G.R. No.

169881 April 25, 2006

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 President, JOSELITO V. USTAREZ, ANTONIO C. PASCUAL,
SALVADOR T. CARRANZA, GILDA SUMILANG, FRANCISCO LASTRELLA,
and ROQUE M. TAN, Petitioners,
vs.
THE HONORABLE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, PNP DIRECTOR GENRAL
ARTURO LOMIBAO, HONORABLE MAYOR LITO ATIENZA, and PNP MPD
EN BANC CHIEF SUPT. PEDRO BULAONG, Respondents.

G.R. No. 169838 April 25, 2006 DECISION

BAYAN, KARAPATAN, KILUSANG MAGBUBUKID NG PILIPINAS (KMP), AZCUNA, J.:

GABRIELA, Fr. Jose Dizon, Renato Constantino, Jr., Froyel Yaneza, and
Fahima Tajar, Petitioners,
Petitioners come in three groups.
vs.
EDUARDO ERMITA, in his capacity as Executive Secretary, Manila City
Mayor LITO ATIENZA, Chief of the Philippine National Police, Gen. ARTURO The first petitioners, Bayan, et al., in G.R. No. 169838,1 allege that they are
M. LOMIBAO, NCRPO Chief Maj. Gen. VIDAL QUEROL, and Western Police citizens and taxpayers of the Philippines and that their rights as organizations
District Chief Gen. PEDRO BULAONG, Respondents. and individuals were violated when the rally they participated in on October 6,
2005 was violently dispersed by policemen implementing Batas Pambansa (B.P.)
No. 880.
x---------------------------------x

The second group consists of 26 individual petitioners, Jess del Prado, et al., in
G.R. No. 169848 April 25, 2006
G.R. No. 169848,2 who allege that they were injured, arrested and detained when
a peaceful mass action they held on September 26, 2005 was preempted and
Jess Del Prado, Wilson Fortaleza, Leody de Guzman, Pedro Pinlac, violently dispersed by the police. They further assert that on October 5, 2005, a
Carmelita Morante, Rasti Delizo, Paul Bangay, Marie Jo Ocampo, Lilia dela group they participated in marched to Malacañang to protest issuances of the
Cruz, Cristeta Ramos, Adelaida Ramos, Mary Grace Gonzales, Michael Palace which, they claim, put the country under an "undeclared" martial rule, and
Torres, Rendo Sabusap, Precious Balute, Roxanne Magboo, Ernie Bautista, the protest was likewise dispersed violently and many among them were arrested
Joseph de Jesus, Margarita Escober, Djoannalyn Janier, Magdalena and suffered injuries.
Sellote, Manny Quiazon, Ericson Dizon, Nenita Cruzat, Leonardo De los
Reyes, Pedrito Fadrigon, Petitioners,
The third group, Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU), et al., petitioners in G.R. No.
vs.
169881,3 allege that they conduct peaceful mass actions and that their rights as
EDUARDO ERMITA, in his official capacity as The Executive Secretary and
organizations and those of their individual members as citizens, specifically the
in his personal capacity, ANGELO REYES, in his official capacity as
right to peaceful assembly, are affected by Batas Pambansa No. 880 and the
Secretary of the Interior and Local Governments, ARTURO LOMIBAO, in his
policy of "Calibrated Preemptive Response" (CPR) being followed to implement
official capacity as the Chief, Philippine National Police, VIDAL QUEROL, in
it.
his official capacity as the Chief, National Capital Regional Police Office
(NCRPO), PEDRO BULAONG, in his official capacity as the Chief, Manila
Police District (MPD) AND ALL OTHER PUBLIC OFFICERS GARCIA, and KMU, et al., claim that on October 4, 2005, a rally KMU co-sponsored was to be
AND PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS ACTING UNDER THEIR CONTROL, conducted at the Mendiola bridge but police blocked them along C.M. Recto and
SUPERVISION AND INSTRUCTIONS, Respondents. Lepanto Streets and forcibly dispersed them, causing injuries to several of their
members. They further allege that on October 6, 2005, a multi-sectoral rally
which KMU also co-sponsored was scheduled to proceed along España Avenue
x---------------------------------x
in front of the University of Santo Tomas and going towards Mendiola bridge.
Police officers blocked them along Morayta Street and prevented them from (b) "Public place" shall include any highway, boulevard, avenue, road,
proceeding further. They were then forcibly dispersed, causing injuries on one of street, bridge or other thoroughfare, park, plaza, square, and/or any
them.4 Three other rallyists were arrested. open space of public ownership where the people are allowed access.

All petitioners assail Batas Pambansa No. 880, some of them in toto and others (c) "Maximum tolerance" means the highest degree of restraint that the
only Sections 4, 5, 6, 12, 13(a), and 14(a), as well as the policy of CPR. They military, police and other peace keeping authorities shall observe during
seek to stop violent dispersals of rallies under the "no permit, no rally" policy and a public assembly or in the dispersal of the same.
the CPR policy recently announced.
(d) "Modification of a permit" shall include the change of the place and
B.P. No. 880, "The Public Assembly Act of 1985," provides: time of the public assembly, rerouting of the parade or street march, the
volume of loud-speakers or sound system and similar changes.
Batas Pambansa Blg. 880
Sec. 4. Permit when required and when not required. – A written permit shall be
An Act Ensuring The Free Exercise By The People Of Their Right Peaceably To required for any person or persons to organize and hold a public assembly in a
Assemble And Petition The Government [And] For Other Purposes public place. However, no permit shall be required if the public assembly shall be
done or made in a freedom park duly established by law or ordinance or in
private property, in which case only the consent of the owner or the one entitled
Be it enacted by the Batasang Pambansa in session assembled:
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
Section 1. Title. – This Act shall be known as "The Public Assembly Act of 1985." regulations of said educational institution. Political meetings or rallies held during
any election campaign period as provided for by law are not covered by this Act.
Sec. 2. Declaration of policy. – The constitutional right of the people peaceably to
assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances is essential and Sec. 5. Application requirements. – All applications for a permit shall comply with
vital to the strength and stability of the State. To this end, the State shall ensure the following guidelines:
the free exercise of such right without prejudice to the rights of others to life,
liberty and equal protection of the law.
(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,
Sec. 3. Definition of terms. – For purposes of this Act: time and duration thereof, and place or streets to be used for the
intended activity; and the probable number of persons participating, the
(a) "Public assembly" means any rally, demonstration, march, parade, transport and the public address systems to be used.
procession or any other form of mass or concerted action held in a public
place for the purpose of presenting a lawful cause; or expressing an (b) The application shall incorporate the duty and responsibility of the
opinion to the general public on any particular issue; or protesting or applicant under Section 8 hereof.
influencing any state of affairs whether political, economic or social; or
petitioning the government for redress of grievances.
(c) The application shall be filed with the office of the mayor of the city or
municipality in whose jurisdiction the intended activity is to be held, at
The processions, rallies, parades, demonstrations, public meetings and least five (5) working days before the scheduled public assembly.
assemblages for religious purposes shall be governed by local
ordinances; Provided, however, That the declaration of policy as (d) Upon receipt of the application, which must be duly acknowledged in
provided in Section 2 of this Act shall be faithfully observed.
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 definition herein contained shall not include picketing and other building.
concerted action in strike areas by workers and employees resulting
from a labor dispute as defined by the Labor Code, its implementing Sec. 6. Action to be taken on the application. –
rules and regulations, and by the Batas Pambansa Bilang 227.
 (a) It shall be the duty of the mayor or any official acting in his behalf to convenient to the participants or reroute the vehicular traffic to another direction
issue or grant a permit unless there is clear and convincing evidence so that there will be no serious or undue interference with the free flow of
that the public assembly will create a clear and present danger to public commerce and trade.
order, public safety, public convenience, public morals or public health.
Sec. 8. Responsibility of applicant. – It shall be the duty and responsibility of the
(b) The mayor or any official acting in his behalf shall act on the leaders and organizers of a public assembly to take all reasonable measures and
application within two (2) working days from the date the application was steps to the end that the intended public assembly shall be conducted peacefully
filed, failing which, the permit shall be deemed granted. Should for any in accordance with the terms of the permit. These shall include but not be limited
reason the mayor or any official acting in his behalf refuse to accept the to the following:
application for a permit, said application shall be posted by the applicant
on the premises of the office of the mayor and shall be deemed to have (a) To inform the participants of their responsibility under the
been filed. permit;|avvphi|.net

