•
Attribute of citizenship. Right to peaceful assembly is an attribute of citizenship. It is found wherever civilization exists.It was not a right granted to the people by the Constitution. It was there long before the adoption of the Constitution (of US). (Navarro v. Villegas)
•
Fundamental. The right of peaceable assembly is a right cognate to those of free speech and free press and is equally fundamental. (De Jonge v. Oregon)•
Enjoys Primacy. The right to peaceably assemble and petition for redress of grievance is together with freedom of speech, of expression of the press, a right that enjoys primacy in the realm of constitutional protection. Fort these rights constitute the very basis of a functional democratic polity, without which all the other rights would be meaningless and unprotected. (Bayan v. Ermita)•
Not Absolute. The right while sacrosanct is not absolute.The privilege of a citizen to use the streets may be regulated in the interest of all. The right must be exercised in subordination to the general comfort and convenience, and in consonance with peace and good order. (Primicias v.
Fugoso)
• A statute requiring persons using public streets for a parade or procession to procure special license therefore for local authorities is not an unconstitutional abridgement of the rights of assembly or of freedom of speech and press, where the licensing authorities are strictly limited in the issuance of licenses, to a consideration of time, place, and manner of the parade or procession with a view to conserving the public convenience and of affording an opportunity to provide policing, and are not invested with arbitrary discretion to issue or refuse license. (Primicias v. Fugoso)
• The authority of a municipality to impose regulations in order to assure the safety and convenience of the people in the use of public highways has never been regarded as inconsistent with civil liberties but rather as one of the means of safeguarding the good order upon which they ultimately depend. (Primicias v. Fugoso)
•
Standards. The right of assembly and petition is equally as fundamental as freedom of expression, the standards for allowable impairment of speech and press are also used for assembly and petition.•
Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. To justify suppression of free speech, there must be reasonable ground to fear that serious evil will result if free speech is practiced. (Primicias v. Fugoso)• The fact that speech is likely to result in some violence or in destruction of property is not enough to justify its suppression. (Primicias v. Fugoso)
•
Peaceful Picketing.Peaceful picketing is constitutionally protected. The guarantee of free speech protects the strikers.(PCIB v. Philnabank Employees)
•
Extent of the authority of the State to regulate public assemblies. The Mayor is possessed of reasonable discretion to determine or specify the streets or public places to be used for the assembly in order to secure convenient use thereof by others and provide adequate and proper policing to minimize the risks of disorder and maintain public safety and order. (Navarro v. Villegas)•
Disciplinary action may be taken against students for conduct which “materially disrupt class work or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others.”However, considering the importance of the right of assembly
and petition, the penalty imposed is too severe. (Malabanan v. Ramento)
•
Freedom of Speech and Judiciary. There is no antimony between free expression and the integrity of the justice system. Freedom of expression needs to be adjusted to and accommodated with the requirements of equally important public interest such as the maintenance of the integrity and orderly functioning of the administration of justice. Judicial independence is undermined by the irascible demonstrations outside the courthouses. They wittingly or unwittingly spoil the ideal of sober, non-partisan proceedings before a cold and impartial judge. A state may thus adopt safeguards necessary to assure that the administration of justice is at all stages, free from outside control and influence. ( In Re: Valmonte)Bayan v. Ermita
o BP 880 is not an absolute ban of public assemblies but a restriction that simply regulates the time, place and manner of the assemblies.
o
BP 880 refers to all kinds of public assemblies that would use public places.Is BP 880 Content-based? NO
o
Reference to lawful cause. The reference to lawful cause does not make it content-based because assemblies really have to be for lawful causes, otherwise they will not be peaceable and entitled to protection.o
“Opinion”, “protesting”, and “influencing”. The words opinion, protesting and influencing in the definition of public assembly is not content-based, since they refer to any subject.o
“Petitioning the government for redress of grievances”. The words petitioning the government for redress of grievances come from the wording of the Constitution so its use cannot be avoided.o
Maximum Tolerance is for the protection and benefit of all rallyists and is independent of the content of the expression in the rally.PERMITS
o
But 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.This is a recognized exception to the exercise of the right even under UDHR and ICCPR.
CPR
o
Calibrated Preventive Response does not mean anything other than the maximum tolerance policy set forth in BP 880. (CPR then serves no purpose if it means maximum tolerance and it is illegal if it means something else). What is to be followed is and should be that mandated by the law itself, namely, maximum tolerance, which specifically means the highest degree of restraint that the military, police and other peace keeping authorities shall observe during a public assembly or in the dispersal of the same.David v. Arroyo
Are dispersals of the rallies of KMU and NAFLU-KMU members unconstitutional?
o
Yes. Apparently, the dispersal was done merely on the basis of Malacanang’s directive canceling all permits previously issued by local government units.This is arbitrary. The wholesale cancellation of all permits to rally is blatant disregard of the principle that “freedom of assembly is not to be limited, much less denied, except a showing of clear and present danger of a substantive evil that the State has a right to prevent.” Respondents failed to show or convince the Court that the rallyists committed acts amounting to lawless violence, invasion or rebellion.
o
Moreover, under BP 880, the authority to regulate assemblies and rallies is lodged with the local government units. They have the power to issue permit and to revoke such permits after due notice and hearing on the determination of the presence of cleat and present danger. Here, petitioners were not even notified and heard on the revocation of their permits. The first time they learned of it was at the times of the dispersal. Such absence of notice is a fatal defect.Summary of the rules on assembly and petition in public places
(1)
Applicant should inform the licensing authority of the date, the public place where and the time when the assembly will take place.(2) The application should be filed ahead of time to enable the public official concerned to appraise whether there are valid objections to the grant of the permit or to its grant, but in another place. The grant or refusal should be based on the application of the Clear and Present Danger Test.
(3) If the public authority is of the view that there is an imminent and grave danger of a substantive evil, the applicants must be heard on the matter.
(4)
The decision of the public authority, whether favorable or adverse, must be transmitted to the applicants at the earliest opportunity so that they may, if they so desire, have recourse to the proper judicial authority. (Reyes v.Bagatsing)
Rules on assembly in private properties:
• Only the consent of the owner of the property or person entitled to the possession thereof is required.
Section 5. No law shall be made respecting an