty days.

(c) The unjustified and arbitrary refusal to accept or acknowledge receipt of

Sec. 15. Freedom parks. – Every city and municipality in the country shall within six
the application for a permit by the mayor or any official acting in his
months after the effectivity of this Act establish or designate at least one suitable
behalf;
"freedom park" or mall in their respective jurisdictions which, as far as practicable,
shall be centrally located within the poblacion where demonstrations and meetings
(d) Obstructing, impeding, disrupting or otherwise denying the exercise of may be held at any time without the need of any prior permit.
the right to peaceful assembly;
In the cities and municipalities of Metropolitan Manila, the respective mayors shall
(e) The unnecessary firing of firearms by a member of any law establish the freedom parks within the period of six months from the effectivity this
enforcement agency or any person to disperse the public assembly; Act.

(f) Acts in violation of Section 10 hereof; Sec. 16. Constitutionality. – Should any provision of this Act be declared invalid or
unconstitutional, the validity or constitutionality of the other provisions shall not be
affected thereby.
(g) Acts described hereunder if committed within one hundred (100)
meters from the area of activity of the public assembly or on the occasion
thereof: Sec. 17. Repealing clause. – All laws, decrees, letters of instructions, resolutions,
orders, ordinances or parts thereof which are inconsistent with the provisions of this
Act are hereby repealed, amended, or modified accordingly.
1. the carrying of a deadly or offensive weapon or device such as
firearm, pillbox, bomb, and the like;
Sec. 18. Effectivity. – This Act shall take effect upon its approval.
2. the carrying of a bladed weapon and the like;
Approved, October 22, 1985.
3. the malicious burning of any object in the streets or
thoroughfares; CPR, on the other hand, is a policy set forth in a press release by Malacañang dated
September 21, 2005, shown in Annex "A" to the Petition in G.R. No. 169848, thus:
4. the carrying of firearms by members of the law enforcement
unit; Malacañang Official

5. the interfering with or intentionally disturbing the holding of a Manila, Philippines NEWS
public assembly by the use of a motor vehicle, its horns and loud
sound systems.
Release No. 2 September 21, 2005

Sec. 14. Penalties. – Any person found guilty and convicted of any of the prohibited
STATEMENT OF EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA
acts defined in the immediately preceding section shall be punished as follows:

On Unlawful Mass Actions

In view of intelligence reports pointing to credible plans of anti-government groups Finally, petitioners KMU, et al., argue that the Constitution sets no limits on the
to inflame the political situation, sow disorder and incite people against the duly right to assembly and therefore B.P. No. 880 cannot put the prior requirement of
constituted authorities, we have instructed the PNP as well as the local government securing a permit. And even assuming that the legislature can set limits to this
units to strictly enforce a "no permit, no rally" policy, disperse groups that run afoul right, the limits provided are unreasonable: First, allowing the Mayor to deny the
of this standard and arrest all persons violating the laws of the land as well as permit on clear and convincing evidence of a clear and present danger is too
ordinances on the proper conduct of mass actions and demonstrations. comprehensive. Second, the five-day requirement to apply for a permit is too long
as certain events require instant public assembly, otherwise interest on the issue
would possibly wane.
The rule of calibrated preemptive response is now in force, in lieu of maximum
tolerance. The authorities will not stand aside while those with ill intent are herding
a witting or unwitting mass of people and inciting them into actions that are inimical As to the CPR policy, they argue that it is preemptive, that the government takes
to public order, and the peace of mind of the national community. action even before the rallyists can perform their act, and that no law, ordinance or
executive order supports the policy. Furthermore, it contravenes the maximum
tolerance policy of B.P. No. 880 and violates the Constitution as it causes a chilling
Unlawful mass actions will be dispersed. The majority of law-abiding citizens have
effect on the exercise by the people of the right to peaceably assemble.
the right to be protected by a vigilant and proactive government.

Respondents in G.R. No. 169838 are Eduardo Ermita, as Executive Secretary,

We appeal to the detractors of the government to engage in lawful and peaceful
Manila City Mayor Lito Atienza, Chief, of the Philippine National Police
conduct befitting of a democratic society.
(PNP) Gen. Arturo Lomibao, National Capital Region Police Office (NCRPO) Chief,
PNP Maj. Gen. Vidal Querol, and Manila Police District (MPD) Chief Gen. Pedro
The President’s call for unity and reconciliation stands, based on the rule of law. Bulaong.

