c


 c

„


  
 
p

pThe respondent CSC had denied petitioner Valentin Legaspi¶s request for information
on the civil service eligibilities of Julian Sibonghanoy and Mariano Agas who were employed
as sanitarians in the Health Department of Cebu City. Sibonghanoy and Agas had allegedly
represented themselves as civil service eligibles who passed the civil service examinations
for sanitarians.

Claiming that his right to be informed of the eligibilities of Sibonghanoy and Agas is
guaranteed by the Constitution, and that he has no other plain, speedy and adequate
remedy to acquire the information, petitioner prays for the issuance of the extraordinary
writ of mandamus to compel the respondent CSC to disclose said information.

The respondent CSC takes issue on the personality of the petitioner to bring the suit. It is
asserted that the petition is bereft of any allegation of Legaspi¶s actual interest in the civil
service eligibilities of Sibonghanoy and Agas.


ÿ hether or not the petitioner has legal standing to bring the suit


º p The petitioner has firmly anchored his case upon the right of the people to
information on matters of public concern, which, by its very nature, is a public right. It has
been held in the case of Tanada vs. Tuvera, 136 SCRA 27, that when the question is one of
public right and the object of the mandamus is to procure the enforcement of a public duty,
the people are regarded as the real party in interest, and the person at whose instigation
the proceedings are instituted need not show that he has any legal or special interest in the
result, it being sufficient to show that he is a citizen and as such interested in the execution
of the laws.

It becomes apparent that when a mandamus proceeding involves the assertion of a public
right, the requirement of personal interest is satisfied by the mere fact that the petitioner is
a citizen, and therefore, part of the general public which possesses the right.

The petitioner, being a citizen who as such, is clothed with personality to seek redress for
the alleged obstruction of the exercise of the public right. 
p

„



 

 

G   

 !"#$%$& %'(
)
*
+,-%$
 %
 
..



Facts:!/0
&
*0
1
#
%'23 


4 

0..
00,-*
 0

 

 0

 
,-516054

4 
 . 0
7


1
)8.





4/0
11  
0.
 
9 
5
&
*0
1
.  

 „6„5
:1;1;..

4



.8
 „6„
07
0< „6„  0.7

<

 
.. „6„


 14
=
 
%'2..

7
7. 7
0
„7

6
 
„0, „6„-.  

/0
*0



 7.4,-


 77



.0.   >7
.  
. 

14=
 2
%'2!/0
=
!

*0=
 +!
*

4?
4: .
!00
!
& .7
0
0 .0


>


7@
0

.*0
,- 

/0
11
0*
 0
00


A?6=
  B
 

00& "

 

C0


&605<
C,-
 
.
 . 0
7

.7
<

C,-.
.  >
0
1

ÿssue:/0
11
+

8.
3  .
 „6„



7
0&605*
 0

00

A?6=
  B
..1

Held:; „6„ 
 
07
0

0.


0
7 
 
.0
1A



 0. 15. „1
,-
#2 %%#20
,
!7 7
0
„76
 
:%""-.7

...
.

 
.0 0

0
. „6„7
0

0.
!.  ..
 0 

.1


 
 „6„8.0
 
0. 


0.
.

 
 
1; 


.0.7
 „6„,:%'20
-

4.70 7

0

„0„
  %%#21(
3 
&
*0
0
0 „6„4
 ..
D

1D460


. 
 
0
..

7080+


 
 7
0
0.157 ..
50
*
 0
07...

„6„
8. „6„.0@



716
 0
. 
 

 „6„
. 
0@
0
 0. 



1„
*0
0




.8
 „6„
16
 .


0
0


0
1
ù*0



 „6„.7


 0
 >.
.
1E.
..
0



.1;> 
. 1; 




 1A
 07
0
. 

0
.
7
0

..07
.„.1

ÿ  
!"" #$
%& ;  
 0
7  
 )
     .  6*  00.  

.7
!  %$B:
.7
.1 „
 #:666
6* *B.


+
6* .0
00.
 .


 .01E

.7

 

7

 


0.006* 
..

 .7

..


71

ÿ'   
   .7
 
   .7
   
 ..  
.

1 

( ; 6* „B
+*
 0


+
7 0700.7
1;6* 7



0 00
 > .
7

*
 .0



. .

 >7
0.0

 

.1;.7





 
.

78..