(c) If the mayor is of the view that there is imminent and grave danger of (b) To police the ranks of the demonstrators in order to prevent non-
a substantive evil warranting the denial or modification of the permit, he demonstrators from disrupting the lawful activities of the public
shall immediately inform the applicant who must be heard on the matter. assembly;

(d) The action on the permit shall be in writing and served on the (c) To confer with local government officials concerned and law
applica[nt] within twenty-four hours. enforcers to the end that the public assembly may be held peacefully;

(e) If the mayor or any official acting in his behalf denies the application (d) To see to it that the public assembly undertaken shall not go beyond
or modifies the terms thereof in his permit, the applicant may contest the the time stated in the permit; and
decision in an appropriate court of law.
(e) To take positive steps that demonstrators do not molest any person
(f) In case suit is brought before the Metropolitan Trial Court, the or do any act unduly interfering with the rights of other persons not
Municipal Trial Court, the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, the Regional Trial participating in the public assembly.
Court, or the Intermediate Appellate court, its decisions may be
appealed to the appropriate court within forty-eight (48) hours after
Sec. 9. Non-interference by law enforcement authorities. – Law enforcement
receipt of the same. No appeal bond and record on appeal shall be
agencies shall not interfere with the holding of a public assembly. However, to
required. A decision granting such permit or modifying it in terms
satisfactory to the applicant shall be immediately executory. adequately ensure public safety, a law enforcement contingent under the
command 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
(g) All cases filed in court under this section shall be decided within maintain peace and order at all times.
twenty-four (24) hours from date of filing. Cases filed hereunder shall be
immediately endorsed to the executive judge for disposition or, in his
absence, to the next in rank. Sec. 10. Police assistance when requested. – It shall be imperative for law
enforcement agencies, when their assistance is requested by the leaders or
organizers, to perform their duties always mindful that their responsibility to
(h) In all cases, any decision may be appealed to the Supreme Court. provide proper protection to those exercising their right peaceably to assemble
and the freedom of expression is primordial. Towards this end, law enforcement
(i) Telegraphic appeals to be followed by formal appeals are hereby agencies shall observe the following guidelines:
allowed.
(a) Members of the law enforcement contingent who deal with the
Sec. 7. Use of Public throroughfare. – Should the proposed public assembly demonstrators shall be in complete uniform with their nameplates and
involve the use, for an appreciable length of time, of any public highway, units to which they belong displayed prominently on the front and dorsal
boulevard, avenue, road or street, the mayor or any official acting in his behalf parts of their uniform and must observe the policy of "maximum
may, to prevent grave public inconvenience, designate the route thereof which is tolerance" as herein defined;
 (b) The members of the law enforcement contingent shall not carry any (a) The holding of any public assembly as defined in this Act by any
kind of firearms but may be equipped with baton or riot sticks, shields, leader or organizer without having first secured that written permit where
crash helmets with visor, gas masks, boots or ankle high shoes with shin a permit is required from the office concerned, or the use of such permit
guards; for such purposes in any place other than those set out in said
permit: Provided, however, That no person can be punished or held
(c) Tear gas, smoke grenades, water cannons, or any similar anti-riot criminally liable for participating in or attending an otherwise peaceful
device shall not be used unless the public assembly is attended by assembly;
actual violence or serious threats of violence, or deliberate destruction of
property. (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
Sec. 11. Dispersal of public assembly with permit. – No public assembly with a his behalf;
permit shall be dispersed. However, when an assembly becomes violent, the
police may disperse such public assembly as follows: (c) The unjustified and arbitrary refusal to accept or acknowledge receipt
of the application for a permit by the mayor or any official acting in his
(a) At the first sign of impending violence, the ranking officer of the law behalf;
enforcement contingent shall call the attention of the leaders of the
public assembly and ask the latter to prevent any possible disturbance; (d) Obstructing, impeding, disrupting or otherwise denying the exercise
of the right to peaceful 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- (e) The unnecessary firing of firearms by a member of any law
participants, or at any property causing damage to such property, the enforcement agency or any person to disperse the public assembly;
ranking officer of the law enforcement contingent shall audibly warn the
participants that if the disturbance persists, the public assembly will be (f) Acts in violation of Section 10 hereof;
dispersed;
(g) Acts described hereunder if committed within one hundred (100)
(c) If the violence or disturbance prevailing as stated in the preceding meters from the area of activity of the public assembly or on the
subparagraph should not stop or abate, the ranking officer of the law occasion thereof:
enforcement contingent shall audibly issue a warning to the participants
of the public assembly, and after allowing a reasonable period of time to
lapse, shall immediately order it to forthwith disperse; 1. the carrying of a deadly or offensive weapon or device such
as firearm, pillbox, bomb, and the like;
(d) No arrest of any leader, organizer or participant shall also be made
2. the carrying of a bladed weapon and the like;
during the public assembly unless he violates during the assembly a law,
statute, ordinance or any provision of this Act. Such arrest shall be
governed by Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended; 3. the malicious burning of any object in the streets or
thoroughfares;
(e) Isolated acts or incidents of disorder or breach of the peace during
the public assembly shall not constitute a ground for dispersal. 4. the carrying of firearms by members of the law enforcement
unit;
Sec. 12. Dispersal of public assembly without permit. – When the public
assembly is held without a permit where a permit is required, the said public 5. the interfering with or intentionally disturbing the holding of a
assembly may be peacefully dispersed. public assembly by the use of a motor vehicle, its horns and
loud sound systems.
Sec. 13. Prohibited acts. – The following shall constitute violations of the Act:
Sec. 14. Penalties. – Any person found guilty and convicted of any of the
prohibited acts defined in the immediately preceding section shall be punished as
follows:
 (a) violation of subparagraph (a) shall be punished by imprisonment of STATEMENT OF EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA
one month and one day to six months;
On Unlawful Mass Actions
(b) violations of subparagraphs (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), and item 4,
subparagraph (g) shall be punished by imprisonment of six months and In view of intelligence reports pointing to credible plans of anti-government
one day to six years; groups to inflame the political situation, sow disorder and incite people against
the duly constituted authorities, we have instructed the PNP as well as the local
(c) violation of item 1, subparagraph (g) shall be punished by government units to strictly enforce a "no permit, no rally" policy, disperse groups
imprisonment of six months and one day to six years without prejudice to that run afoul of this standard and arrest all persons violating the laws of the land
prosecution under Presidential Decree No. 1866; as well as ordinances on the proper conduct of mass actions and
demonstrations.
(d) violations of item 2, item 3, or item 5 of subparagraph (g) shall be
punished by imprisonment of one day to thirty days. 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
Sec. 15. Freedom parks. – Every city and municipality in the country shall within herding a witting or unwitting mass of people and inciting them into actions that
six months after the effectivity of this Act establish or designate at least one are inimical to public order, and the peace of mind of the national community.
suitable "freedom park" or mall in their respective jurisdictions which, as far as
practicable, shall be centrally located within the poblacion where demonstrations Unlawful mass actions will be dispersed. The majority of law-abiding citizens
and meetings may be held at any time without the need of any prior permit. have the right to be protected by a vigilant and proactive government.

