Case Digest (G.R. No. L-65366)
Facts:
Jose B.L. Reyes, in behalf of the Anti-Bases Coalition (ABC), v. Ramon Bagatsing, as Mayor of the City of Manila, G.R. No. L-65366, October 25, 1983, the Supreme Court En Banc, Per Curiam, concerned a petition for mandamus with an alternative prayer for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction filed on October 20, 1983.Petitioner, through retired Justice J. B. L. Reyes on behalf of the Anti-Bases Coalition (ABC), sought a permit to use “the empty field in front of the Luneta Grandstand and Roxas Boulevard in front of the United States Embassy” on October 26, 1983 from 2:00–5:00 p.m. for an international conference and a march to the gate of the United States Embassy, assuring that steps would be taken to ensure a peaceful march and rally.
Ramon Bagatsing, as Mayor of the City of Manila, denied the permit by reason of police intelligence reports which, in his office’s view, “strongly militate against the advisability of issuing such permit at this time and at the place applied for,” while offering as an alternative the Rizal Coliseum or another enclosed venue in accordance with police recommendation. The Mayor’s answer was filed and argued by Assistant Solicitor General Eduardo G. Montenegro, assisted by Solicitor Roberto A. Abad.
A hearing was held before the Court. Petitioner was represented by Professor Haydee Yorac and former Senator Jose W. Diokno; respondent was represented by Assistant Solicitor General Montenegro. The parties debated the existence of a “clear and present danger” justifying prior restraint and the relevance of past decisions such as Navarro v. Villegas and Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawang Pilipino (PMP) v. Bagatsing and Cabrera. The police, through General Narciso Cabrera, furnished assurances that they could cope with any emergency; petitioner pointed to prior demonstrations at Bayview Hotel Area and Plaza Ferguson in front of the U.S. Embassy that had occurred without untoward events.
Respondent also invoked Ordinance No. 7295 of the City of Manila, which prohibits rallies or demonstrations within 500 feet of any foreign mission or chancery, and relied on Article 22 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961) — a treaty ratified by the Philippines — as its basis. The petitioners, however, gave assurances that following a short program two speakers would deliver remarks and the demonstrators would submit a petition at the embassy gate, stressing the peaceful and limited nature of the activity.
The Court considered the facts and prior rulings and, finding no adequate showing of a clear and present danger here, resolved the petition by granting the mandatory injunction. The Court noted that to the extent its resolution was inconsistent with Navarro v. Villegas, that case wa...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did respondent Mayor Ramon Bagatsing’s denial of the permit constitute a grave abuse of discretion justifying issuance of mandamus/preliminary mandatory injunction to compel the permit?
- Could the holding of the rally in front of the U.S. Embassy lawfully be denied by reason of Ordinance No. 7295 (prohibiting rallies within 500 feet of foreign missions) grounded in Article 22 of the Vienna Conve...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)