..   8
    0   0.0
1 ;
0  )
  @
  
0


3 
001
p

')
 * ++
++!%,-. ../ & 0 ) 1
*
 
*



 





%&=
"0%'  )

 +B F)8 7 
&6!+

G +
(  
.0%!$ >2G +


"'#A
9!5„* 
G +
:7
G +
 

H5.
5I
H& 0I
...7


.

0
3 .0
..
07
 

.

. 

 

..
0 ..
 0
@

 
.



* 1. BH& 0I
..+1:.

.

0
0 .0
0

.
>


20

3 
7


>

 :7 
:& G +
110 

+7

0
GB "' !;G +
, .71* -1

ÿ' 
.

.

 7700

 

1
( „
$.7


 8. .

. 0
>  .
0
 +80


0
0.




0. 
. 
.
.


+1  
 
 0

 

. 
0
7



00
> 





. 
16
0

H

 8. .
. 
0
> 80


0
0.




0. I<
 
3 

.
@

0.


 .
 

0
> 1E
0

* H
.



.

3 .0

..

. 

 0




 
 0
00

 7

.

 ''
0
I0
 



3 0
. 1* .  > 


8
. 


7 


1& 

..

... 




. 
 770..

C
 ..
70 

.

. 
 770. 


. 15
+


 1

5%' 
J*@

J„ 00
J700
J
;@@A

2
G
!!3
ÿ -"
!""45c."4..5 6G41

„
& '  

 

p

pëetitioner 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 Anti-
Bases 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.



ÿp hether or Not the freedom of expression and

the right to peaceably assemble violated.



º p ùes. 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. 

ith 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.
p

c  

 ."4..6&0 )"4

Facts : ë

 
 


     



   
   

  
   


     
  
 

   
 
 


  

 
u
  
  
  
 

 
 


  
  

  
 

 

 

! !" 
     
 

 

!
  

" 
   u

  

     

  

!
 

#     !
    

$

  
  


  


  

 



   
       

   
 %

    
  &

    "

   u

  !     
  !   
 


   

 
'


  



  
  u  
  
 !   


ÿssues :p

u (
   
     
 
  )* 
!
       #
  "  +  
 

  
p
 (
   

    
  ,   
 




 
            !
$

    
 


àuling : 0 

!
0 *

  -



 

 $

 !
       0 


 



   !       
    



#  #
   

 
 
 


 !

$


    
  ,   
  



 

     

"




 . -# 
'

 
 ! 0      
 /
  


 
  # 

 
     



  



 


     
   
 


    
  # 
  

  
    

     
  
 
 0  






    
 

!


 !
  0
 
  
  !  
     
     

    


 
 
   
  


 

   !
    $


 
    

  

 

!
 
  
!2! G
7 83ÿG
 3!2ÿ3!- 
!.5 6
.45"!,99.1

„
& '  

 

p

p Ralliesof September 20, October 4, 5 and 6,
2005 is at issue. BAùAN¶s rally was violently dispersed. 26
petitioners were injured, arrested and detained when a
peaceful mass action they was preempted and violently
dispersed by the police. KMU asserts that the right to
peaceful assembly, are affected by Batas ëambansa No.
880 and the policy of ³Calibrated ëreemptive Response´
(CëR) being followed to implement it. KMU, et al., claim
that on October 4, 2005, a rally KMU co-sponsored was to
be conducted at the Mendiola bridge but police blocked
them along C.M. Recto and Lepanto Streets and forcibly
dispersed them, causing injuries to several of their
members. They further allege that on October 6, 2005, a
multi-sectoral rally which KMU also co-sponsored was
scheduled to proceed along España Avenue in front of the
UST and going towards Mendiola bridge. ëolice officers
blocked them along Morayta Street and prevented them
from proceeding further. They were then forcibly dispersed,
causing injuries on one of them. Three other rallyists were
arrested.

All petitioners assail Batas ëambansa No. 880 The ëublic
Assembly Act of 1985, some of them in toto and others
only Sections 4, 5, 6, 12, 13(a), and 14(a), as well as the
policy of CëR. They seek to stop violent dispersals of rallies
under the ³no permit, no rally´ policy and the CëR policy
announced on Sept. 21, 2005. 

ëetitioners Bayan, et al., contend that Bë 880 is clearly a
violation of the Constitution and the International Covenant
on Civil and ëolitical Rights and other human rights treaties
of which the ëhilippines is a signatory. 

