G.R. No.

L-1800 January 27, 1948

CIPRIANO P. PRIMICIAS, General Campaign Manager of Coalesced Minority

Ramon Diokno for petitioner.

FERIA, J.:

This is an action of mandamus instituted by the petitoner, Cipriano Primicias, a campaig manager of
the Coalesced Minority Parties against Valeraino Fugoso, as Mayor of the City of Manila, to compel
the latter to issue a permit for the holding of a public meeting at Plaza Miranda on Sunday afternoon,
November 16, 1947, for the purpose of petitioning the government for redress to grievances on the
groun that the respondent refused to grant such permit. Due to urgency of the case, this Court, after
mature deliberation, issued a writ of mandamus, as prayed for in the petition of November 15, 1947,
without prejudice to writing later an extended and reasoned decision.

The right of 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 a casettled 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, not injurious to the
rights of the community or society. The power to regulate the exercise of such and other
constitutional rights is termed the sovereign "police power" which is the power to prescribe
regulations, to promote the health, morals, peace, education, good order or safety, and general
welfare of the people. This sovereign police power is exercised by the government through its
legislative branch by the enactment of laws regulating those and other constitutional and civil rights,
and it may be delegated to political subdivisions, such as towns, municipalities, and cities authorizing
their legislative bodies, called municipal and city councils to enact ordinances for the purpose.

The Philippine legislature has delegated the exercise of the police power to the Municipal Board of
the City of Manila, which according to section 2439 of the Administrative Code is the legislative body
of the City. Section 2444 of the same Code grants the Municipal Board, among others, the following
legislative power, to wit: "(p) to provide for the prohibition and suppression of riots, affrays,
disturbances, and disorderly assemblies, (u) to regulate the use of streets, avenues ... parks,
cemeteries and other public places" and "for the abatement of nuances in the same," and "(ee) to
enact all ordinances it may deem necessary and proper for sanitation and safety, the furtherance of
prosperity and the promotion of morality, peace, good order, comfort, convenience, and general
welfare of the city and its inhabitants."

Under the above delegated power, the Municipal Board of the City of Manila, enacted sections 844
and 1119. Section of the Revised Ordinances of 1927 prohibits as an offense against public peace,
and section 1262 of the same Revised Ordinance penalizes as a misdemeanor, "any act, in any
public place, meeting, or procession, tending to disturb the peace or excite a riot; or collect with
other persons in a body or crowd for any unlawful purpose; or disturb or disquiet any congregation
engaged in any lawful assembly." And section 1119 provides the following:

"SEC. 1119 Free for use of public — The streets and public places of the city shall be kept
free and clear for the use of the public, and the sidewalks and crossings for the pedestrians,
 and the same shall only be used or occupied for other purposes as provided by ordinance or
regulation: Provided, that the holding of athletic games, sports, or exercise during the
celebration of national holidays in any streets or public places of the city and on the patron
saint day of any district in question, may be permitted by means of a permit issued by the
Mayor, who shall determine the streets or public places or portions thereof, where such
athletic games, sports, or exercises may be held: And provided, further, That the holding of
any parade or procession in any streets or public places is prohibited unless a permit
therefor is first secured from the Mayor who shall, on every such ocassion, determine or
specify the streets or public places for the formation, route, and dismissal of such parade or
procession: And provided, finally, That all applications to hold a parade or procession shall
be submitted to the Mayor not less than twenty-four hours prior to the holding of such parade
or procession."

As there is no express and separate provision in the Revised Ordinance of the City regulating the
holding of public meeting or assembly at any street or public places, the provisions of saif section
1119 regarding the holding of any parade or procession in any street or public paces may be applied
by analogy to meeting and assembly in any street or public places.

Said provision is susceptible to two constructions: one is that the Mayor of the City of Manila is
vested with unregulated discretion to 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; and the other is that the applicant has the right to a permit which shall be granted by the
Mayor, subject only to the latter's reasonable discretion to determine or specify the streets or public
places to be used for the purpose, with the view to prevent confusion by overlapping, to secure
convenient use of the streets and public places by others, and to provide adequate and proper
policing to minimize the risk of disorder.

After a mature deliberation, we have arrived at the conclusion that we must adopt the second
construction, that is construe the provisions of the said ordinance to mean that it does not confer
upon the Mayor the power to refuse to grant the permit, but only the discretion, in issuing the permit,
to determine or specify the streets or public places where the parade or procession may pass or the
meeting may be held.

