FRANCO, MANUEL JOSEPH U.

CLAW | JD-1B TTh | 2:30-4:30PM

BAYAN, KARAPATAN ET AL VS. SEC. EDUARDO ERMITA
April 25, 2006
FACTS:
Petitioners come in three groups:
First is Bayan, et al in GR No. 169838, second is Jess del Prado, et al in GR
No. 169849 and third is Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU), et al in GR No.
169881. They alleged their rights as organizations and individuals were
violated when the rallies, marches and protests they participated were
violently dispersed, some are arrested and detained and caused injuries to
several by policemen implementing BP No. 880.
All petitioners assails BP No. 880, some in toto and others only Sections 4, 5,
6, 12, 13(a), and 14(a), as well as the policy of CPR. They seek to stop violent
dispersals of rallies under the "no permit, no rally" policy and the CPR
policy. Their contentions are the following:
1. That BP No. 880 is a violation of the Constitution and the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and other human rights treaties of
which Philippines is a signatory;
2. That the provisions of BP No. 880 are not mere regulations but prohibitions
as it is allegedly a curtailment of the right to peacefully assemble and
petition for redress of grievances;
3. That BP No. 880 requires permit before one can stage a public assembly
regardless of the presence or absence of a clear and present danger and that
it is not content-neutral as it does not apply to mass actions in support of the
government;
4. That two standards stated in the law (clear and present danger and
imminent and grave danger) are inconsistent; and
5. That CPR is void for it alters and contravenes the standard of maximum
tolerance.
ISSUES:
Whether or not BP No. 880 is constitutional.
Whether or not Calibrated Preemptive Response is legal and constitutional.
HELD:

The Supreme Court sustained the constitutionality of BP. 880. The SC

reiterated that the right to freedom of speech, and to peacefully assemble
and petition the government for redress of grievances are fundamental rights
of the people guaranteed by the constitution but it is a settled principle
growing out of the nature of well-ordered civil societies that the exercise of
those rights is not absolute for it may be so regulated that it shall not
injurious to the equal enjoyment of others having equal rights, nor injurious
to the rights of the community or society. And that power to regulate is
vested to the government through police power.Furthermore, the SC said
that the permit can only be denied on the ground of clear and present
danger to public order, public safety, public convenience, public morals or
public health and that is the recognized exception to the exercise of right
even under the Universal Declaration on Civil and Political Rights.
The SC ruled that BP No. 880 is only a restriction that simply regulates the
time, place and manner of the assemblies. As explained and given in Reyes
v. Bagatsing, that freedom of assembly connotes the right of the people to
meet peaceably for consultation and discussion of matters of public concern,
it must be accorded with utmost respect, must not be limited and denied
except on showing of a clear and present danger of a substantive evil that
the state has right to prevent it.
The SC stated that the law provides a precise and sufficient standard - the
clear and present danger test stated in Sec. 6(a). The reference to "imminent
and grave danger of substantive evil" in Sec. 6(c) substantially means the
same thing and is not inconsistent standard. And that a fair and impartial
reading of BP No. 880 readily shows that it refers to all kinds of public
assemblies that would use public places, that the reference to "lawful cause"
does not make it content-based because assemblies really have to be for
lawful causes, otherwise they would not be peaceable and entitled to
protection.
In CPR, the SC rules for the discontinuation of the the usage of CPR for it
means and serves only for the same purpose as maximum tolerance.
Accordingly, what is to be followed is and should be that mandated by the
law which maximum tolerance.