They argue that B.ë. No. 880 requires a permit before one
can stage a public assembly regardless of the presence or
absence of a clear and present danger. It also curtails the
choice of venue and is thus repugnant to the freedom of
expression clause as the time and place of a public
assembly form part of the message for which the
expression is sought. 

ëetitioners Jess del ërado, et al., in turn, argue that B.ë.
No. 880 is unconstitutional as it is a curtailment of the right
to peacefully assemble and petition for redress of
grievances because it puts a condition for the valid exercise
of that right. It also characterizes public assemblies without
a permit as illegal and penalizes them and allows their
dispersal. Thus, its provisions are not mere regulations but
are actually prohibitions. Regarding the CëR policy, it is
void for being an ultra vires act that alters the standard of
maximum tolerance set forth in B.ë. No. 880, aside from
being void for being vague and for lack of publication.

KMU, et al., argue that the Constitution sets no limits on
the right to assembly and therefore B.ë. No. 880 cannot
put the prior requirement of securing a permit. And even
assuming that the legislature can set limits to this right,
the limits provided are unreasonable: First, allowing the
Mayor to deny the permit on clear and convincing evidence
of a clear and present danger is too comprehensive.
Second, the five-day requirement to apply for a permit is
too long as certain events require instant public assembly,
otherwise interest on the issue would possibly wane.As to
the CëR policy, they argue that it is preemptive, that the
government takes action even before the rallyists can
perform their act, and that no law, ordinance or executive
order supports the policy. Furthermore, it contravenes the
maximum tolerance policy of B.ë. No. 880 and violates the
Constitution as it causes a chilling effect on the exercise by
the people of the right to peaceably assemble.

Respondents argued that petitioners have no standing. Bë
880 entails traffic re-routing to prevent grave public
inconvenience and serious or undue interference in the free
flow of commerce and trade. It is content-neutral
regulation of the time, place and manner of holding public
assemblies. According to Atienza RA. 7160 gives the Mayor
power to deny a permit independently of B.ë. No. 880. and
that the permit is for the use of a public place and not for
the exercise of rights; and that B.ë. No. 880 is not a
content-based regulation because it covers all rallies.



ÿp hether or Not Bë 880 and the CëR ëolicy

unconstitutional.



º p No question as to standing. Their right as citizens

to engage in peaceful assembly and exercise the right of
petition, as guaranteed by the Constitution, is directly
affected by B.ë. No. 880. B.ë. 880 is not an absolute ban of
public assemblies but a restriction that simply regulates the
time, place and manner of the assemblies. It refers to all
kinds of public assemblies that would use public places.
The reference to ³lawful cause´ does not make it content-
based because assemblies really have to be for lawful
causes, otherwise they would not be ³peaceable´ and
entitled to protection. Maximum tolerance1 is for the
protection and benefit of all rallyists and is independent of
the content of the expressions in the rally. There is,
likewise, no prior restraint, since the content of the speech
is not relevant to the regulation.

The so-called calibrated preemptive response policy has no
place in our legal firmament and must be struck down as a
darkness that shrouds freedom. It merely confuses our
people and is used by some police agents to justify abuses.
Insofar as it would purport to differ from or be in lieu of
maximum tolerance, this was declared null and void. 

The Secretary of the Interior and Local Governments, are
DIRECTED to take all necessary steps for the immediate
compliance with Section 15 of Batas ëambansa No. 880
through the establishment or designation of at least one
suitable freedom park or plaza in every city and
municipality of the country. After thirty (30) days from the
finality of this Decision, subject to the giving of advance
notices, no prior permit shall be required to exercise the
right to peaceably assemble and petition in the public parks
or plazas of a city or municipality that has not yet complied
with Section 15 of the law.
p


