You are on page 1of 3

Assembly and Petition violence or in destruction of property is not enough to justify its suppression.

There must be
the probability of serious injury to the state.
Primicias v Fugoso 80 PHIL 71 (1948)
MALABANAN VS. RAMENTO [129 SCRA 359; G.R. NO.62270; 21 MAY 1984]
Facts: An action was instituted by the petitioner for the refusal of the respondent to issue a
permit to them to hold a public meeting in Plaza Miranda for redress of grievances to the Facts: Petitioners were officers of the Supreme Student Council of respondent University. They
government. The reason alleged by the respondent in his defense for refusing the permit is, sought and were granted by the school authorities a permit to hold a meeting from 8:00 A.M.
"that there is a reasonable ground to believe, basing upon previous utterances and upon the to 12:00 P.M, on August 27, 1982. Pursuant to such permit, along with other students, they
fact that passions, specially on the part of the losing groups, remains bitter and high, that held a general assembly at the Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science basketball court
similar speeches will be delivered tending to undermine the faith and confidence of the people (VMAS), the place indicated in such permit, not in the basketball court as therein stated but at
in their government, and in the duly constituted authorities, which might threaten breaches of the second floor lobby. At such gathering they manifested in vehement and vigorous language
the peace and a disruption of public order." Giving emphasis as well to the delegated police their opposition to the proposed merger of the Institute of Animal Science with the Institute of
power to local government. Stating as well Revised Ordinances of 1927 prohibiting as an Agriculture. The same day, they marched toward the Life Science Building and continued their
offense against public peace, and penalizes as a misdemeanor, "any act, in any public place, rally. It was outside the area covered by their permit. Even they rallied beyond the period
meeting, or procession, tending to disturb the peace or excite a riot; or collect with other allowed. They were asked to explain on the same day why they should not be held liable for
persons in a body or crowd for any unlawful purpose; or disturb or disquiet any congregation holding an illegal assembly. Then on September 9, 1982, they were informed that they were
engaged in any lawful assembly." Included herein is Sec. 1119, Free use of Public Place. under preventive suspension for their failure to explain the holding of an illegal assembly. The
validity thereof was challenged by petitioners both before the Court of First Instance of Rizal
Issue: Whether or Not the freedom of speech was violated. against private respondents and before the Ministry of Education, Culture, and Sports.
Respondent Ramento found petitioners guilty of the charge of illegal assembly which was
Held: Yes. Dealing with the ordinance, specifically, Sec. 1119, said section provides for two
characterized by the violation of the permit granted resulting in the disturbance of classes and
constructions: (1) the Mayor of the City of Manila is vested with unregulated discretion to
oral defamation. The penalty was suspension for one academic year. Hence this petition.
grant or refuse, to grant permit for the holding of a lawful assembly or meeting, parade, or
procession in the streets and other public places of the City of Manila; (2) The right of the
Issue: Whether on the facts as disclosed resulting in the disciplinary action and the penalty
Mayor is subject to reasonable discretion to determine or specify the streets or public places to
imposed, there was an infringement of the right to peaceable assembly and its cognate right of
be used with the view to prevent confusion by overlapping, to secure convenient use of the
free speech.
streets and public places by others, and to provide adequate and proper policing to minimize
the risk of disorder. The court favored the second construction. First construction tantamount
Held: Yes. Student leaders are likely to be assertive and dogmatic. They would be ineffective if
to authorizing the Mayor to prohibit the use of the streets. Under our democratic system of
during a rally they speak in the guarded and judicious language of the academe. But with the
government no such unlimited power may be validly granted to any officer of the government,
activity taking place in the school premises and during the daytime, no clear and present
except perhaps in cases of national emergency.
danger of public disorder is discernible. This is without prejudice to the taking of disciplinary
action for conduct, "materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of
The Mayor’s first defense is untenable. Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression
the rights of others."
of free speech and assembly. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of
irrational fears. To justify suppression of free speech there must be reasonable ground to fear
The rights to peaceable assembly and free speech are guaranteed students of educational
that serious evil will result if free speech is practiced. There must be reasonable ground to
institutions. Necessarily, their exercise to discuss matters affecting their welfare or involving
believe that the danger apprehended is imminent. There must be reasonable ground to believe
public interest is not to be subjected to previous restraint or subsequent punishment unless
that the evil to be prevented is a serious one. The fact that speech is likely to result in some
there be a showing of a clear and present danger to a substantive evil that the state, has a right
to present. As a corollary, the utmost leeway and scope is accorded the content of the placards return to work order.
displayed or utterances made. The peaceable character of an assembly could be lost, however, 2. NO, they are not entitled to backwages. The teachers were neither exonerated nor
by an advocacy of disorder under the name of dissent, whatever grievances that may be aired unjustifiably suspended, the 2 circumstances necessary for the grant of backwages in
being susceptible to correction through the ways of the law. If the assembly is to be held in administrative disciplinary cases.
school premises, permit must be sought from its school authorities, who are devoid of the
power to deny such request arbitrarily or unreasonably. In granting such permit, there may be PBM Employees vs PBM
conditions as to the time and place of the assembly to avoid disruption of classes or stoppage
of work of the non-academic personnel. Even if, however, there be violations of its terms, the Facts:
penalty incurred should not be disproportionate to the offense.
The petitioner Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization (PBMEO) is a legitimate labor
union composed of the employees of the respondent Philippine Blooming Mills Co., Inc., and
DELA CRUZ V. COURT OF APPEALS
petitioners. Benjamin Pagcu and Rodulfo Munsod are officers and members of the petitioner
FACTS Union. Petitioners claim that on March 1, 1969, they decided to stage a mass demonstration at
Malacañang on March 4, 1969, in protest against alleged abuses of the Pasig police. PBMEO
Petitioners are public school teachers who were simultaneously charged, preventively thru Pagcu confirmed the planned demonstration and stated that the demonstration or rally
suspended, and eventually dismissed by Sec. Carino in Oct. 1990. It was alleged that the cannot be cancelled because it has already been agreed upon in the meeting. Pagcu explained
teachers participated in the mass action/ illegal strike on Sept. 1990. The teachers also violated further that the demonstration has nothing to do with the Company because the union has no
the return-to-work order issued by the DECS. Respondents failed to explain to the DECS despite quarrel or dispute with Management. The Management, thru Atty. C.S. de Leon, Company
the 5 day period given. Hence they were found guilty as charged, and subsequently dismissed personnel manager, informed PBMEO that the demonstration is an inalienable right of the
from office by Sec. Carino of the DECS. The Civil Service Commission, upon appeal, found the union guaranteed by the Constitution but emphasized that any demonstration for that matter
teachers guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of service, and imposed upon them should not unduly prejudice the normal operation of the Company. Workers who without
the reduced penalty of six month’s suspension. However in view of the length of time that the previous leave of absence approved by the Company, particularly , the officers present who are
teachers had been out of service due to the dismissal issued by Sec. Carino, the CSC likewise the organizers of the demonstration, who shall fail to report for work the following morning
ordered their immediate reinstatement without back wages. shall be dismissed, because such failure is a violation of the existing CBA and, therefore, would
be amounting to an illegal strike. Because the petitioners and their members numbering about
ISSUE 400 proceeded with the demonstration despite the pleas of the respondent Company that the
first shift workers should not be required to participate in the demonstration and that the
1. Whether the teachers’ conducts are prejudicial to the best interest of service.
workers in the second and third shifts should be utilized for the demonstration from 6 A.M. to
2 P.M. on March 4, 1969, filed a charge against petitioners and other employees who
2. Whether or not the teachers are entitled to back wages for the period of 3 years pending
composed the first shift, for a violation of Republic Act No. 875(Industrial Peace Act), and of
their appeal deducting the 6 months’ suspension eventually meted out to them.
the CBA providing for 'No Strike and No Lockout.' Petitioners were held guilty in by CIR for
HELD bargaining in bad faith, hence this appeal.