In the cities and municipalities of Metropolitan Manila, the respective mayors We appeal to the detractors of the government to engage in lawful and peaceful
shall establish the freedom parks within the period of six months from the conduct befitting of a democratic society.
effectivity this Act.
The President’s call for unity and reconciliation stands, based on the rule of law.
Sec. 16. Constitutionality. – Should any provision of this Act be declared invalid
or unconstitutional, the validity or constitutionality of the other provisions shall not Petitioners Bayan, et al., contend that Batas Pambansa No. 880 is clearly a
be affected thereby. violation of the Constitution and the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights and other human rights treaties of which the Philippines is a signatory. 5
Sec. 17. Repealing clause. – All laws, decrees, letters of instructions, resolutions,
orders, ordinances or parts thereof which are inconsistent with the provisions of They argue that B.P. No. 880 requires a permit before one can stage a public
this Act are hereby repealed, amended, or modified accordingly. 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
Sec. 18. Effectivity. – This Act shall take effect upon its approval. expression clause as the time and place of a public assembly form part of the
message for which the expression is sought. Furthermore, it is not content-
Approved, October 22, 1985. neutral as it does not apply to mass actions in support of the government. The
words "lawful cause," "opinion," "protesting or influencing" suggest the exposition
of some cause not espoused by the government. Also, the phrase "maximum
CPR, on the other hand, is a policy set forth in a press release by Malacañang tolerance" shows that the law applies to assemblies against the government
dated September 21, 2005, shown in Annex "A" to the Petition in G.R. No. because they are being tolerated. As a content-based legislation, it cannot pass
169848, thus: the strict scrutiny test.

Malacañang Official
Petitioners Jess del Prado, et al., in turn, argue that B.P. No. 880 is
unconstitutional as it is a curtailment of the right to peacefully assemble and
Manila, Philippines NEWS 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
Release No. 2 September 21, 2005
illegal and penalizes them and allows their dispersal. Thus, its provisions are not the CPR," and that "those arrested stand to be charged with violating
mere regulations but are actually prohibitions. Batas Pambansa [No.] 880 and other offenses."