p
p p
 
p


 p

   pp pp p


pp
p pp
pp
p 
p
pppp
ppp
p

p
p
p ppp
p


!
p"p p#p#pp  p#p$
p
p
p
 p
 p 
p% p p##  p%&pp
p

p$p
ppp
#p p#pp pp# %p  p
 p '  ppp#ppp
p
  p p
 p
p

pp
p#p

pp
p
p
pp
p  ( p
p
)
 p#pp    p
p
p p

  p
p
 (
  p
p   
 p p 
p pp
pp
  
p pp*%p+p
,--.p
p p  p%p p  p

p
%

p p/p00-p

"p   p

p

p
%

p/p00-p p#pp pp
p pp

$  p1p.p+p2,p23
p
p21
p
p p
pp p#p45p64
 %
p

 p5  6pp &pp p p 
 p#p
  ppp6p

 pp
6p p
pp45p pp
p


pp
p
p
p p/p00-p7  p
p p%#pp
p 
p
p% p

%p
 p#pp pp
% p#p
p
p
p p
p8p
 p


 pp p#pp
p p p
ppp#p#p) p
 p
p

p p
p
p#p
p% p
%p#p
p#pp
p#p  pp

) p p pp p pp9
p
p p pp
pp
p

  p p p#pppp  p6
#p
 6p6  6p6  pp

# 6p  pp)  p#p p
 pp  p%ppp" p

p
p6
) p
6p  p
pp
p
  pp
%  p

 pp

p%
 pp
p% p
p" p
p9%
p 
 p p
p


pp  p  p p

8 p

:pppp 
 p#p p/p00-p
p p  p
p
 (
  p

p   
 p pp
pp
  
p pp*%p+p,--.p

;p

   <p 
 p
p%p   p
p p p
  (p pp
p p


#p
%p
p) pp p#p  p
p

p%pp4   p p

 p
##p%p p/p00-p  p7  p
p p#p
p p p% p

%p pp
 < p  p
p
& pp
p p#
p p
p % p
%  p
pp7 p  pp p p
p
pp p p
p%p
 p7 p p
 
 pp4   
p

p5  pppp
p
p
p p
 p
p

pp
p
p  pp% p
%  pp pp p

$p1p"p888p$ p1p#p" p888p#pp4   p

$p1p/p
p 
p%p
p
%  pp#p#p p#p) pp#pp ppp
 p#ppp

%pp
%p
p  ppp#p p#p 
 p

p#  p pp
&p p
pp pp

%p
%p
p  p#p p#p

 
 p pp p#p#p p#p) p
p#pp p
p p


p' p 
p pp
p#p   
p pp p  p  p

pp%
p#p
p# 
p
 p p p  p
ppp  p p

%p
  p
pp

5  pp
#p
%pp  ppp#p
p p#p 
 p
p

#p
p
pp
 (pp#p

  p#p  pp
pp
p
p p

pp
p p
#pp
    p p  p
p

p%pp p
p

p4   p
 
p$  p1p
p0p#pp p#p5  p$ p,.p#p

" p8=p
p$ p3p#p" p=888p p
% p p
 p

 p# p
p pp< p) p#p p  p

8p pp
p#p
p p/p00-p pp
p
% p%
p#p% p
%  p

%p
p   p
p p
 pp p
p
p
p#pp
%  p p
p
p

69
6p
 p#pp p
p
p
p#p p% p
%  p

p
"p#
p
p 

p
 p#p p/p00-p p
 p  p
p p# p
p&  p

#p% p
%  ,,p
p p p% p
 pp#pp6
#p
 6p p

p
&p p9%
p%
 p
%  p
p
pp%p#p
#p
  p

 pp pp%p6

%6p
p pp p/ p
pp  p

6  6p6  6p
p6 # 6p pp#   p#p% p
%pp

%
p pp
p#pp
p %'pp  p6   ppp#p

 p#p 
 6pp#pp  p#pp4   p p  p p
p%p

 p 
p
) p
p p#pp p
p%# p#p
p
  p
p

p p#ppp#pp)  p pp
p

pp p
pp%p pppp#p
p
p p
pp

% pp% p
#p% p p% p
 pp% p
p

p 9
p
 %
p p  p p
pp
p pp
p# 
p

p p%p &p p
p
p
& p
p  p#p8pp#  pp

p
p p p%p p p
 pp'  #p
%  p*ppp
p p/p

00-p
p%pp
p   
>p p pp
ppp  p

# >p pp
 pp p#p% p
 p
ppp p
p
p
p#p

%  p
p#p% p    p6
) p
6p p#pp%# p#p
  pp
pp
 ppp
 p#pp pp p
p6  6p p


 p%
 p p p %'ppp   
9 p6
p
p p
6p



p

8p p? pp4p ppp p#p p
#
 p %p%p  p


p p
p
 p#p3-p
 p  p  pp 
p  # p#p


& p
p pp p/p00-p8#p
#p
p pp p
& p
p p  # p

p

p p$ p2.p#pp

p% p
& p
p
(
p#pp  
 p
p pp 
p p##p%pp#p
& >pp p p#p 
p

& p 
p%p7 ppp
p
%p ppp7 p p%p  p

  ppp p
pp
< p## pp
 pp 
 p
pp

    p