1. YES, the mass actions amounted to a prohibited strike of civil service servants. Although the Issue:
right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances is
guaranteed by the Constitution, this liberty must be exercised within reasonable limits. The Whether or Not the petitioners right to freedom of speech and to peaceable assemble
public school teachers committed acts prejudicial to the interest of the service by staging the violated.
mass protests on regular school days, abandoning their classes and failing to return despite the
Held:
Yes. A constitutional or valid infringement of human rights requires a more stringent criterion,
namely existence of a grave and immediate danger of a substantive evil which the State has
the right to prevent. This is not present in the case. It was to the interest herein private
respondent firm to rally to the defense of, and take up the cudgels for, its employees, so that
they can report to work free from harassment, vexation or peril and as consequence perform
more efficiently their respective tasks enhance its productivity as well as profits. Herein
respondent employer did not even offer to intercede for its employees with the local police. In
seeking sanctuary behind their freedom of expression well as their right of assembly and of
petition against alleged persecution of local officialdom, the employees and laborers of herein
private respondent firm were fighting for their very survival, utilizing only the weapons
afforded them by the Constitution — the untrammeled enjoyment of their basic human rights.
The pretension of their employer that it would suffer loss or damage by reason of the absence
of its employees from 6 o'clock in the morning to 2 o'clock in the afternoon, is a plea for the
preservation merely of their property rights. The employees' pathetic situation was a stark
reality — abused, harassment and persecuted as they believed they were by the peace officers
of the municipality. As above intimated, the condition in which the employees found
themselves vis-a-vis the local police of Pasig, was a matter that vitally affected their right to
individual existence as well as that of their families. Material loss can be repaired or adequately
compensated. The debasement of the human being broken in morale and brutalized in spirit-
can never be fully evaluated in monetary terms. As heretofore stated, the primacy of human
rights — freedom of expression, of peaceful assembly and of petition for redress of grievances
— over property rights has been sustained. To regard the demonstration against police
officers, not against the employer, as evidence of bad faith in collective bargaining and hence a
violation of the collective bargaining agreement and a cause for the dismissal from
employment of the demonstrating employees, stretches unduly the compass of the collective
bargaining agreement, is "a potent means of inhibiting speech" and therefore inflicts a moral
as well as mortal wound on the constitutional guarantees of free expression, of peaceful
assembly and of petition. Circulation is one of the aspects of freedom of expression. If
demonstrators are reduced by one-third, then by that much the circulation of the Issue raised
by the demonstration is diminished. The more the participants, the more persons can be
apprised of the purpose of the rally. Moreover, the absence of one-third of their members will
be regarded as a substantial indication of disunity in their ranks which will enervate their
position and abet continued alleged police persecution.

You might also like