Case Digest (G.R. No. 169838) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Bayan, Karapatan, Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP), et al. v. Ermita et al. (G.R. Nos. 169838, 169848, 169881, decided April 25, 2006), three groups of petitioners—(1) Bayan, Karapatan, KMP, Gabriela, Fr. Jose Dizon, Renato Constantino Jr., Froyel Yaneza and Fahima Tajar; (2) twenty-six individuals led by Jess Del Prado; and (3) Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU) with allied labor leaders—challenged the constitutionality of Batas Pambansa Blg. 880 (the Public Assembly Act of 1985) and the so-called “Calibrated Preemptive Response” (CPR) policy announced by Malacañang on September 21, 2005. Petitioners allege that police forces, under the “no permit, no rally” policy and CPR, violently dispersed and, in some cases, arrested participants in peaceful assemblies held on September 26, October 4, 5 and 6, 2005 in Manila. They sought injunctive and declaratory reliefs directly from the Supreme Court, which consolidated the three petitions on February 14, 2006 and heard oral arguments on Case Digest (G.R. No. 169838) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Petitioners and Case Consolidation
- First group (G.R. No. 169838): Bayan, Karapatan, Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP), Gabriela, Fr. Jose A. Dizon, Renato Constantino Jr., Froyel Yaneza, Fahima Tajar
- Participated in rally on October 6, 2005 protesting government policies
- Rally violently dispersed by police enforcing Batas Pambansa No. 880 (“B.P. No. 880”)
- Second group (G.R. No. 169848): Jess del Prado et al. (26 individuals)
- Held peaceful mass action on September 26, 2005; police preemptively dispersed, causing injuries, arrests, detention
- Participated in October 5, 2005 march to Malacañang; violently dispersed, with injuries and arrests
- Third group (G.R. No. 169881): Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU) et al.
- Co-sponsored rally on October 4, 2005 at Mendiola bridge; blocked and dispersed along Recto and Lepanto Streets
- Co-sponsored multi-sectoral rally on October 6, 2005 along España Avenue; blocked at Morayta Street and dispersed, with injuries and arrests
- Respondents
- Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita; Secretary of the Interior Angelo Reyes; Manila City Mayor Lito Atienza
- PNP Chief Gen. Arturo M. Lomibao; NCRPO Chief Maj. Gen. Vidal Querol; MPD Chief Gen. Pedro Bulaong; other officers and individuals under their supervision
- Legal and Policy Background
- Batas Pambansa No. 880 (“The Public Assembly Act of 1985”)
- Requires written permit for any public assembly in public places; exemptions for freedom parks, private property, campuses
- Defines “maximum tolerance,” permit application requirements, grounds and procedure for permit denial or modification, dispersal rules for assemblies with/without permit, establishment of freedom parks
- “Calibrated Preemptive Response” (CPR) Policy
- Announced by Executive Secretary Ermita on September 21, 2005 via Malacañang News Release No. 2
- Enforces “no permit, no rally” policy; orders strict dispersal of unauthorized mass actions; intended to replace perceived lax “maximum tolerance”
Issues:
- Constitutionality of B.P. No. 880 (Sections 4, 5, 6, 12, 13(a), 14(a))
- Whether B.P. No. 880 is a content-neutral regulation or an impermissible content-based restriction
- Whether the law is void for overbreadth or vagueness
- Whether it constitutes an unconstitutional prior restraint on assembly and expression
- Whether it involves undue delegation of legislative power to mayors
- Whether it conflicts with international human rights treaties and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
- Legality of the CPR Policy
- Whether CPR is void on its face or for vagueness
- Whether CPR is void for lack of publication or statutory authority
- Whether CPR as applied to the September 26 and October 4, 5, and 6, 2005 rallies was lawful
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)