Petitioners Bayan, et al., contend that Batas Pambansa No. 880 is clearly a Respondents in G.R. No. 169848 are Eduardo Ermita as Executive Secretary and
violation of the Constitution and the International Covenant on Civil and Political in his personal capacity; Angelo Reyes, as Secretary of the Interior and Local
Rights and other human rights treaties of which the Philippines is a signatory. 5 Governments; Arturo Lomibao, as Chief Vidal Querol, as Chief, NCRPO; Pedro
Bulaong, as Chief, MPD, and all other public officers and private individuals acting
They argue that B.P. No. 880 requires a permit before one can stage a public under their control, supervision and instruction.
assembly regardless of the presence or absence of a clear and present danger. It
also curtails the choice of venue and is thus repugnant to the freedom of expression Respondents in G.R. No. 169881 are the Honorable Executive Secretary,
clause as the time and place of a public assembly form part of the message for PNP Director General Arturo Lomibao, the Honorable Mayor Joselito Atienza,
which the expression is sought. Furthermore, it is not content-neutral as it does not and PNP MPD Chief Pedro Bulaong.
apply to mass actions in support of the government. The words "lawful cause,"
"opinion," "protesting or influencing" suggest the exposition of some cause not
Respondents argue that:
espoused by the government. Also, the phrase "maximum tolerance" shows that the
law applies to assemblies against the government because they are being tolerated.
As a content-based legislation, it cannot pass the strict scrutiny test. 1. Petitioners have no standing because they have not presented evidence
that they had been "injured, arrested or detained because of the CPR," and
that "those arrested stand to be charged with violating Batas Pambansa
Petitioners Jess del Prado, et al., in turn, argue that B.P. No. 880 is
[No.] 880 and other offenses."
unconstitutional as it is a curtailment of the right to peacefully assemble and
petition for redress of grievances because it puts a condition for the valid exercise of
that right. It also characterizes public assemblies without a permit as illegal and 2. Neither B.P. No. 880 nor CPR is void on its face. Petitioners cannot
penalizes them and allows their dispersal. Thus, its provisions are not mere honestly claim that the time, place and manner regulation embodied in B.P.
regulations but are actually prohibitions. No. 880 violates the three-pronged test for such a measure, to wit: (a)
B.P. No. 880 is content-neutral, i.e., it has no reference to content of
regulated speech; (b) B.P. No. 880 is narrowly tailored to serve a
Furthermore, the law delegates powers to the Mayor without providing clear
significant governmental interest, i.e., the interest cannot be equally well
standards. The two standards stated in the laws (clear and present danger and
served by a means that is less intrusive of free speech interests; and (c)
imminent and grave danger) are inconsistent.
B.P. No. 880 leaves open alternative channels for communication of the
information.6
Regarding the CPR policy, it is void for being an ultra vires act that alters the
standard of maximum tolerance set forth in B.P. No. 880, aside from being void for
3. B.P. No. 880 is content-neutral as seen from the text of the law. Section
being vague and for lack of publication.
5 requires the statement of the public assembly’s time, place and manner
of conduct. It entails traffic re-routing to prevent grave public
 inconvenience and serious or undue interference in the free flow of (b) Are they void on grounds of overbreadth or vagueness?
commerce and trade. Furthermore, nothing in B.P. No. 880 authorizes the
denial of a permit on the basis of a rally’s program content or the
(c) Do they constitute prior restraint?
statements of the speakers therein, except under the constitutional precept
of the "clear and present danger test." The status of B.P. No. 880 as a
content-neutral regulation has been recognized in Osmeña v. Comelec.7 (d) Are they undue delegations of powers to Mayors?

4. Adiong v. Comelec8 held that B.P. No. 880 is a content-neutral (e) Do they violate international human rights treaties and the
regulation of the time, place and manner of holding public assemblies and Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
the law passes the test for such regulation, namely, these regulations need
only a substantial governmental interest to support them. 2. On the constitutionality and legality of the policy of Calibrated
Preemptive Response (CPR):
5. Sangalang v. Intermediate Appellate Court9 held that a local chief
executive has the authority to exercise police power to meet "the demands (a) Is the policy void on its face or due to vagueness?
of the common good in terms of traffic decongestion and public
convenience." Furthermore, the discretion given to the mayor is narrowly
circumscribed by Sections 5 (d), and 6 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), 13 and 15 of (b) Is it void for lack of publication?
the law.
(c) Is the policy of CPR void as applied to the rallies of September
6. The standards set forth in the law are not inconsistent. "Clear and 26 and October 4, 5 and 6, 2005?
convincing evidence that the public assembly will create a clear and
present danger to public order, public safety, public convenience, public During the course of the oral arguments, the following developments took place and
morals or public health" and "imminent and grave danger of a substantive were approved and/or noted by the Court:
evil" both express the meaning of the "clear and present danger test." 10
1. Petitioners, in the interest of a speedy resolution of the petitions,
7. CPR is simply the responsible and judicious use of means allowed by withdrew the portions of their petitions raising factual issues, particularly
existing laws and ordinances to protect public interest and restore public those raising the issue of whether B.P. No. 880 and/or CPR is void as
order. Thus, it is not accurate to call it a new rule but rather it is a more applied to the rallies of September 20, October 4, 5 and 6, 2005.
pro-active and dynamic enforcement of existing laws, regulations and
ordinances to prevent chaos in the streets. It does not replace the rule of
maximum tolerance in B.P. No. 880. 2. The Solicitor General agreed with the observation of the Chief Justice
that CPR should no longer be used as a legal term inasmuch as, according
to respondents, it was merely a "catchword" intended to clarify what was
Respondent Mayor Joselito Atienza, for his part, submitted in his Comment that the thought to be a misunderstanding of the maximum tolerance policy set
petition in G.R. No. 169838 should be dismissed on the ground that Republic Act forth in B.P. No. 880 and that, as stated in the affidavit executed by
No. 7160 gives the Mayor power to deny a permit independently of B.P. No. 880; Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita and submitted to the Ombudsman, it
that his denials of permits were under the "clear and present danger" rule as there does not replace B.P. No. 880 and the maximum tolerance policy embodied
was a clamor to stop rallies that disrupt the economy and to protect the lives of in that law.
other people; that J. B. L. Reyes v. Bagatsing,11 Primicias v. Fugoso,12 and Jacinto v.
CA,13 have affirmed the constitutionality of requiring a permit; that the permit is for
the use of a public place and not for the exercise of rights; and that B.P. No. 880 is The Court will now proceed to address the principal issues, taking into account the
not a content-based regulation because it covers all rallies. foregoing developments.