Furthermore, the law delegates powers to the Mayor without providing clear 2. Neither B.P. No. 880 nor CPR is void on its face. Petitioners cannot
standards. The two standards stated in the laws (clear and present danger and honestly claim that the time, place and manner regulation embodied in
imminent and grave danger) are inconsistent. B.P. 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
Regarding the CPR policy, it is void for being an ultra vires act that alters the regulated speech; (b) B.P. No. 880 is narrowly tailored to serve a
standard of maximum tolerance set forth in B.P. No. 880, aside from being void significant governmental interest, i.e., the interest cannot be equally well
for being vague and for lack of publication. served by a means that is less intrusive of free speech interests; and (c)
B.P. No. 880 leaves open alternative channels for communication of the
information.6
Finally, petitioners KMU, et al., argue that the Constitution sets no limits on the
right to assembly and therefore B.P. No. 880 cannot put the prior requirement of
securing a permit. And even assuming that the legislature can set limits to this 3. B.P. No. 880 is content-neutral as seen from the text of the law.
right, the limits provided are unreasonable: First, allowing the Mayor to deny the Section 5 requires the statement of the public assembly’s time, place
permit on clear and convincing evidence of a clear and present danger is too and manner of conduct. It entails traffic re-routing to prevent grave public
comprehensive. Second, the five-day requirement to apply for a permit is too long inconvenience and serious or undue interference in the free flow of
as certain events require instant public assembly, otherwise interest on the issue commerce and trade. Furthermore, nothing in B.P. No. 880 authorizes
would possibly wane. the denial of a permit on the basis of a rally’s program content or the
statements of the speakers therein, except under the constitutional
precept of the "clear and present danger test." The status of B.P. No.
As to the CPR policy, they argue that it is preemptive, that the government takes
880 as a content-neutral regulation has been recognized in Osmeña v.
action even before the rallyists can perform their act, and that no law, ordinance Comelec.7
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 effect on the exercise by the people of the right to peaceably assemble. 4. Adiong v. Comelec8 held that B.P. No. 880 is a content-neutral
regulation of the time, place and manner of holding public assemblies
and the law passes the test for such regulation, namely, these
Respondents in G.R. No. 169838 are Eduardo Ermita, as Executive Secretary,
regulations need only a substantial governmental interest to support
Manila City Mayor Lito Atienza, Chief, of the Philippine National Police
them.
(PNP) Gen. Arturo Lomibao, National Capital Region Police Office (NCRPO)
Chief, PNP Maj. Gen. Vidal Querol, and Manila Police District (MPD) Chief Gen.
Pedro Bulaong. 5. Sangalang v. Intermediate Appellate Court9 held that a local chief
executive has the authority to exercise police power to meet "the
demands of the common good in terms of traffic decongestion and public
Respondents in G.R. No. 169848 are Eduardo Ermita as Executive Secretary
convenience." Furthermore, the discretion given to the mayor is narrowly
and in his personal capacity; Angelo Reyes, as Secretary of the Interior and
circumscribed by Sections 5 (d), and 6 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), 13 and 15 of
Local Governments; Arturo Lomibao, as Chief Vidal Querol, as Chief,
the law.
NCRPO; Pedro Bulaong, as Chief, MPD, and all other public officers and private
individuals acting under their control, supervision and instruction.
6. The standards set forth in the law are not inconsistent. "Clear and
convincing evidence that the public assembly will create a clear and
Respondents in G.R. No. 169881 are the Honorable Executive Secretary,
present danger to public order, public safety, public convenience, public
PNP Director General Arturo Lomibao, the Honorable Mayor Joselito
morals or public health" and "imminent and grave danger of a
Atienza, and PNP MPD Chief Pedro Bulaong.
substantive evil" both express the meaning of the "clear and present
danger test."10
Respondents argue that:
7. CPR is simply the responsible and judicious use of means allowed by
1. Petitioners have no standing because they have not presented existing laws and ordinances to protect public interest and restore public
evidence that they had been "injured, arrested or detained because of order. Thus, it is not accurate to call it a new rule but rather it is a more
 pro-active and dynamic enforcement of existing laws, regulations and 1. Petitioners, in the interest of a speedy resolution of the petitions,
ordinances to prevent chaos in the streets. It does not replace the rule of withdrew the portions of their petitions raising factual issues, particularly
maximum tolerance in B.P. No. 880. those raising the issue of whether B.P. No. 880 and/or CPR is void as
applied to the rallies of September 20, October 4, 5 and 6, 2005.
Respondent Mayor Joselito Atienza, for his part, submitted in his Comment that
the petition in G.R. No. 169838 should be dismissed on the ground that Republic 2. The Solicitor General agreed with the observation of the Chief Justice
Act No. 7160 gives the Mayor power to deny a permit independently of B.P. No. that CPR should no longer be used as a legal term inasmuch as,
880; that his denials of permits were under the "clear and present danger" rule as according to respondents, it was merely a "catchword" intended to clarify
there was a clamor to stop rallies that disrupt the economy and to protect the what was thought to be a misunderstanding of the maximum tolerance
lives of other people; that J. B. L. Reyes v. Bagatsing,11 Primicias v. policy set forth in B.P. No. 880 and that, as stated in the affidavit
Fugoso,12 and Jacinto v. CA,13 have affirmed the constitutionality of requiring a executed by Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita and submitted to the
permit; that the permit is for the use of a public place and not for the exercise of Ombudsman, it does not replace B.P. No. 880 and the maximum
rights; and that B.P. No. 880 is not a content-based regulation because it covers tolerance policy embodied in that law.
all rallies.
The Court will now proceed to address the principal issues, taking into account
The petitions were ordered consolidated on February 14, 2006. After the the foregoing developments.
submission of all the Comments, the Court set the cases for oral arguments on
April 4, 2006,14 stating the principal issues, as follows: Petitioners’ standing cannot be seriously challenged. Their right as citizens to
engage in peaceful assembly and exercise the right of petition, as guaranteed by
1. On the constitutionality of Batas Pambansa No. 880, specifically the Constitution, is directly affected by B.P. No. 880 which requires a permit for
Sections 4, 5, 6, 12 13(a) and 14(a) thereof, and Republic Act No. 7160: 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
(a) Are these content-neutral or content-based regulations? press their claim that no such permit can be validly required without violating the
Constitutional guarantee. Respondents, on the other hand, have challenged such
action as contrary to law and dispersed the public assemblies held without the
(b) Are they void on grounds of overbreadth or vagueness?
permit.

(c) Do they constitute prior restraint? Section 4 of Article III of the Constitution provides:

(d) Are they undue delegations of powers to Mayors?

Sec. 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression,
or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the
(e) Do they violate international human rights treaties and the government for redress of grievances.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
The first point to mark is that the right to peaceably assemble and petition for
2. On the constitutionality and legality of the policy of Calibrated redress of grievances is, together with freedom of speech, of expression, and of
Preemptive Response (CPR): the press, a right that enjoys primacy in the realm of constitutional protection. For
these rights constitute the very basis of a functional democratic polity, without
(a) Is the policy void on its face or due to vagueness? which all the other rights would be meaningless and unprotected. As stated
in Jacinto v. CA,15 the Court, as early as the onset of this century, in U.S. v.
(b) Is it void for lack of publication? Apurado,16 already upheld the right to assembly and petition, as follows:

