Case Summary (G.R. No. 175241)
Petitioners
Integrated Bar of the Philippines, acting through Cadiz, Roque and Butuyan, challenged the modification of their rally permit.
Respondent
Mayor Jose “Lito” Atienza, who issued and modified the permit.
Key Dates
• June 15, 2006 – IBP applied for a permit to rally at Mendiola Bridge on June 22, 2006, from 2:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.
• June 16, 2006 – Issuance of permit naming Plaza Miranda, not Mendiola Bridge
• June 19, 2006 – IBP received the permit
• June 21, 2006 – Petition for certiorari filed before the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 94949)
• June 22, 2006 – Petition for certiorari filed before the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 172951); rally pushed through at Mendiola Bridge
• June 26, 2006 – Manila Police District filed a criminal complaint for violation of the Public Assembly Act
Applicable Law
• 1987 Constitution: Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Assembly
• Public Assembly Act of 1985 (B.P. Blg. 880), particularly Section 6 (action on permit; clear and present danger test; requirement to hear applicant; written service)
• Rules of Court, Rule 111, Sections 6–7 (prejudicial question doctrine)
• Jurisprudence: Reyes v. Bagatsing (1983), Bayan, Karapatan, KMP v. Ermita (2006)
Facts and Procedural History
The IBP sought permission to hold a June 22 rally at Mendiola Bridge. The Manila mayor’s office issued a permit relocating the venue to Plaza Miranda without specifying any clear and present danger or hearing the IBP. The IBP promptly filed for certiorari in the Court of Appeals, which took no action within 24 hours, prompting a petition to the Supreme Court. Despite initial dismissals for mootness, the SC ultimately addressed the merits. Meanwhile, petitioners proceeded with their rally at Mendiola after negotiating with police; a criminal case ensued against Cadiz for staging an assembly at an unpermitted site.
Preliminary Issue: Mootness and Recurrence
Although the original petition became moot when the rally date passed, the Court invoked the exception for issues “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” Given the brief processing periods under the Public Assembly Act and the recurring nature of permit modifications, the Court deemed the issue justiciable. The prejudicial-question argument was held premature in this civil-certiorari context and reserved for the criminal proceedings.
Issue on Grant and Modification of Permit
Whether Mayor Atienza gravely abused his discretion by modifying the rally venue without evidence of a clear and present danger or affording the IBP an opportunity to be heard, thereby infringing the IBP’s constitutional freedoms.
Analysis of the Public Assembly Act’s Requirements
Section 6 of B.P. Blg. 880 mandates:
(a) Issuance of permit unless clear and convincing evidence shows a clear and present danger to public order, safety, morals, health or convenience;
(b) Action within two working days, otherwise deemed granted;
(c) If modification or denial is contemplated, the applicant must first be informed and heard;
(d) Written action served within 24 hours;
(e) Right to judicial challenge;
(f) Summary appellate procedures; (g) 24-hour decision rule; (h) Supreme Court appeal; (i) Telegraphic
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 175241)
Background
- Petitioners: Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) represented by National President Jose Anselmo I. Cadiz, and lawyers H. Harry L. Roque and Joel R. Butuyan.
- Respondent: Hon. Manila Mayor Jose “Lito” Atienza.
- Subject matter: Granting and subsequent modification of a permit to hold a rally under the Public Assembly Act of 1985 (B.P. Blg. 880).
Facts of the Case
- June 15, 2006: IBP filed an application for a permit to rally at the foot of Mendiola Bridge on June 22, 2006 (2:30 p.m.–5:30 p.m.), to be attended by IBP officers, members, law students, and multi-sectoral organizations.
- June 16, 2006: Respondent issued a permit changing the venue to Plaza Miranda; IBP received it only on June 19, 2006.
- Aggrieved by the venue change, IBP filed a petition for certiorari on June 21, 2006, before the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 94949).
- Petition unresolved within 24 hours; on June 22, 2006, IBP filed a certiorari petition with the Supreme Court (SC; G.R. No. 172951) assailing CA’s inaction.
- SC denied the certiorari petition as moot and academic.
- June 22, 2006: Rally proceeded at Mendiola Bridge after coordination with the Manila Police District; participants dispersed peacefully.
- June 26, 2006: MPD lodged a criminal complaint against Cadiz for staging a rally at an unpermitted venue (I.S. No. 06I-12501); Cadiz filed a counter-affidavit on August 3, 2006.
- CA, in CA-G.R. SP No. 94949, ruled the petition moot, without merit, and denied reconsideration.
Procedural History
- Trial level: Office of the City Mayor issued and modified the rally permit.
- Appellate level: CA Decision (June 28, 2006) and Resolution (October 26, 2006) found no grave abuse of discretion in venue modification.
- Supreme Court: Petition for review on certiorari docketed as G.R. No. 175241; respondent fil