The petitions were ordered consolidated on February 14, 2006. After the submission Petitioners’ standing cannot be seriously challenged. Their right as citizens to
of all the Comments, the Court set the cases for oral arguments on April 4, engage in peaceful assembly and exercise the right of petition, as guaranteed by
2006,14 stating the principal issues, as follows: the Constitution, is directly affected by B.P. No. 880 which requires a permit for all
who would publicly assemble in the nation’s streets and parks. They have, in fact,
purposely engaged in public assemblies without the required permits to press their
1. On the constitutionality of Batas Pambansa No. 880, specifically Sections claim that no such permit can be validly required without violating the Constitutional
4, 5, 6, 12 13(a) and 14(a) thereof, and Republic Act No. 7160: guarantee. Respondents, on the other hand, have challenged such action as
contrary to law and dispersed the public assemblies held without the permit.
(a) Are these content-neutral or content-based regulations?
Section 4 of Article III of the Constitution provides:
Sec. 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of injurious to the equal enjoyment of others having equal rights, nor injurious to the
the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the rights of the community or society. The power to regulate the exercise of such and
government for redress of grievances. other constitutional rights is termed the sovereign "police power," which is the
power to prescribe regulations, to promote the health, morals, peace, education,
good order or safety, and general welfare of the people. This sovereign police power
The first point to mark is that the right to peaceably assemble and petition for
is exercised by the government through its legislative branch by the enactment of
redress of grievances is, together with freedom of speech, of expression, and of the
laws regulating those and other constitutional and civil rights, and it may be
press, a right that enjoys primacy in the realm of constitutional protection. For
delegated to political subdivisions, such as towns, municipalities and cities by
these rights constitute the very basis of a functional democratic polity, without
authorizing their legislative bodies called municipal and city councils to enact
which all the other rights would be meaningless and unprotected. As stated
ordinances for the purpose.18
in Jacinto v. CA,15 the Court, as early as the onset of this century, in U.S. v.
Apurado,16 already upheld the right to assembly and petition, as follows:
Reyes v. Bagatsing19 further expounded on the right and its limits, as follows:
There is no question as to the petitioners’ rights to peaceful assembly to petition the
government for a redress of grievances and, for that matter, to organize or form 1. It is thus clear that the Court is called upon to protect the exercise of
associations for purposes not contrary to law, as well as to engage in peaceful the cognate rights to free speech and peaceful assembly, arising from the
concerted activities. These rights are guaranteed by no less than the Constitution, denial of a permit. The Constitution is quite explicit: "No law shall be
particularly Sections 4 and 8 of the Bill of Rights, Section 2(5) of Article IX, and passed abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the
Section 3 of Article XIII. Jurisprudence abounds with hallowed pronouncements people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for redress of
defending and promoting the people’s exercise of these rights. As early as the onset grievances." Free speech, like free press, may be identified with the liberty
of this century, this Court in U.S. vs. Apurado, already upheld the right to assembly to discuss publicly and truthfully any matter of public concern without
and petition and even went as far as to acknowledge: censorship or punishment. There is to be then no previous restraint on the
communication of views or subsequent liability whether in libel suits,
prosecution for sedition, or action for damages, or contempt proceedings
"It is rather to be expected that more or less disorder will mark the public assembly
unless there be a "clear and present danger of a substantive evil that [the
of the people to protest against grievances whether real or imaginary, because on
State] has a right to prevent." Freedom of assembly connotes the right of
such occasions feeling is always wrought to a high pitch of excitement, and the
the people to meet peaceably for consultation and discussion of matters of
greater, the grievance and the more intense the feeling, the less perfect, as a rule
public concern. It is entitled to be accorded the utmost deference and
will be the disciplinary control of the leaders over their irresponsible followers. But if
respect. It is not to be limited, much less denied, except on a showing, as
the prosecution be permitted to seize upon every instance of such disorderly
is the case with freedom of expression, of a clear and present danger of a
conduct by individual members of a crowd as an excuse to characterize the
substantive evil that the state has a right to prevent. Even prior to the
assembly as a seditious and tumultuous rising against the authorities, then the right
1935 Constitution, Justice Malcolm had occasion to stress that it is a
to assemble and to petition for redress of grievances would become a delusion and
necessary consequence of our republican institutions and complements the
a snare and the attempt to exercise it on the most righteous occasion and in the
right of free speech. To paraphrase the opinion of Justice Rutledge,
most peaceable manner would expose all those who took part therein to the
speaking for the majority of the American Supreme Court in Thomas v.
severest and most unmerited punishment, if the purposes which they sought to
Collins, it was not by accident or coincidence that the rights to freedom of
attain did not happen to be pleasing to the prosecuting authorities. If instances of
speech and of the press were coupled in a single guarantee with the rights
disorderly conduct occur on such occasions, the guilty individuals should be sought
of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for
out and punished therefor, but the utmost discretion must be exercised in drawing
redress of grievances. All these rights, while not identical, are inseparable.
the line between disorderly and seditious conduct and between an essentially
In every case, therefore, where there is a limitation placed on the exercise
peaceable assembly and a tumultuous uprising."
of this right, the judiciary is called upon to examine the effects of the
challenged governmental actuation. The sole justification for a limitation on
Again, in Primicias v. Fugoso,17 the Court likewise sustained the primacy of freedom the exercise of this right, so fundamental to the maintenance of democratic
of speech and to assembly and petition over comfort and convenience in the use of institutions, is the danger, of a character both grave and imminent, of a
streets and parks. serious evil to public safety, public morals, public health, or any other
legitimate public interest.
Next, however, it must be remembered that the right, while sacrosanct, is not
absolute. In Primicias, this Court said: 2. Nowhere is the rationale that underlies the freedom of expression and
peaceable assembly better expressed than in this excerpt from an opinion
The right to freedom of speech, and to peacefully assemble and petition the of Justice Frankfurter: "It must never be forgotten, however, that the Bill
government for redress of grievances, are fundamental personal rights of the people of Rights was the child of the Enlightenment. Back of the guaranty of free
recognized and guaranteed by the constitutions of democratic countries. But it is a speech lay faith in the power of an appeal to reason by all the peaceful
settled principle growing out of the nature of well-ordered civil societies that the means for gaining access to the mind. It was in order to avert force and
exercise of those rights is not absolute for it may be so regulated that it shall not be explosions due to restrictions upon rational modes of communication that
the guaranty of free speech was given a generous scope. But utterance in
a context of violence can lose its significance as an appeal to reason and permit should not be granted for the proposed march and rally starting
become part of an instrument of force. Such utterance was not meant to from a public park that is the Luneta.
be sheltered by the Constitution." What was rightfully stressed is the
abandonment of reason, the utterance, whether verbal or printed, being in
4. Neither can there be any valid objection to the use of the streets to the
a context of violence. It must always be remembered that this right
gates of the US embassy, hardly two blocks away at the Roxas Boulevard.
likewise provides for a safety valve, allowing parties the opportunity to give
Primicias v. Fugoso has resolved any lurking doubt on the matter. In
vent to their views, even if contrary to the prevailing climate of opinion.
holding that the then Mayor Fugoso of the City of Manila should grant a
For if the peaceful means of communication cannot be availed of, resort to
permit for a public meeting at Plaza Miranda in Quiapo, this Court
non-peaceful means may be the only alternative. Nor is this the sole
categorically declared: "Our conclusion finds support in the decision in the
reason for the expression of dissent. It means more than just the right to
case of Willis Cox v. State of New Hampshire, 312 U.S., 569. In that case,
be heard of the person who feels aggrieved or who is dissatisfied with
the statute of New Hampshire P.L. chap. 145, section 2, providing that no
things as they are. Its value may lie in the fact that there may be
parade or procession upon any ground abutting thereon, shall be permitted
something worth hearing from the dissenter. That is to ensure a true