(c) Is the policy of CPR void as applied to the rallies of There is no question as to the petitioners’ rights to peaceful assembly to petition
September 26 and October 4, 5 and 6, 2005? the government for a redress of grievances and, for that matter, to organize or
form associations for purposes not contrary to law, as well as to engage in
peaceful concerted activities. These rights are guaranteed by no less than the
During the course of the oral arguments, the following developments took place Constitution, particularly Sections 4 and 8 of the Bill of Rights, Section 2(5) of
and were approved and/or noted by the Court: Article IX, and Section 3 of Article XIII. Jurisprudence abounds with hallowed
pronouncements defending and promoting the people’s exercise of these rights. 1. It is thus clear that the Court is called upon to protect the exercise of
As early as the onset of this century, this Court in U.S. vs. Apurado, already the cognate rights to free speech and peaceful assembly, arising from
upheld the right to assembly and petition and even went as far as to the denial of a permit. The Constitution is quite explicit: "No law shall be
acknowledge: passed abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of
the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for
"It is rather to be expected that more or less disorder will mark the public redress of grievances." Free speech, like free press, may be identified
assembly of the people to protest against grievances whether real or imaginary, with the liberty to discuss publicly and truthfully any matter of public
because on such occasions feeling is always wrought to a high pitch of concern without censorship or punishment. There is to be then no
excitement, and the greater, the grievance and the more intense the feeling, the previous restraint on the communication of views or subsequent liability
less perfect, as a rule will be the disciplinary control of the leaders over their whether in libel suits, prosecution for sedition, or action for damages, or
irresponsible followers. But if the prosecution be permitted to seize upon every contempt proceedings unless there be a "clear and present danger of a
instance of such disorderly conduct by individual members of a crowd as an substantive evil that [the State] has a right to prevent." Freedom of
excuse to characterize the assembly as a seditious and tumultuous rising against assembly connotes the right of the people to meet peaceably for
the authorities, then the right to assemble and to petition for redress of consultation and discussion of matters of public concern. It is entitled to
grievances would become a delusion and a snare and the attempt to exercise it be accorded the utmost deference and respect. It is not to be limited,
on the most righteous occasion and in the most peaceable manner would expose much less denied, except on a showing, as is the case with freedom of
all those who took part therein to the severest and most unmerited punishment, if expression, of a clear and present danger of a substantive evil that the
the purposes which they sought to attain did not happen to be pleasing to the state has a right to prevent. Even prior to the 1935 Constitution, Justice
prosecuting authorities. If instances of disorderly conduct occur on such Malcolm had occasion to stress that it is a necessary consequence of
occasions, the guilty individuals should be sought out and punished therefor, but our republican institutions and complements the right of free speech. To
the utmost discretion must be exercised in drawing the line paraphrase the opinion of Justice Rutledge, speaking for the majority of
between disorderly and seditious conduct and between an essentially peaceable the American Supreme Court in Thomas v. Collins, it was not by
assembly and a tumultuous uprising." accident or coincidence that the rights to freedom of speech and of the
press were coupled in a single guarantee with the rights of the people
peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for redress of
Again, in Primicias v. Fugoso,17 the Court likewise sustained the primacy of
grievances. All these rights, while not identical, are inseparable. In every
freedom of speech and to assembly and petition over comfort and convenience in
case, therefore, where there is a limitation placed on the exercise of this
the use of streets and parks.
right, the judiciary is called upon to examine the effects of the challenged
governmental actuation. The sole justification for a limitation on the
Next, however, it must be remembered that the right, while sacrosanct, is not exercise of this right, so fundamental to the maintenance of democratic
absolute. In Primicias, this Court said: institutions, is the danger, of a character both grave and imminent, of a
serious evil to public safety, public morals, public health, or any other
The right to freedom of speech, and to peacefully assemble and petition the legitimate public interest.
government for redress of grievances, are fundamental personal rights of the
people recognized and guaranteed by the constitutions of democratic countries. 2. Nowhere is the rationale that underlies the freedom of expression and
But it is a settled principle growing out of the nature of well-ordered civil societies peaceable assembly better expressed than in this excerpt from an
that the exercise of those rights is not absolute for it may be so regulated that it opinion of Justice Frankfurter: "It must never be forgotten, however, that
shall not be injurious to the equal enjoyment of others having equal rights, nor the Bill of Rights was the child of the Enlightenment. Back of the
injurious to the rights of the community or society. The power to regulate the guaranty of free speech lay faith in the power of an appeal to reason by
exercise of such and other constitutional rights is termed the sovereign "police all the peaceful means for gaining access to the mind. It was in order to
power," which is the power to prescribe regulations, to promote the health, avert force and explosions due to restrictions upon rational modes of
morals, peace, education, good order or safety, and general welfare of the communication that the guaranty of free speech was given a generous
people. This sovereign police power is exercised by the government through its scope. But utterance in a context of violence can lose its significance as
legislative branch by the enactment of laws regulating those and other an appeal to reason and become part of an instrument of force. Such
constitutional and civil rights, and it may be delegated to political subdivisions, utterance was not meant to be sheltered by the Constitution." What was
such as towns, municipalities and cities by authorizing their legislative bodies rightfully stressed is the abandonment of reason, the utterance, whether
called municipal and city councils to enact ordinances for the purpose.18 verbal or printed, being in a context of violence. It must always be
remembered that this right likewise provides for a safety valve, allowing
Reyes v. Bagatsing19 further expounded on the right and its limits, as follows: parties the opportunity to give vent to their views, even if contrary to the
prevailing climate of opinion. For if the peaceful means of a permit should not be granted for the proposed march and rally starting
communication cannot be availed of, resort to non-peaceful means may from a public park that is the Luneta.
be the only alternative. Nor is this the sole reason for the expression of
dissent. It means more than just the right to be heard of the person who 4. Neither can there be any valid objection to the use of the streets to the
feels aggrieved or who is dissatisfied with things as they are. Its value gates of the US embassy, hardly two blocks away at the Roxas
may lie in the fact that there may be something worth hearing from the Boulevard. Primicias v. Fugoso has resolved any lurking doubt on the
dissenter. That is to ensure a true ferment of ideas. There are, of course, matter. In holding that the then Mayor Fugoso of the City of Manila
well-defined limits. What is guaranteed is peaceable assembly. One may should grant a permit for a public meeting at Plaza Miranda in Quiapo,
not advocate disorder in the name of protest, much less preach rebellion this Court categorically declared: "Our conclusion finds support in the
under the cloak of dissent. The Constitution frowns on disorder or tumult decision in the case of Willis Cox v. State of New Hampshire, 312 U.S.,
attending a rally or assembly. Resort to force is ruled out and outbreaks 569. In that case, the statute of New Hampshire P.L. chap. 145, section
of violence to be avoided. The utmost calm though is not required. As 2, providing that no parade or procession upon any ground abutting
pointed out in an early Philippine case, penned in 1907 to be precise, thereon, shall be permitted unless a special license therefor shall first be
United States v. Apurado: "It is rather to be expected that more or less obtained from the selectmen of the town or from licensing committee,’
disorder will mark the public assembly of the people to protest against was construed by the Supreme Court of New Hampshire as not
