Celestial, Marra Camille G.

BSN 36 March 5, 2011

CASE DIGEST: BAYAN VS. ERMITA (Batas Pambansa 880 or The Public Assembly
Act of 1985)

I. FACTS

It is provided in the Constitution that it is a the basic right of every Filipino individual
to voice out or express himself, whether for personal reasons or common good itself.
However, certain acts must be discontinued although it gives body to a right,
especially if it harms the good for the greater mass. Batas Pambansa 880 is an
example of a delimiting law that provides boundaries on the free expression of
persons.

Such in the case of three petitioner groups, first of Bayan, secondly of 26 individual
petitioners, Jess del Prado, et al and third of Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU), all of whom
are recognized as taxpayers and official residents who allege themselves to be
staging a peaceful mass assembly when police forces under the rule of BP 880
forcibly and violently dispersed them much to their dismay, which incurred their
members injuries and arrest. These groups of concerned citizens are attesting that
such manner of dispersal of abiding by “no permit, no rally” policy, and that
delegation of powers in the local government (specifically by the Mayor Lito Atienza)
in the said dispersal were unconstitutional, as well as the implementation of BP 880
itself. They seek to stop such policies of ruthless dispersals, as it violates their basic
right to freedom of expression, redress of grievances and most of all their right to
peaceably assemble.

II. ISSUE

Whether Batas Pambansa 880 is constitutional or not.

III. HELD

As it is to be observed in the BP itself, BP 880 has provisions which defines the

requisites of a peaceful assembly, maximum tolerance of the police forces and
permit to rally (see definition of terms and Declaration of policy). On the matter
regarding the claim of illegality of power delegation without clear standards, the
mayor being the local government head concerned, has the right to issue or not
the permits. As stated in Section 6 of BP 880: (a) It shall be the duty of the mayor
or any official acting in his behalf to issue or grant a permit unless there is clear
and convincing evidence that the public assembly will create a clear and present
danger to public order, public safety, public convenience, public morals or public
health. The preceding and succeeding sections provide for the requisites of the
peaceful assembly stated in the Article 4 of the Bill of rights. As to the matter
regarding ruthless dispersals, police assistance as observed in Section 10 to 11
of the same law is observed for the interest of those exercising their right to
assemble peacefully. BP 880 gives that no assembly shall be dispersed, unless
there is impending violence which could lead to property destruction, harm to
others and the likes. As to the claim of the groups of the unconstitutionality of BP
880, the law itself provides acts which, if violated by the assembly regardless of
permission, are deemed to be a disruption of the common good, which is the
greatest and the object of supreme importance over the right of the assembly. As
stated in the U.S vs. Apurado case which has similar concerns: "It is rather to be
expected that more or less disorder will mark the public assembly of the people
to protest against grievances whether real or imaginary, because on such
occasions feeling is always wrought to a high pitch of excitement, and the
greater, the grievance and the more intense the feeling, the less perfect, as a
rule will be the disciplinary control of the leaders over their irresponsible
followers.” Also, as Primicias case contains: The right to freedom of speech, and
to peacefully assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances,
are fundamental personal rights of the people recognized and guaranteed by the
constitutions of democratic countries. 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 be injurious to the equal
enjoyment of others having equal rights, nor injurious to the rights of the
community or society.

If one is to read fully the contents or provisions of the BP 880, it is not a law indicating
total ban of assemblies; but rather it exists to regulate the time, place, and manner of
conducting the assembly. B.P. No. 880 cannot be condemned as unconstitutional; it
does not hold back or unduly confine freedoms; it merely controls the use of public
places as to the time, place and manner of assemblies. Much of the population have the
notion that maximum tolerance is a sinister move, but "maximum tolerance" is for the
benefit of rallyists, not the government. The delegation to the mayors of the power to
issue rally "permits" is valid because it is subject to the constitutionally-sound "clear and
present danger" standard as stated in Section 10.

Therefore:

As the court finally decides that the Secretary of the Interior and Local Governments,
are DIRECTED to take all necessary steps for the immediate compliance with Section
15 of Batas Pambansa No. 880 through the establishment or designation of at least one
suitable freedom park or plaza in every city and municipality of the country to avoid
misunderstandings of permit-related issues.

All in all, the petitions are DISMISSED in all other respects, and the constitutionality of
Batas Pambansa No. 880 is SUSTAINED.