unless a special license therefor shall first be obtained from the selectmen
ferment of ideas. There are, of course, well-defined limits. What is
of the town or from licensing committee,’ was construed by the Supreme
guaranteed is peaceable assembly. One may not advocate disorder in the
Court of New Hampshire as not conferring upon the licensing board
name of protest, much less preach rebellion under the cloak of dissent. The
unfettered discretion to refuse to grant the license, and held valid. And the
Constitution frowns on disorder or tumult attending a rally or assembly.
Supreme Court of the United States, in its decision (1941) penned by Chief
Resort to force is ruled out and outbreaks of violence to be avoided. The
Justice Hughes affirming the judgment of the State Supreme Court, held
utmost calm though is not required. As pointed out in an early Philippine
that ‘a statute requiring persons using the public streets for a parade or
case, penned in 1907 to be precise, United States v. Apurado: "It is rather
procession to procure a special license therefor from the local authorities is
to be expected that more or less disorder will mark the public assembly of
not an unconstitutional abridgment of the rights of assembly or of freedom
the people to protest against grievances whether real or imaginary,
of speech and press, where, as the statute is construed by the state courts,
because on such occasions feeling is always wrought to a high pitch of
the licensing authorities are strictly limited, in the issuance of licenses, to a
excitement, and the greater the grievance and the more intense the
consideration of the time, place, and manner of the parade or procession,
feeling, the less perfect, as a rule, will be the disciplinary control of the
with a view to conserving the public convenience and of affording an
leaders over their irresponsible followers." It bears repeating that for the
opportunity to provide proper policing, and are not invested with arbitrary
constitutional right to be invoked, riotous conduct, injury to property, and
discretion to issue or refuse license, * * *. "Nor should the point made by
acts of vandalism must be avoided. To give free rein to one’s destructive
Chief Justice Hughes in a subsequent portion of the opinion be ignored:
urges is to call for condemnation. It is to make a mockery of the high
"Civil liberties, as guaranteed by the Constitution, imply the existence of an
estate occupied by intellectual liberty in our scheme of values.
organized society maintaining public order without which liberty itself
would be lost in the excesses of unrestricted abuses. The authority of a
There can be no legal objection, absent the existence of a clear and municipality to impose regulations in order to assure the safety and
present danger of a substantive evil, on the choice of Luneta as the place convenience of the people in the use of public highways has never been
where the peace rally would start. The Philippines is committed to the view regarded as inconsistent with civil liberties but rather as one of the means
expressed in the plurality opinion, of 1939 vintage, of Justice Roberts in of safeguarding the good order upon which they ultimately depend. The
Hague v. CIO: "Whenever the title of streets and parks may rest, they control of travel on the streets of cities is the most familiar illustration of
have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time this recognition of social need. Where a restriction of the use of highways
out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating in that relation is designed to promote the public convenience in the
thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions. Such use of the interest of all, it cannot be disregarded by the attempted exercise of some
streets and public places has, from ancient times, been a part of the civil right which in other circumstances would be entitled to protection."
privileges, immunities, rights and liberties of citizens. The privilege of a
citizen of the United States to use the streets and parks for communication
xxx
of views on national questions may be regulated in the interest of all; it is
not absolute, but relative, and must be exercised in subordination to the
general comfort and convenience, and in consonance with peace and good 6. x x x The principle under American doctrines was given utterance by
order; but must not, in the guise of regulation, be abridged or denied." The Chief Justice Hughes in these words: "The question, if the rights of free
above excerpt was quoted with approval in Primicias v. Fugoso. Primicias speech and peaceable assembly are to be preserved, is not as to the
made explicit what was implicit in Municipality of Cavite v. Rojas, a 1915 auspices under which the meeting is held but as to its purpose; not as to
decision, where this Court categorically affirmed that plazas or parks and the relations of the speakers, but whether their utterances transcend the
streets are outside the commerce of man and thus nullified a contract that bounds of the freedom of speech which the Constitution protects." There
leased Plaza Soledad of plaintiff-municipality. Reference was made to such could be danger to public peace and safety if such a gathering were
plaza "being a promenade for public use," which certainly is not the only marked by turbulence. That would deprive it of its peaceful character. Even
purpose that it could serve. To repeat, there can be no valid reason why a then, only the guilty parties should be held accountable. It is true that the
licensing official, here respondent Mayor, is not devoid of discretion in
determining whether or not a permit would be granted. It is not, however,
 unfettered discretion. While prudence requires that there be a realistic
appraisal not of what may possibly occur but of what may probably occur,
given all the relevant circumstances, still the assumption – especially so
where the assembly is scheduled for a specific public place – is that the assembly should inform the freedom park duly established by
permit must be for the assembly being held there. The exercise of such a licensing authority of the date, the law or ordinance or in private
right, in the language of Justice Roberts, speaking for the American public place where and the time property, in which case only the
Supreme Court, is not to be "abridged on the plea that it may be exercised when it will take place. If it were a consent of the owner or the one
in some other place." private place, only the consent of entitled to its legal possession is
the owner or the one entitled to required, or in the campus of a
its legal possession is required. government-owned and operated
xxx
Such application should be filed educational institution which shall
well ahead in time to enable the be subject to the rules and
8. By way of a summary. The applicants for a permit to hold an assembly public official concerned to regulations of said educational
should inform the licensing authority of the date, the public appraise whether there may be institution. Political meetings or
place where and the time when it will take place. If it were a private place, valid objections to the grant of the rallies held during any election
only the consent of the owner or the one entitled to its legal possession is permit or to its grant but at campaign period as provided for
required. Such application should be filed well ahead in time to enable the another public place. It is an by law are not covered by this Act.
public official concerned to appraise whether there may be valid objections indispensable condition to such
to the grant of the permit or to its grant but at another public place. It is refusal or modification that the
Sec. 5. Application
an indispensable condition to such refusal or modification that the clear clear and present danger test be
requirements.-- All applications for
and present danger test be the standard for the decision reached. If he is the standard for the decision
a permit shall comply with the
of the view that there is such an imminent and grave danger of a reached. If he is of the view that
following guidelines:
substantive evil, the applicants must be heard on the matter. Thereafter, there is such an imminent and
his decision, whether favorable or adverse, must be transmitted to them at grave danger of a substantive evil,
the earliest opportunity. Thus if so minded, they can have recourse to the the applicants must be heard on (a) The applications shall
proper judicial authority. Free speech and peaceable assembly, along with the matter. Thereafter, his be in writing and shall
the other intellectual freedoms, are highly ranked in our scheme of decision, whether favorable or include the names of the
constitutional values. It cannot be too strongly stressed that on the adverse, must be transmitted to leaders or organizers; the
judiciary, -- even more so than on the other departments – rests the grave them at the earliest opportunity. purpose of such public
and delicate responsibility of assuring respect for and deference to such Thus if so minded, they can have assembly; the date, time
preferred rights. No verbal formula, no sanctifying phrase can, of course, recourse to the proper judicial and duration thereof, and
dispense with what has been so felicitiously termed by Justice Holmes "as authority. place or streets to be
the sovereign prerogative of judgment." Nonetheless, the presumption used for the intended
must be to incline the weight of the scales of justice on the side of such activity; and the probable
rights, enjoying as they do precedence and primacy. x x x. number of persons
participating, the
transport and the public
B.P. No. 880 was enacted after this Court rendered its decision in Reyes.
address systems to be
used.
The provisions of B.P. No. 880 practically codify the ruling in Reyes:
(b) The application shall
incorporate the duty and
responsibility of applicant
Reyes v. Bagatsing B.P. No. 880
under Section 8 hereof.