grievances whether real or imaginary, because on such occasions conferring upon the licensing board unfettered discretion to refuse to
feeling is always wrought to a high pitch of excitement, and the greater grant the license, and held valid. And the Supreme Court of the United
the grievance and the more intense the feeling, the less perfect, as a States, in its decision (1941) penned by Chief Justice Hughes affirming
rule, will be the disciplinary control of the leaders over their irresponsible the judgment of the State Supreme Court, held that ‘a statute requiring
followers." It bears repeating that for the constitutional right to be persons using the public streets for a parade or procession to procure a
invoked, riotous conduct, injury to property, and acts of vandalism must special license therefor from the local authorities is not an
be avoided. To give free rein to one’s destructive urges is to call for unconstitutional abridgment of the rights of assembly or of freedom of
condemnation. It is to make a mockery of the high estate occupied by speech and press, where, as the statute is construed by the state courts,
intellectual liberty in our scheme of values. the licensing authorities are strictly limited, in the issuance of licenses, to
a consideration of the time, place, and manner of the parade or
There can be no legal objection, absent the existence of a clear and procession, with a view to conserving the public convenience and of
present danger of a substantive evil, on the choice of Luneta as the affording an opportunity to provide proper policing, and are not invested
place where the peace rally would start. The Philippines is committed to with arbitrary discretion to issue or refuse license, * * *. "Nor should the
the view expressed in the plurality opinion, of 1939 vintage, of Justice point made by Chief Justice Hughes in a subsequent portion of the
Roberts in Hague v. CIO: "Whenever the title of streets and parks may opinion be ignored: "Civil liberties, as guaranteed by the Constitution,
rest, they have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public imply the existence of an organized society maintaining public order
and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, without which liberty itself would be lost in the excesses of unrestricted
communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public abuses. The authority of a municipality to impose regulations in order to
questions. Such use of the streets and public places has, from ancient assure the safety and convenience of the people in the use of public
times, been a part of the privileges, immunities, rights and liberties of highways has never been regarded as inconsistent with civil liberties but
citizens. The privilege of a citizen of the United States to use the streets rather as one of the means of safeguarding the good order upon which
and parks for communication of views on national questions may be they ultimately depend. The control of travel on the streets of cities is the
regulated in the interest of all; it is not absolute, but relative, and must be most familiar illustration of this recognition of social need. Where a
exercised in subordination to the general comfort and convenience, and restriction of the use of highways in that relation is designed to promote
in consonance with peace and good order; but must not, in the guise of the public convenience in the interest of all, it cannot be disregarded by
regulation, be abridged or denied." The above excerpt was quoted with the attempted exercise of some civil right which in other circumstances
approval in Primicias v. Fugoso. Primicias made explicit what was would be entitled to protection."
implicit in Municipality of Cavite v. Rojas, a 1915 decision, where this
Court categorically affirmed that plazas or parks and streets are outside xxx
the commerce of man and thus nullified a contract that leased Plaza
Soledad of plaintiff-municipality. Reference was made to such plaza
6. x x x The principle under American doctrines was given utterance by
"being a promenade for public use," which certainly is not the only
Chief Justice Hughes in these words: "The question, if the rights of free
purpose that it could serve. To repeat, there can be no valid reason why
speech and peaceable assembly are to be preserved, is not as to the
 auspices under which the meeting is held but as to its purpose; not as to
the relations of the speakers, but whether their utterances transcend the Reyes v. Bagatsing B.P. No. 880
bounds of the freedom of speech which the Constitution protects." There
could be danger to public peace and safety if such a gathering were
marked by turbulence. That would deprive it of its peaceful character. (G.R. No. L-65366, November 9, Sec. 4. Permit when required and
Even then, only the guilty parties should be held accountable. It is true 1983, when not required.-- A written permit
that the licensing official, here respondent Mayor, is not devoid of shall be required for any person or
discretion in determining whether or not a permit would be granted. It is 125 SCRA 553, 569) persons to organize and hold a
not, however, unfettered discretion. While prudence requires that there public assembly in a public place.
be a realistic appraisal not of what may possibly occur but of what However, no permit shall be required
8. By way of a summary. The
may probably occur, given all the relevant circumstances, still the if the public assembly shall be done
applicants for a permit to hold an
assumption – especially so where the assembly is scheduled for a or made in a freedom park duly
assembly should inform the licensing
specific public place – is that the permit must be for the assembly being established by law or ordinance or in
authority of the date, the public
held there. The exercise of such a right, in the language of Justice private property, in which case only
place where and the time when it will
Roberts, speaking for the American Supreme Court, is not to be the consent of the owner or the one
take place. If it were a private place,
"abridged on the plea that it may be exercised in some other place." entitled to its legal possession is
only the consent of the owner or the
required, or in the campus of a
one entitled to its legal possession is
government-owned and operated
xxx required. Such application should be
educational institution which shall be
filed well ahead in time to enable the
subject to the rules and regulations
8. By way of a summary. The applicants for a permit to hold an assembly public official concerned to appraise
of said educational institution.
should inform the licensing authority of the date, the public whether there may be valid Political meetings or rallies held
place where and the time when it will take place. If it were a private objections to the grant of the permit during any election campaign period
place, only the consent of the owner or the one entitled to its legal or to its grant but at another public as provided for by law are not
possession is required. Such application should be filed well ahead in place. It is an indispensable covered by this Act.
time to enable the public official concerned to appraise whether there condition to such refusal or
may be valid objections to the grant of the permit or to its grant but at modification that the clear and
present danger test be the standard Sec. 5. Application requirements.--
another public place. It is an indispensable condition to such refusal or All applications for a permit shall
modification that the clear and present danger test be the standard for for the decision reached. If he is of
the view that there is such an comply with the following guidelines:
the decision reached. If he is of the view that there is such an imminent
and grave danger of a substantive evil, the applicants must be heard on imminent and grave danger of a
the matter. Thereafter, his decision, whether favorable or adverse, must substantive evil, the applicants must (a) The applications shall be
be transmitted to them at the earliest opportunity. Thus if so minded, be heard on the matter. Thereafter, in writing and shall include
they can have recourse to the proper judicial authority. Free speech and his decision, whether favorable or the names of the leaders or
peaceable assembly, along with the other intellectual freedoms, are adverse, must be transmitted to organizers; the purpose of
highly ranked in our scheme of constitutional values. It cannot be too them at the earliest opportunity. such public assembly; the
strongly stressed that on the judiciary, -- even more so than on the other Thus if so minded, they can have date, time and duration
departments – rests the grave and delicate responsibility of assuring recourse to the proper judicial thereof, and place or streets
respect for and deference to such preferred rights. No verbal formula, no authority. to be used for the intended
sanctifying phrase can, of course, dispense with what has been so activity; and the probable
felicitiously termed by Justice Holmes "as the sovereign prerogative of number of persons
judgment." Nonetheless, the presumption must be to incline the weight participating, the transport
of the scales of justice on the side of such rights, enjoying as they do and the public address
precedence and primacy. x x x. systems to be used.

