Case Digest (G.R. No. 169838)
Facts:
Bayan, Karapatan, Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP), Gabriela, Fr. Jose Dizon, Renato Constantino, Jr., Froyel Yaneza, and Fahima Tajar, et al., G.R. Nos. 169838, 169848, and 169881, April 25, 2006, the Supreme Court En Banc, Azcuna, J., writing for the Court.The petitions were filed in three groups by civil society organizations and individual rallyists who alleged that police forcibly dispersed and in some instances arrested participants of peaceful mass actions held in Metro Manila in late September and early October 2005. The first group (G.R. No. 169838) alleged violent dispersal of an October 6, 2005 rally under implementation of Batas Pambansa No. 880. The second group (G.R. No. 169848) alleged injuries, arrests and preemptive dispersal of a September 26, 2005 mass action and of an October 5, 2005 march to Malacañang. The third group (G.R. No. 169881) comprised labor organizations that asserted their right to peaceful assembly was being chilled by enforcement of B.P. No. 880 and by the Palace policy dubbed Calibrated Preemptive Response (CPR); they recounted dispersals and arrests in rallies of October 4 and October 6, 2005.
Petitioners attacked B.P. No. 880 in toto or challenged Sections 4, 5, 6, 12, 13(a) and 14(a) as unconstitutional on grounds of vagueness, overbreadth, prior restraint, improper delegation to mayors, and incompatibility with international human-rights instruments. They also sought to enjoin enforcement of the CPR policy announced in a Malacañang press release dated September 21, 2005. Respondents included Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita, the Secretary of the Interior and Local Governments, the PNP leadership, the Manila Mayor, and Manila police chiefs; respondents defended the statute and maintained the CPR was a lawful clarification of enforcement.
The petitions were consolidated by the Court on February 14, 2006. Oral arguments were set for April 4, 2006; during proceedings petitioners withdrew their as-applied factual claims about particular rallies and the Solicitor General and respondent Executive Secretary submitted an affidavit and comments conceding that “CPR” was a catchword and that the enforcement standard of B.P. No. 880 (the “maximum toleran...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Do the petitioners have standing to challenge B.P. No. 880 and the CPR policy?
- Is Batas Pambansa No. 880 (specifically Sections 4, 5, 6, 12, 13(a) and 14(a)) constitutional — are its time, place and manner rules content-neutral, non-vague, not overbroad, not a prior restraint, and not an undue delegation of power to mayors?
- Is the policy of Calibrated Preemptive Response (CPR) void on its face or for lack of publication, or otherwise invalid insofar as it purports to replace or differ from the maximum tolerance standard in B.P. No. 880?
- What remedial measure, if any, should the Court order concerning the...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)