(G.R. No. L-65366, November 9, Sec. 4. Permit when required and

(c) The application shall
1983, when not required.-- A written
be filed with the office of
permit shall be required for any
the mayor of the city or
person or persons to organize and
125 SCRA 553, 569) municipality in whose
hold a public assembly in a public
jurisdiction the intended
place. However, no permit shall be
8. By way of a summary. The activity is to be held, at
required if the public assembly
applicants for a permit to hold an least five (5) working
shall be done or made in a
days before the
 scheduled public been filed.
assembly.
(c) If the mayor is of the
(d) Upon receipt of the view that there is
application, which must imminent and grave
be duly acknowledged in danger of a substantive
writing, the office of the evil warranting the denial
city or municipal mayor or modification of the
shall cause the same to permit, he shall
immediately be posted at immediately inform the
a conspicuous place in applicant who must be
the city or municipal heard on the matter.
building.
(d) The action on the
Sec. 6. Action to be taken on the permit shall be in writing
application. – and served on the
applica[nt] within twenty-
four hours.
(a) It shall be the duty of
the mayor or any official
acting in his behalf to (e) If the mayor or any
issue or grant a permit official acting in his behalf
unless there is clear and denies the application or
convincing evidence that modifies the terms
the public assembly will thereof in his permit, the
create a clear and applicant may contest the
present danger to public decision in an appropriate
order, public safety, court of law.
public convenience,
public morals or public
(f) In case suit is brought
health.
before the Metropolitan
Trial Court, the Municipal
(b) The mayor or any Trial Court, the Municipal
official acting in his behalf Circuit Trial Court, the
shall act on the Regional Trial Court, or
application within two (2) the Intermediate
working days from the Appellate Court, its
date the application was decisions may be
filed, failing which, the appealed to the
permit shall be deemed appropriate court within
granted. Should for any forty-eight (48) hours
reason the mayor or any after receipt of the same.
official acting in his behalf No appeal bond and
refuse to accept the record on appeal shall be
application for a permit, required. A decision
said application shall be granting such permit or
posted by the applicant modifying it in terms
on the premises of the satisfactory to the
office of the mayor and applicant shall be
shall be deemed to have
 Article 20

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

immediately executory.

xxx
(g) All cases filed in court
under this section shall
be decided within twenty- Article 29
four (24) hours from date
of filing. Cases filed 1. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full
hereunder shall be development of his personality is possible.
immediately endorsed to
the executive judge for
disposition or, in his 2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject
absence, to the next in only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of
rank. securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others
and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the
general welfare in a democratic society.
(h) In all cases, any
decision may be appealed
to the Supreme Court. 3. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the
purposes and principles of the United Nations.

(i) Telegraphic appeals to

be followed by formal The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
appeals are hereby
allowed. Article 19.

1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.

It is very clear, therefore, that B.P. No. 880 is not an absolute ban of public
assemblies but a restriction that simply regulates the time, place and manner of the 2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall
assemblies. This was adverted to in Osmeña v. Comelec,20 where the Court referred include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all
to it as a "content-neutral" regulation of the time, place, and manner of holding kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the
public assemblies.21 form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

A fair and impartial reading of B.P. No. 880 thus readily shows that it refers 3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article
to all kinds of public assemblies22 that would use public places. The reference to carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be
"lawful cause" does not make it content-based because assemblies really have to be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided
for lawful causes, otherwise they would not be "peaceable" and entitled to by law and are necessary:
protection. Neither are the words "opinion," "protesting" and "influencing" in the
definition of public assembly content based, since they can refer to any subject. The
(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
words "petitioning the government for redress of grievances" come from the
wording of the Constitution, so its use cannot be avoided. Finally, maximum
tolerance is for the protection and benefit of all rallyists and is independent of (b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre
the content of the expressions in the rally. public), or of public health or morals.

