Case Summary (G.R. No. 36453)
Factual Background
The plaintiff averred that he was president of the Communist Party in the Philippine Islands and that, on March 2, 1931, he requested from the defendant mayor permission to hold a public meeting at Plaza Moriones on March 12, 1931, followed by a parade through specified city streets to deliver a message to the Governor-General. The mayor denied the petition on March 3, 1931, and directed the chief of police to prohibit all meetings of the Communist Party in the city. The plaintiff alleged that the mayor’s refusal deprived the Communist Party of a constitutional right to assemble and petition.
Nature of the Action and Prayer
The plaintiff instituted an action for mandamus seeking a writ compelling the defendant mayor to issue permits for the holding of meetings and parades by the Communist Party in Manila. The complaint sought judicial relief to secure the party’s continued exercise of assembly and parade rights within the city.
Defendant’s Answer and Special Defense
In his answer and special defense, the defendant asserted that, after investigation by the fiscal for the City of Manila, the Communist Party of the Philippines was found to be an illegal organization. The defendant produced the party’s constitution and by-laws and relied upon them to justify the revocation of permits and the prohibition of meetings.
Party Constitution, Aims and Advocate Speeches
The party constitution and by-laws, as stated in the defendant’s pleading, declared revolutionary aims: immediate and complete independence of the Philippines; overthrow of American imperialism; cessation of exploitation of labor; establishment of a Soviet government under laborers; and the eventual overthrow of capitalism by class struggle and, if necessary, violent means. The defendant further alleged that public meetings held under previously issued permits had contained seditious speeches urging the laboring class to unite, to overthrow the government, and to scorn the constabulary and police as tools of imperialism.
Grounds for Revocation and Statutory Power
The defendant relied on his statutory duty and power to preserve public order and to grant, refuse, and revoke municipal licenses and permits. The mayor invoked the duty "to see that nothing should occur which would tend to provoke or excite the people to disturb the peace of the community or the safety or order of the Government," and the authority conferred by Act No. 2774, sec. 4, amending sec. 2434, par. [m], Administrative Code, to refuse or revoke permits for acts prohibited by law or for "any other good reason of general interest."
Legal Issues Presented
The principal legal issues were whether the mayor acted within his authority in revoking permits and prohibiting meetings of the Communist Party, and whether the revocation unconstitutionally abridged the party members’ rights of assembly, speech, and petition. The Court considered whether the doctrines and utterances attributed to the party constituted seditious advocacy that justified preventive action.
Authorities Cited and Constitutional Considerations
In addressing these issues, the Court cited Gitlow vs. New York (268 U.S. 652) for the proposition that revolutionary utterances may involve danger to public peace and that the state may act to extinguish a revolutionary spark before it kindles a conflagration. The Court also cited People vs. Perez (45 Phil., 599) and other authorities for the principle that constitutional guaranties of freedom of speech, press, assembly, and petition are not absolute and must yield when the intention and effect of the act is seditious and threatens the existence or order of the
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 36453)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- Crisanto Evangelista was the plaintiff and appellant who sued by way of mandamus to compel the issuance of permits for public meetings and a parade.
- Tomas Earnshaw, Mayor of the City of Manila was the defendant and appellee who refused and revoked permits for the meetings and parades.
- The action below resulted in an adverse judgment to the plaintiff which he appealed to the Court that delivered the present decision.
- The Court affirmed the judgment appealed from and assessed the costs against the appellant.
Key Factual Allegations
- The plaintiff alleged that he was president of the Communist Party in the Philippine Islands and sought a permit by letter dated March 2, 1931 for a meeting on March 12, 1931 at Plaza Moriones followed by a parade through specified streets to deliver a message to the Governor-General.
- The plaintiff alleged that on March 3, 1931 the mayor denied the petition and instructed the chief of police to prohibit all kinds of meetings of the Communist Party and that the party was unable to hold meetings since March 6, 1931.
- The defendant alleged that after the original permits were issued an investigation by the fiscal for the City of Manila disclosed that the Communist Party of the Philippines was an illegal association whose constitution and by-laws advocated overthrowing existing institutions and establishing a Soviet government under the laborers.
- The defendant alleged that public meetings held under earlier permits contained speeches urging the laboring class to unite to overthrow the government, branding police and Constabulary as enemies of labor, and otherwise stirring enmity against lawful authorities.
Procedural History
- The plaintiff filed a petition for mandamus to compel the mayor to issue permits for meetings and parades of the Communist Party.
- The defendant answered and pleaded facts justifying the revocation of permits and denial of further permits.
- The lower tribunal entered judgment against the plaintiff which was appealed by the plaintiff to the Court that rendered the present opinion.
- The Court affirmed the judgment appealed from and ordered costs against the appellant.
Issues Presented
- Whether the refusal and revocation of permits by the Mayor of the City of Manila unlawfully deprived the Communist Party of constitutional rights of assembly and petition.
- Whether the mayor acted within his statutory authority and duty in revoking permits and prohibiting meetings of the Communist Party.
- Whether the communist organization’s constitution, by-laws, and the speeches at its meetings were sufficiently seditious to justify suppression.
Contentions of the Parties
- The plaintiff contende