Facts:

• In Evangelista v. Earnshaw, Crisanto Evangelista, president of the Communist Party of the Philippines, filed a mandamus action against Tomas Earnshaw, Mayor of Manila.
• Evangelista sought permission to hold a public meeting and parade in Manila on March 12, 1931, to deliver a message from the laboring class to the Governor-General.
• Mayor Earnshaw denied this request on March 3, 1931, and prohibited all meetings of the Communist Party in the city.
• Evangelista argued that this prohibition deprived the Communist Party of its constitutional right to peaceful assembly.
• The case aimed to compel the mayor to issue the necessary permits for the meetings and parades.
• Mayor Earnshaw justified his actions by stating that the Communist Party was an illegal association advocating for the overthrow of the government and inciting rebellion through seditious speeches and revolutionary propaganda.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• The court ruled in favor of the defendant, Mayor Tomas Earnshaw.
• The court affirmed the mayor's decision to cancel the permit and prohibit the Communist Party's meetings and parade...(Unlock)

Ratio:

• The court's decision was based on the argument that the doctrines and principles advocated by the Communist Party of the Philippines were highly seditious, inciting rebellious conspiracies and disturbing lawful authorities.
• The right to peaceful assembly is not absolute and can be restricted when it poses a threat to public peace and safety.
• The mayor acted within his legal authority to revoke permits when activities under such permits violate conditions or laws, or for any other reason of general interest.
• The court cited Gitlow v. New York to support the notion that the state has the right...continue reading