Furthermore, the permit can only be denied on the ground of clear and present Contrary to petitioner’s claim, the law is very clear and is nowhere vague in its
danger to public order, public safety, public convenience, public morals or public provisions. "Public" does not have to be defined. Its ordinary meaning is well-
health. This is a recognized exception to the exercise of the right even under the known. Webster’s Dictionary defines it, thus:23
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, thus: public, n, x x x 2a: an organized body of people x x x 3: a group of people
distinguished by common interests or characteristics x x x.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Not every expression of opinion is a public assembly. The law refers to "rally, from the finality of this Decision, no prior permit may be required for the exercise of
demonstration, march, parade, procession or any other form of mass or concerted such right in any public park or plaza of a city or municipality until that city or
action held in a public place." So it does not cover any and all kinds of gatherings. municipality shall have complied with Section 15 of the law. For without such
alternative forum, to deny the permit would in effect be to deny the right. Advance
notices should, however, be given to the authorities to ensure proper coordination
Neither is the law overbroad. It regulates the exercise of the right to peaceful
and orderly proceedings.
assembly and petition only to the extent needed to avoid a clear and present danger
of the substantive evils Congress has the right to prevent.
The Court now comes to the matter of the CPR. As stated earlier, the Solicitor
General has conceded that the use of the term should now be discontinued, since it
There is, likewise, no prior restraint, since the content of the speech is not relevant
does not mean anything other than the maximum tolerance policy set forth in B.P.
to the regulation.
No. 880. This is stated in the Affidavit of respondent Executive Secretary Eduardo
Ermita, submitted by the Solicitor General, thus:
As to the delegation of powers to the mayor, the law provides a precise and
sufficient standard – the clear and present danger test stated in Sec. 6(a). The
14. The truth of the matter is the policy of "calibrated preemptive response" is in
reference to "imminent and grave danger of a substantive evil" in Sec. 6(c)
consonance with the legal definition of "maximum tolerance" under Section 3 (c) of
substantially means the same thing and is not an inconsistent standard. As to
B.P. Blg. 880, which is the "highest degree of restraint that the military, police and
whether respondent Mayor has the same power independently under Republic Act
other peacekeeping authorities shall observe during a public assembly or in the
No. 716024 is thus not necessary to resolve in these proceedings, and was not
dispersal of the same." Unfortunately, however, the phrase "maximum tolerance"
pursued by the parties in their arguments.
has acquired a different meaning over the years. Many have taken it to mean
inaction on the part of law enforcers even in the face of mayhem and serious
Finally, for those who cannot wait, Section 15 of the law provides for an alternative threats to public order. More so, other felt that they need not bother secure a
forum through the creation of freedom parks where no prior permit is needed for permit when holding rallies thinking this would be "tolerated." Clearly, the popular
peaceful assembly and petition at any time: connotation of "maximum tolerance" has departed from its real essence under B.P.
Blg. 880.
Sec. 15. Freedom parks. – Every city and municipality in the country shall within six
months after the effectivity of this Act establish or designate at least one suitable 15. It should be emphasized that the policy of maximum tolerance is provided under
"freedom park" or mall in their respective jurisdictions which, as far as practicable, the same law which requires all pubic assemblies to have a permit, which allows the
shall be centrally located within the poblacion where demonstrations and meetings dispersal of rallies without a permit, and which recognizes certain instances when
may be held at any time without the need of any prior permit. water cannons may be used. This could only mean that "maximum tolerance" is not
in conflict with a "no permit, no rally policy" or with the dispersal and use of water
In the cities and municipalities of Metropolitan Manila, the respective mayors shall cannons under certain circumstances for indeed, the maximum amount of tolerance
establish the freedom parks within the period of six months from the effectivity this required is dependent on how peaceful or unruly a mass action is. Our law enforcers
Act. should calibrate their response based on the circumstances on the ground with the
view to preempting the outbreak of violence.

This brings up the point, however, of compliance with this provision.

16. Thus, when I stated that calibrated preemptive response is being enforced in
lieu of maximum tolerance I clearly was not referring to its legal definition but to
The Solicitor General stated during the oral arguments that, to his knowledge, only the distorted and much abused definition that it has now acquired. I only wanted to
Cebu City has declared a freedom park – Fuente Osmeña. disabuse the minds of the public from the notion that law enforcers would shirk
their responsibility of keeping the peace even when confronted with dangerously
That of Manila, the Sunken Gardens, has since been converted into a golf course, he threatening behavior. I wanted to send a message that we would no longer be lax in
added. enforcing the law but would henceforth follow it to the letter. Thus I said, "we have
instructed the PNP as well as the local government units to strictly enforce a no
permit, no rally policy . . . arrest all persons violating the laws of the land . . .
If this is so, the degree of observance of B.P. No. 880’s mandate that every city and unlawful mass actions will be dispersed." None of these is at loggerheads with the
municipality set aside a freedom park within six months from its effectivity in letter and spirit of Batas Pambansa Blg. 880. It is thus absurd for complainants to
1985, or 20 years ago, would be pathetic and regrettable. The matter appears to even claim that I ordered my co-respondents to violate any law. 25
have been taken for granted amidst the swell of freedom that rose from the
peaceful revolution of 1986.
At any rate, the Court rules that in view of the maximum tolerance mandated by
B.P. No. 880, CPR serves no valid purpose if it means the same thing as maximum
Considering that the existence of such freedom parks is an essential part of the tolerance and is illegal if it means something else. Accordingly, what is to be
law’s system of regulation of the people’s exercise of their right to peacefully followed is and should be that mandated by the law itself, namely, maximum
assemble and petition, the Court is constrained to rule that after thirty (30) days tolerance, which specifically means the following:
Sec. 3. Definition of terms. – For purposes of this Act: at any property causing damage to such property, the ranking officer of the
law enforcement contingent shall audibly warn the participants that if the
disturbance persists, the public assembly will be dispersed;
xxx