B.P. No. 880 was enacted after this Court rendered its decision in Reyes. (b) The application shall
incorporate the duty and
responsibility of applicant
The provisions of B.P. No. 880 practically codify the ruling in Reyes:
 under Section 8 hereof. reason the mayor or any
official acting in his behalf
(c) The application shall be refuse to accept the
filed with the office of the application for a permit, said
mayor of the city or application shall be posted
municipality in whose by the applicant on the
jurisdiction the intended premises of the office of the
activity is to be held, at least mayor and shall be deemed
five (5) working days before to have been filed.
the scheduled public
assembly. (c) If the mayor is of the
view that there is imminent
(d) Upon receipt of the and grave danger of a
application, which must be substantive evil warranting
duly acknowledged in the denial or modification of
writing, the office of the city the permit, he shall
or municipal mayor shall immediately inform the
cause the same to applicant who must be
immediately be posted at a heard on the matter.
conspicuous place in the
city or municipal building. (d) The action on the permit
shall be in writing and
Sec. 6. Action to be taken on the served on the applica[nt]
application. – within twenty-four hours.

(a) It shall be the duty of the (e) If the mayor or any

mayor or any official acting official acting in his behalf
in his behalf to issue or denies the application or
grant a permit unless there modifies the terms thereof in
is clear and convincing his permit, the applicant
evidence that the public may contest the decision in
assembly will create a clear an appropriate court of law.
and present danger to
public order, public safety, (f) In case suit is brought
public convenience, public before the Metropolitan Trial
morals or public health. Court, the Municipal Trial
Court, the Municipal Circuit
(b) The mayor or any official Trial Court, the Regional
acting in his behalf shall act Trial Court, or the
on the application within two Intermediate Appellate
(2) working days from the Court, its decisions may be
date the application was appealed to the appropriate
filed, failing which, the court within forty-eight (48)
permit shall be deemed hours after receipt of the
granted. Should for any same. No appeal bond and
 Furthermore, the permit can only be denied on the ground of clear and present
record on appeal shall be danger to public order, public safety, public convenience, public morals or public
required. A decision health. This is a recognized exception to the exercise of the right even under the
granting such permit or Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil
modifying it in terms and Political Rights, thus:
satisfactory to the applicant
shall be immediately Universal Declaration of Human Rights
executory.
Article 20
(g) All cases filed in court
under this section shall be 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
decided within twenty-four
(24) hours from date of
xxx
filing. Cases filed hereunder
shall be immediately
endorsed to the executive Article 29
judge for disposition or, in
his absence, to the next in 1. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full
rank. development of his personality is possible.

(h) In all cases, any decision 2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject
may be appealed to the only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose
Supreme Court. of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of
others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and
(i) Telegraphic appeals to the general welfare in a democratic society.
be followed by formal
appeals are hereby allowed. 3. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to
the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

It is very clear, therefore, that B.P. No. 880 is not an absolute ban of public The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
assemblies but a restriction that simply regulates the time, place and manner of
the assemblies. This was adverted to in Osmeña v. Comelec,20 where the Court Article 19.
referred to it as a "content-neutral" regulation of the time, place, and manner of
holding public assemblies.21 1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.

A fair and impartial reading of B.P. No. 880 thus readily shows that it refers 2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall
to all kinds of public assemblies22 that would use public places. The reference to include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all
"lawful cause" does not make it content-based because assemblies really have to kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the
be for lawful causes, otherwise they would not be "peaceable" and entitled to form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
protection. Neither are the words "opinion," "protesting" and "influencing" in the
definition of public assembly content based, since they can refer to any subject.
3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article
The words "petitioning the government for redress of grievances" come from the
carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be
wording of the Constitution, so its use cannot be avoided. Finally, maximum
subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are
tolerance is for the protection and benefit of all rallyists and is independent of
provided by law and are necessary:
the content of the expressions in the rally.

(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;

 (b) For the protection of national security or of public order The Solicitor General stated during the oral arguments that, to his knowledge,
(ordre public), or of public health or morals. only Cebu City has declared a freedom park – Fuente Osmeña.

Contrary to petitioner’s claim, the law is very clear and is nowhere vague in its That of Manila, the Sunken Gardens, has since been converted into a golf
provisions. "Public" does not have to be defined. Its ordinary meaning is well- course, he added.
known. Webster’s Dictionary defines it, thus:23
If this is so, the degree of observance of B.P. No. 880’s mandate that every city
public, n, x x x 2a: an organized body of people x x x 3: a group of people and municipality set aside a freedom park within six months from its effectivity in
distinguished by common interests or characteristics x x x. 1985, or 20 years ago, would be pathetic and regrettable. The matter appears to
have been taken for granted amidst the swell of freedom that rose from the
Not every expression of opinion is a public assembly. The law refers to "rally, peaceful revolution of 1986.
demonstration, march, parade, procession or any other form of mass or
concerted action held in a public place." So it does not cover any and all kinds of Considering that the existence of such freedom parks is an essential part of the
gatherings. law’s system of regulation of the people’s exercise of their right to peacefully
assemble and petition, the Court is constrained to rule that after thirty (30) days
Neither is the law overbroad. It regulates the exercise of the right to peaceful from the finality of this Decision, no prior permit may be required for the exercise
assembly and petition only to the extent needed to avoid a clear and present of such right in any public park or plaza of a city or municipality until that city or
danger of the substantive evils Congress has the right to prevent. 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
There is, likewise, no prior restraint, since the content of the speech is not coordination and orderly proceedings.
relevant to the regulation.
The Court now comes to the matter of the CPR. As stated earlier, the Solicitor
As to the delegation of powers to the mayor, the law provides a precise and General has conceded that the use of the term should now be discontinued,
sufficient standard – the clear and present danger test stated in Sec. 6(a). The since it does not mean anything other than the maximum tolerance policy set
reference to "imminent and grave danger of a substantive evil" in Sec. 6(c) forth in B.P. No. 880. This is stated in the Affidavit of respondent Executive
substantially means the same thing and is not an inconsistent standard. As to Secretary Eduardo Ermita, submitted by the Solicitor General, thus:
whether respondent Mayor has the same power independently under Republic
Act No. 716024 is thus not necessary to resolve in these proceedings, and was
not pursued by the parties in their arguments. 14. The truth of the matter is the policy of "calibrated preemptive response" is in
consonance with the legal definition of "maximum tolerance" under Section 3 (c)
of B.P. Blg. 880, which is the "highest degree of restraint that the military, police
Finally, for those who cannot wait, Section 15 of the law provides for an
and other peacekeeping authorities shall observe during a public assembly or in
alternative forum through the creation of freedom parks where no prior permit is
the dispersal of the same." Unfortunately, however, the phrase "maximum
needed for peaceful assembly and petition at any time:
tolerance" 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
Sec. 15. Freedom parks. – Every city and municipality in the country shall within serious threats to public order. More so, other felt that they need not bother
six months after the effectivity of this Act establish or designate at least one secure a permit when holding rallies thinking this would be "tolerated." Clearly,
suitable "freedom park" or mall in their respective jurisdictions which, as far as the popular connotation of "maximum tolerance" has departed from its real
practicable, shall be centrally located within the poblacion where demonstrations essence under B.P. Blg. 880.
and meetings may be held at any time without the need of any prior permit.
15. It should be emphasized that the policy of maximum tolerance is provided
In the cities and municipalities of Metropolitan Manila, the respective mayors under the same law which requires all pubic assemblies to have a permit, which
shall establish the freedom parks within the period of six months from the allows the dispersal of rallies without a permit, and which recognizes certain
effectivity this Act. instances when 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
This brings up the point, however, of compliance with this provision. the dispersal and use of water cannons under certain circumstances for indeed,
the maximum amount of tolerance required is dependent on how peaceful or
unruly a mass action is. Our law enforcers should calibrate their response based (a) Members of the law enforcement contingent who deal with the
on the circumstances on the ground with the view to preempting the outbreak of demonstrators shall be in complete uniform with their nameplates and
violence. units to which they belong displayed prominently on the front and dorsal
parts of their uniform and must observe the policy of "maximum
16. Thus, when I stated that calibrated preemptive response is being enforced in tolerance" as herein defined;
lieu of maximum tolerance I clearly was not referring to its legal definition but to
the distorted and much abused definition that it has now acquired. I only wanted (b) The members of the law enforcement contingent shall not carry any
to disabuse the minds of the public from the notion that law enforcers would shirk kind of firearms but may be equipped with baton or riot sticks, shields,
their responsibility of keeping the peace even when confronted with dangerously crash helmets with visor, gas masks, boots or ankle high shoes with shin
threatening behavior. I wanted to send a message that we would no longer be lax guards;
in 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 (c) Tear gas, smoke grenades, water cannons, or any similar anti-riot
a no permit, no rally policy . . . arrest all persons violating the laws of the land . . . device shall not be used unless the public assembly is attended by
unlawful mass actions will be dispersed." None of these is at loggerheads with actual violence or serious threats of violence, or deliberate destruction of
the letter and spirit of Batas Pambansa Blg. 880. It is thus absurd for property.
complainants to even claim that I ordered my co-respondents to violate any law.25
Sec. 11. Dispersal of public assembly with permit. – No public assembly with a
At any rate, the Court rules that in view of the maximum tolerance mandated by permit shall be dispersed. However, when an assembly becomes violent, the
B.P. No. 880, CPR serves no valid purpose if it means the same thing as police may disperse such public assembly as follows:
maximum tolerance and is illegal if it means something else. Accordingly, what is
to be followed is and should be that mandated by the law itself, namely,
maximum tolerance, which specifically means the following: (a) At the first sign of impending violence, the ranking officer of the law
enforcement contingent shall call the attention of the leaders of the
public assembly and ask the latter to prevent any possible disturbance;
Sec. 3. Definition of terms. – For purposes of this Act:
(b) If actual violence starts to a point where rocks or other harmful
xxx objects from the participants are thrown at the police or at the non-
participants, or at any property causing damage to such property, the
(c) "Maximum tolerance" means the highest degree of restraint that the military, ranking officer of the law enforcement contingent shall audibly warn the
police and other peace keeping authorities shall observe during a public participants that if the disturbance persists, the public assembly will be
assembly or in the dispersal of the same. dispersed;

