Case Summary (G.R. No. 169838)
Petitioners
- Bayan, Karapatan, KMP, Gabriela and individual activists (G.R. No. 169838).
- Twenty-six individuals led by Jess del Prado (G.R. No. 169848).
- Kilusang Mayo Uno and allied labor leaders (G.R. No. 169881).
Respondents
• Eduardo Ermita, Executive Secretary (also in personal capacity).
• Secretary Angelo Reyes, Interior and Local Government.
• Mayor Lito Atienza of Manila.
• PNP Chief General Arturo Lomibao; NCRPO Chief Major General Vidal Querol; MPD Chief General Pedro Bulaong.
Key Dates
• September 21, 2005: Malacañang issues press release announcing “no permit, no rally” policy and CPR.
• September 26, October 4–6, 2005: Three separate mass actions dispersed by police under B.P. 880/CPR.
• April 25, 2006: En banc resolution consolidating petitions and setting oral arguments.
Applicable Law
• 1987 Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 4 – freedom of speech, peaceful assembly, petition.
• Batas Pambansa Blg. 880 (“Public Assembly Act of 1985”): Sections 4, 5, 6, 12, 13(a), 14(a), and 15 (freedom parks).
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Facts
Petitioners allege that peaceful rallies held without prior permits were violently dispersed, participants arrested, detained, and injured. They challenge (a) the requirement of a permit for public assemblies; (b) the delegation of discretion to mayors; (c) the consistency, clarity, and neutrality of the law’s standards; and (d) the ultra vires, vague CPR policy replacing “maximum tolerance.”
Issues
- Whether B.P. 880’s permit requirement and related provisions constitute an unconstitutional prior restraint, content-based regulation, undue delegation, vagueness, or overbreadth.
- Whether the CPR policy is lawful, sufficiently published, and consistent with B.P. 880’s “maximum tolerance” rule.
Petitioners’ Arguments
• B.P. 880 imposes a prior restraint on assembly without clear, neutral standards.
• The five-day application period and venue limitations unduly burden spontaneous or expressive gatherings.
• Delegation to mayors lacks narrow, objective criteria.
• CPR alters statutory tolerance rules, is vague, unpublished, and chills free assembly.
Respondents’ Arguments
• Petitioners have standing, but B.P. 880 is a content-neutral, time-place-manner regulation, narrowly tailored to significant government interests (public order, safety, convenience) and leaves open alternative channels.
• The “clear and present danger” and “imminent and grave danger” standards are consistent and judicially reviewable.
• CPR is merely an administrative slogan clarifying enforcement of the existing maximum tolerance policy and does not supplant B.P. 880.
Court’s Analysis
• Standing: Petitioners’ direct engagement in unpermitted assemblies and resulting dispersals afford sufficient injury.
• Constitutional Framework: Freedom of assembly is a fundamental right but may be regulated under the police power to prevent grave and imminent dangers to public order, safety, morals, or health (clear and present danger test).
• Precedents: Reyes v. Bagatsing and Primicias v. Fugoso endorse permit schemes conditioned on time-place-manner considerations and clear-danger standards; U.S. cases (Apurado, Hague, Cox) affirm analogous regulatory schemes.
• Content Neutrality: B.P. 880 applies regardless of message; its definition of “public assembly” is broad but lawful.
• Vagueness/Overbreadth: Terms “public place,” “maximum tolerance,” and danger-based criteria have commonly understood meanings and judicial definitions.
• Delegation: Mayoral discretion is confined by statutory criteria (Sections 5–6); applicants may seek immediate judicial review.
• Freedom Parks (Sec. 15): Mandatory designation of at least one park per LGU within six months of the law’s effect; many localities ha
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 169838)
Facts of the Consolidated Petitions
- Three groups of petitioners challenged the violent dispersal of peaceful mass actions in Metro Manila during late September and early October 2005.
- G.R. No. 169838 (Bayan, Karapatan, KMP, et al.): Participants in an October 6, 2005 Mendiola rally violently dispersed under B.P. No. 880.
- G.R. No. 169848 (Jess del Prado, et al.): Individuals injured, arrested and detained during a September 26, 2005 rally, and during an October 5 march to Malacañang protesting alleged “undeclared martial rule.”
- G.R. No. 169881 (KMU, et al.): Labor groups blocked and dispersed on October 4 at C.M. Recto/Lepanto and on October 6 along Espaňa Avenue–Morayta Street; several arrests and injuries.
- All petitioners assailed the constitutionality of Batas Pambansa Bilang 880 (“Public Assembly Act of 1985”)—in toto or Sections 4, 5, 6, 12, 13(a), 14(a)—and the “Calibrated Preemptive Response” (CPR) policy announced by Malacañang.
Legal Issues Presented
- Constitutionality of B.P. No. 880 provisions under:
- Content‐neutrality versus content‐based regulation
- Vagueness or overbreadth
- Prior restraint on assembly
- Undue delegation to Mayors
- Consistency with international human rights treaties
- Legality and scope of the “Calibrated Preemptive Response” policy:
- Whether it is ultra vires, vague, or replaces the “maximum tolerance” standard
- Whether it was properly published or applies to the subject rallies
Challenged Law: Batas Pambansa Bilang 880
- Requires a written permit from the city/municipal mayor for any “public assembly” in a public place (Sec. 4).
- Defines “public assembly,” “public place,” “maximum tolerance,” and “modification of a permit” (Sec. 3).
- Sets application requirements (Sec. 5) and mandates mayoral action within two working days, subject to “clear and present danger” or “imminent and grave danger” standards (Sec. 6).
- Allows police stationing at least 100 meters away but prohibits interference with permitted assemblies (Sec. 9).
- Prescribes “maximum tolerance” equipment and conduct rules for law enforcement (Sec. 10).
- Provides for dispersal procedures with and without permits (Secs. 11–12).
- Lists prohibited acts and penalties (Secs. 13–14).
- Requires each LGU to establish a “freedom park” within six months (Sec. 15).
Calibrated Preemptive Response (CPR) Policy
- Announced September 21, 2005 by Executive Secretary Ermita as a replacement for “maximum tolerance.”
- Emphasized “no permit, no ral