(c) If the violence or disturbance prevailing as stated in the preceding

(c) "Maximum tolerance" means the highest degree of restraint that the military,
subparagraph should not stop or abate, the ranking officer of the law
police and other peace keeping authorities shall observe during a public assembly or
enforcement contingent shall audibly issue a warning to the participants of
in the dispersal of the same.
the public assembly, and after allowing a reasonable period of time to
lapse, shall immediately order it to forthwith disperse;
xxx
(d) No arrest of any leader, organizer or participant shall also be made
Sec. 9. Non-interference by law enforcement authorities. – Law enforcement during the public assembly unless he violates during the assembly a law,
agencies shall not interfere with the holding of a public assembly. However, to statute, ordinance or any provision of this Act. Such arrest shall be
adequately ensure public safety, a law enforcement contingent under the command governed by Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended;
of a responsible police officer may be detailed and stationed in a place at least one
hundred (100) meters away from the area of activity ready to maintain peace and
(d) Isolated acts or incidents of disorder or breach of the peace during the
order at all times.
public assembly shall not constitute a ground for dispersal.

Sec. 10. Police assistance when requested. – It shall be imperative for law

xxx
enforcement agencies, when their assistance is requested by the leaders or
organizers, to perform their duties always mindful that their responsibility to provide
proper protection to those exercising their right peaceably to assemble and the Sec. 12. Dispersal of public assembly without permit. – When the public assembly is
freedom of expression is primordial.1avvphil.net Towards this end, law enforcement held without a permit where a permit is required, the said public assembly may be
agencies shall observe the following guidelines: peacefully dispersed.

(a) Members of the law enforcement contingent who deal with the Sec. 13. Prohibited acts. – The following shall constitute violations of the Act:
demonstrators shall be in complete uniform with their nameplates and
units to which they belong displayed prominently on the front and dorsal
(e) Obstructing, impeding, disrupting or otherwise denying the exercise of the right
parts of their uniform and must observe the policy of "maximum tolerance"
to peaceful assembly;
as herein defined;

(f) The unnecessary firing of firearms by a member of any law enforcement agency
(b) The members of the law enforcement contingent shall not carry any
or any person to disperse the public assembly;
kind of firearms but may be equipped with baton or riot sticks, shields,
crash helmets with visor, gas masks, boots or ankle high shoes with shin
guards; (g) Acts described hereunder if committed within one hundred (100) meters from
the area of activity of the public assembly or on the occasion thereof:
(c) Tear gas, smoke grenades, water cannons, or any similar anti-riot
device shall not be used unless the public assembly is attended by actual xxx
violence or serious threats of violence, or deliberate destruction of
property. 4. the carrying of firearms by members of the law enforcement unit;

Sec. 11. Dispersal of public assembly with permit. – No public assembly with a 5. the interfering with or intentionally disturbing the holding of a public assembly by
permit shall be dispersed. However, when an assembly becomes violent, the police the use of a motor vehicle, its horns and loud sound systems.
may disperse such public assembly as follows:

Furthermore, there is need to address the situation adverted to by petitioners where

(a) At the first sign of impending violence, the ranking officer of the law mayors do not act on applications for a permit and when the police demand a
enforcement contingent shall call the attention of the leaders of the public permit and the rallyists could not produce one, the rally is immediately dispersed. In
assembly and ask the latter to prevent any possible disturbance; such a situation, as a necessary consequence and part of maximum tolerance,
rallyists who can show the police an application duly filed on a given date can, after
(b) If actual violence starts to a point where rocks or other harmful objects two days from said date, rally in accordance with their application without the need
from the participants are thrown at the police or at the non-participants, or to show a permit, the grant of the permit being then presumed under the law, and it
will be the burden of the authorities to show that there has been a denial of the ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
application, in which case the rally may be peacefully dispersed following the Associate Justice
procedure of maximum tolerance prescribed by the law.
WE CONCUR:
In sum, this Court reiterates its basic policy of upholding the fundamental rights of
our people, especially freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. In several ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
policy addresses, Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban has repeatedly vowed to Chief Justice
uphold the liberty of our people and to nurture their prosperity. He said that "in
cases involving liberty, the scales of justice should weigh heavily against the
government and in favor of the poor, the oppressed, the marginalized, the
dispossessed and the weak. Indeed, laws and actions that restrict fundamental (On Leave)
rights come to the courts with a heavy presumption against their validity. These REYNATO S. PUNO LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
laws and actions are subjected to heightened scrutiny."26 Associate Justice Asscociate Justice

For this reason, the so-called calibrated preemptive response policy has no place in
CONSUELO YNARES- ANGELINA SANDOVAL-
our legal firmament and must be struck down as a darkness that shrouds freedom.
SANTIAGO GUTIERREZ
It merely confuses our people and is used by some police agents to justify abuses. Associate Justice Asscociate Justice
On the other hand, B.P. No. 880 cannot be condemned as unconstitutional; it does
not curtail or unduly restrict freedoms; it merely regulates the use of public places
as to the time, place and manner of assemblies. Far from being insidious,
"maximum tolerance" is for the benefit of rallyists, not the government. The ANTONIO T. CARPIO MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate Justice Asscociate Justice
delegation to the mayors of the power to issue rally "permits" is valid because it is
subject to the constitutionally-sound "clear and present danger" standard.