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

subparagraph should not stop or abate, the ranking officer of the law
Sec. 9. Non-interference by law enforcement authorities. – Law enforcement enforcement contingent shall audibly issue a warning to the participants
agencies shall not interfere with the holding of a public assembly. However, to of the public assembly, and after allowing a reasonable period of time to
adequately ensure public safety, a law enforcement contingent under the lapse, shall immediately order it to forthwith disperse;
command 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 (d) No arrest of any leader, organizer or participant shall also be made
maintain peace and order at all times. during the public assembly unless he violates during the assembly a law,
statute, ordinance or any provision of this Act. Such arrest shall be
Sec. 10. Police assistance when requested. – It shall be imperative for law governed by Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended;
enforcement agencies, when their assistance is requested by the leaders or
organizers, to perform their duties always mindful that their responsibility to (d) Isolated acts or incidents of disorder or breach of the peace during
provide proper protection to those exercising their right peaceably to assemble the public assembly shall not constitute a ground for dispersal.
and the freedom of expression is primordial.1avvphil.net Towards this end, law
enforcement agencies shall observe the following guidelines: xxx
Sec. 12. Dispersal of public assembly without permit. – When the public freedom. It merely confuses our people and is used by some police agents to
assembly is held without a permit where a permit is required, the said public justify abuses. On the other hand, B.P. No. 880 cannot be condemned as
assembly may be peacefully dispersed. 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
Sec. 13. Prohibited acts. – The following shall constitute violations of the Act: being insidious, "maximum tolerance" is for the benefit of rallyists, not the
government. The delegation to the mayors of the power to issue rally "permits" is
valid because it is subject to the constitutionally-sound "clear and present
(e) Obstructing, impeding, disrupting or otherwise denying the exercise of the danger" standard.
right to peaceful assembly;
In this Decision, the Court goes even one step further in safeguarding liberty by
(f) The unnecessary firing of firearms by a member of any law enforcement
giving local governments a deadline of 30 days within which to designate specific
agency or any person to disperse the public assembly;
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
(g) Acts described hereunder if committed within one hundred (100) meters from and plazas of the municipality or city concerned shall in effect be deemed
the area of activity of the public assembly or on the occasion thereof: freedom 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
xxx the mayor’s office to allow proper coordination and orderly activities.

4. the carrying of firearms by members of the law enforcement unit; WHEREFORE, the petitions are GRANTED in part, and respondents, more
particularly the Secretary of the Interior and Local Governments,
5. the interfering with or intentionally disturbing the holding of a public assembly are DIRECTED to take all necessary steps for the immediate compliance with
by the use of a motor vehicle, its horns and loud sound systems. Section 15 of Batas Pambansa No. 880 through the establishment or designation
of at least one suitable freedom park or plaza in every city and municipality of the
country. After thirty (30) days from the finality of this Decision, subject to the
Furthermore, there is need to address the situation adverted to by petitioners giving of advance notices, no prior permit shall be required to exercise the right to
where mayors do not act on applications for a permit and when the police peaceably assemble and petition in the public parks or plazas of a city or
demand a permit and the rallyists could not produce one, the rally is immediately municipality that has not yet complied with Section 15 of the law.
dispersed. In such a situation, as a necessary consequence and part of Furthermore, Calibrated Preemptive Response (CPR), insofar as it would
maximum tolerance, rallyists who can show the police an application duly filed on purport to differ from or be in lieu of maximum tolerance, is NULL and VOID and
a given date can, after two days from said date, rally in accordance with their respondents are ENJOINED to REFRAIN from using it and to STRICTLY
application without the need to show a permit, the grant of the permit being then OBSERVE the requirements of maximum tolerance. The petitions
presumed under the law, and it will be the burden of the authorities to show that are DISMISSED in all other respects, and the constitutionality of Batas
there has been a denial of the application, in which case the rally may be Pambansa No. 880 is SUSTAINED.
peacefully dispersed following the procedure of maximum tolerance prescribed
by the law.
No costs.
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 SO ORDERED.
several policy addresses, Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban has repeatedly
vowed to 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
rights come to the courts with a heavy presumption against their validity. These
laws and actions are subjected to heightened scrutiny."26

For this reason, the so-called calibrated preemptive response policy has no place
in our legal firmament and must be struck down as a darkness that shrouds