Reyes v Bagatsing 125

SCRA 553 (1983)

Facts:
Retired Justice Reyes in behalf of the AntiBases Coalition, sought to permit a rally
permit from Luneta Park to front gate of the
US Embassy in Manila. Mayor Bagatsing
denied the petition. He issued City
Ordinance No. 7295 to prohibit rallying 500
meter radius around the Embassy.
Petitioner sought a permit from the City
of Manila to hold a peaceful march and rally
on October 26, 1983 from 2:00 to 5:00 in
the afternoon, starting from the Luneta to
the gates of the United States Embassy.
Once there, and in an open space of public
property, a short program would be held.
The march would be attended by the local
and foreign participants of such conference.
That would be followed by the handing over
of a petition based on the resolution
adopted at the closing session of the AntiBases Coalition. There was likewise an
assurance in the petition that in the exercise
of the constitutional rights to free speech
and assembly, all the necessary steps
would be taken by it "to ensure a peaceful
march and rally. However the request was
denied. Reference was made to persistent
intelligence reports affirming the plans of
subversive/criminal elements to infiltrate or
disrupt any assembly or congregations
where a large number of people is expected
to attend. Respondent suggested that a
permit may be issued if it is to be held at the
Rizal Coliseum or any other enclosed area
where the safety of the participants
themselves and the general public may be
ensured. An oral argument was heard and
the mandatory injunction was granted on
the ground that there was no showing of the
existence of a clear and present danger of a
substantive evil that could justify the denial
of a permit. However Justice Aquino
dissented that the rally is violative of
Ordinance No. 7295 of the City of Manila
prohibiting the holding of rallies within a

radius of five hundred (500) feet from any

foreign mission or chancery and for other
purposes. Hence the Court resolves.
Issue: Whether or Not the freedom of
expression and the right to peaceably
assemble violated.
Held: Yes. The invocation of the right to
freedom of peaceable assembly carries with
it the implication that the right to free speech
has likewise been disregarded. It is settled
law that as to public places, especially so as
to parks and streets, there is freedom of
access. Nor is their use dependent on who
is the applicant for the permit, whether an
individual or a group. There can be no legal
objection, absent the existence of a clear
and present danger of a substantive evil, on
the choice of Luneta as the place where the
peace rally would start. Time immemorial
Luneta has been used for purposes of
assembly, communicating thoughts between
citizens, and discussing public questions.
Such use of the public places has from
ancient times, been a part of the privileges,
immunities, rights, and liberties of citizens.
With regard to the ordinance, there was no
showing that there was violation and even if
it could be shown that such a condition is
satisfied it does not follow that respondent
could legally act the way he did. The validity
of his denial of the permit sought could still
be challenged.
A summary of the application for permit for
rally: The applicants for a permit to hold an
assembly should inform the licensing
authority of the date, the public place where
and the time when it will take place. If it
were a private place, only the consent of the
owner or the one entitled to its legal
possession is required. Such application
should be filed well ahead in time to enable
the public official concerned to appraise
whether there may be valid objections to the
grant of the permit or to its grant but at

another public place. It is an indispensable

condition to such refusal or modification that
the clear and present danger test be the
standard for the decision reached. Notice is
given to applicants for the denial.

Malaban v Ramento
129 SCRA 359 (1984)
FACTS:
Petitioners were officers of the
Supreme Student Council of the Gregorio
Araneta University Foundation. They were
granted a permit to hold a meeting to protest the
merger of two units of the university. On the
scheduled date, the students continued their
meeting beyond the scheduled time and held it
in a different place from that indicated in the
permit. They expressed in a vehement language
their opposition to the merger and as a result,
classes and office work was disturbed.
Petitioners were placed under preventive

suspension. On appeal, they were found guilty

of holding an illegal assembly and oral
defamation. They were suspended for one
academic year. They filed a petition
for certiorari in the SC.

HELD: The petititon may be considered moot

and academic considering that the TRO issued
by the SC allowed the students to enroll. But
there is a need to pass squarely on the
constitutional question. Respect for the
constitutional rights of peaceable assembly and
free speech calls for the setting aside of the
order of suspension. Suspending them for one
year is out of proportion considering that the
vigorous presentation of views was expected.
The excitement of the occasion, the propensity
of speakers to exaggerate and the exuberance
of the youth should be taken into consideration.