RENATO C. CORONA CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES

In this Decision, the Court goes even one step further in safeguarding liberty by Associate Justice Asscociate Justice
giving local governments a deadline of 30 days within which to designate specific
freedom parks as provided under B.P. No. 880. If, after that period, no such parks
are so identified in accordance with Section 15 of the law, all public parks and
plazas of the municipality or city concerned shall in effect be deemed freedom ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR. DANTE O. TINGA
Associate Justice Asscociate Justice
parks; no prior permit of whatever kind shall be required to hold an assembly
therein. The only requirement will be written notices to the police and the mayor’s
office to allow proper coordination and orderly activities.
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate Justice Asscociate Justice
WHEREFORE, the petitions are GRANTED in part, and respondents, more
particularly the Secretary of the Interior and Local Governments, are DIRECTED to
take all necessary steps for the immediate compliance with Section 15 of Batas
Pambansa No. 880 through the establishment or designation of at least one suitable PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
freedom park or plaza in every city and municipality of the country. After thirty (30) Associate Justice
days from the finality of this Decision, subject to the giving of advance notices, no
prior permit shall be required to exercise the right to peaceably assemble and CERTIFICATION
petition in the public parks or plazas of a city or municipality that has not yet
complied with Section 15 of the law. Furthermore, Calibrated Preemptive
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions
Response (CPR), insofar as it would purport to differ from or be in lieu of
in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the cases were assigned to the writer
maximum tolerance, is NULL and VOID and respondents
of the opinion of the Court.
are ENJOINED to REFRAIN from using it and to STRICTLY OBSERVE the
requirements of maximum tolerance. The petitions are DISMISSED in all other
respects, and the constitutionality of Batas Pambansa No. 880 is SUSTAINED. ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice

No costs.

SO ORDERED.
 16
Footnotes  7 Phil. 422 (1907).

1 17
 Petition for Certiorari, Mandamus and Prohibition with Prayer for Temporary  80 Phil. 71 (1948).
Restraining Order filed by Bayan, Karapatan, Kilusang Magbubukid Ng Pilipinas
(KMP), COURAGE, GABRIELA, Fr. Jose A. Dizon, Renato Constantino, Jr., Froyel 18
 Ibid at 75-76 (Emphasis supplied).
Yaneza, and Fahima Tajar.
19
2  G.R. No. L-65366, November 9, 1983, 125 SCRA 553.
 Petition for Prohibition, Injunction, Restraining Order and other Just and Equitable
Reliefs filed by Jess Del Prado, Wilson Fortaleza, Leody de Guzman, Pedro Pinlac,
Carmelita Morante, Rasti Delizo, Paul Bangay, Marie Jo Ocampo, Lilia dela Cruz, 20
 G.R. No. 132231, March 31, 1998, 288 SCRA 447.
Cristeta Ramos, Adelaida Ramos, Mary Grace Gonzales, Michael Torres, Rendo
Sabusap, Precious Balute, Roxanne Magboo, Ernie Bautista, Joseph de Jesus, 21
 Ibid, p. 478.
Margarita Escober, Djoannalyn Janier, Magdalena Sellote, Manny Quiazon, Ericson
Dizon, Nenita Cruzat, Leonardo De los Reyes, Pedrito Fadrigon.
22
 Except picketing and other concerted action in strike areas by workers and
3 employees resulting from a labor dispute, which are governed by the Labor Code and
 Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus with Prayer for Issuance of
other labor laws; political meeting or rallies held during any election campaign period,
Restraining Order filed by Kilusang Mayo Uno, represented by its Chairperson Elmer
which are governed by the Election Code and other election related laws; and public
C. Labog and Secretary General Joel Maglunsod, National Federation of Labor
assemblies in the campus of a government-owned and operated educational
Unions – Kilusang Mayo Uno (NAFLU-KMU), represented by its National President,
institution, which shall be subject to the rules and regulations of said educational
Joselito V. Ustarez, Antonio C. Pascual, Salvador T. Carranza, Gilda Sumilang,
institution. (Sec. 3[a] and Sec. 4 of B.P. No. 880).
Francisco Lastrella, and Roque M. Tan.

23
4  WEBSTER’S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH
 Petitioner Gilda Sumilang.
LANGUAGE UNABRIDGED (1993 Ed)., p. 1836.
5
 Petition, G.R. No. 169838, p. 29. 24
 The Local Government Code. Specifically, Section 16 stating the general welfare
clause, thus:
6
 Citing Adiong v. Commission on Elections, 207 SCRA 712 (1992); United States v.
O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 20 L. Ed. 2d 672 (1968); see R.D. Rotunda, et al., TREATISE
Sec. 16. General Welfare. – Every local government unit shall exercise the
ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: SUBSTANCE AND PROCEDURE (1986) citing Clark v.
powers expressly granted, those necessarily implied therefrom, as well as
Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288, 104 S.Ct. 3065, 82 L.Ed. 2d 221
powers necessary, appropriate, or incidental for its efficient and effective
(1984).
governance, and those which are essential to the promotion of the general
welfare. Within their respective territorial jurisdictions, local government
7
 G.R. No. 132231, March 31, 1998, 288 SCRA 447. units shall ensure and support among other things, the preservation and
enrichment of culture, promote health and safety, enhance the right of the
8 people to a balanced ecology, encourage and support the development of
 G.R. No. 103956, March 31, 1992, 207 SCRA 712.
appropriate and self-reliant scientific and technological capabilities, improve
public morals, enhance economic prosperity and social justice, promote full
9
 G.R. No. 71169, August 25, 1989, 176 SCRA 719. employment among their residents, maintain peace and order, and preserve
the comfort and convenience of their inhabitants.
10
 Citing Iglesia ni Cristo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119673, July 26, 1996, 259
25
SCRA 529.  Respondents’ Consolidated Memorandum, pp. 30-31 (Emphasis supplied by
respondents).
11
 G. R. No. L-65366, November 9, 1983, 125 SCRA 553.
26
 Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban, Liberty and Prosperity, February 15, 2006.
12
 80 Phil. 71 (1948).

13
 G.R. No. 124540, November 14, 1997.

14
 Resolution dated March 28, 2006.

15
 346 Phil. 665-666 (1997).