Our conclusions find support in the decision in the case of Willis Cox vs. State of New Hampshire,
312 U.S., 569. In that case, the statute of New Hampshire P.L. Chap. 145, section 2, providing that
"no parade or procession upon any ground abutting thereon, shall be permitted unless a special
license therefor shall first be obtained from the select men of the town or from licensing committee,"
was construed by the Supreme Court of New Hampshire as not conferring upon the licensing board
unfetted discretion to refuse to grant the license, and held valid. And the Supreme Court of the
United States in its decision (1941) penned by Chief Justice Hughes firming the judgement of the
State Supreme Court, held that " a statute requiring pewrsons using the public streets for a parade
or procession to procure a special license therefor from the local authorities is not an
unconstitutional abridgement of the rights of assembly or a freedom of speech and press, where, as
the statute is construed by the state courts, the licensing authorities are strictly limited, in the
issuance of licenses, to a consideration, the time, place, and manner of the parade and procession,
with a view to conserving the public convenience and of affording an opportunity to provide proper
policing and are not invested with arbitrary discretion to issue or refuse license, ... ."

We can not adopt the alternative construction or constru the ordinance under consideration as
conferring upon the Mayor power to grant or refuse to grant the permit, which would be tantamount
to authorizing him to prohibit the use of the streets and other public places for holding of meetings,
parades or processions, because such a construction would make the ordinance invalid and void or
violative of the constitutional limitations. As the Municipal Boards is empowered only to regulate the
use of streets, parks, and the other public places, and the word "regulate," as used in section 2444
of the Revised Administrative Code, means and includes the power to control, to govern, and to
restrain, but can not be construed a synonimous with construed "suppressed" or "prohibit" (Kwong
Sing vs. City of Manila, 41 Phil., 103), the Municipal Board can not grant the Mayor a power that it
does not have. Besides, the powers and duties of the Mayor as the Chief Executive of the City are
executive and one of them is "to comply with and enforce and give the necessary orders for the
faithful performance and execution of laws and ordinances" (section 2434 [b] of the Revised
Administrative Code), the ligislative police power of the Municipal Board to enact ordinances
regulating reasonably the excercise of the fundamental personal rights of the citizens in the streets
and other public places, can not be delgated to the Mayor or any other officer by conferring upon him
unregulated discretion or without laying down rules to guide and control his action by which its
impartial execution can be secured or partiality and oppression prevented.

In City of Chicago vs. Trotter, 136 Ill., 430, it was held by the Supreme Court of Illinois that, under
Rev. ST. Ill. c. 24, article 5 section 1, which empowers city councils to regulate the use of public
streets, the council has no power to ordain that no processions shall be allowed upon the streets
until a permit shall be obtained from the superintendent of police, leaving the issuance of such
permits to his discretion, since the powers conferred on the council cannot be delegated by them.

The Supreme COurt of Wisconsin in State ex rel. Garrabad vs. Dering, 84 Wis., 585; 54 N.W., 1104,
held the following:

"The objections urged in the case of City of Baltimore vs. Radecke, 49 Md., 217, were also,
in substance, the same, for the ordinance in that case upon its face committed to the
unrestrained will of a single public officer the power to determine the rights of parties under it,
when there was nothing in the ordinance to guide or cintrol his action, and it was held void
because "it lays down no rules by which its impartial execution can be secured, or partiality
and oppression prevented." and that "when we remember that action or nonaction may
proceed from enmity or prejudice, from partisan zeal or animosity, from favoritism and other
improper influences and motives easy of concealment and difficult to be detected and
exposed, it becomes unnecessary to suggest or to comment upon the injustice capable of
being wrought under cover of such a power, for that becomes apparent to every one who
gives to the subject a moment's consideration. In fact, an ordinance which clothes a single
individual with such power hardly falls within the domain of law, and we are constrained to
pronounce it inoperative and void." ... In the exercise of police power, the council may, in its
discretion, regulate the exercise of such rights in a reasonable manner, but can not suppress
them, directly or indirectly, by attempting to commit the power of doing so to the mayor or
any other officer. The discretion with which the council is vested is a legal discretion, to be
exercised within the limits of the law, and not a discretion to transcend it or to confer upon
any city officer and arbitrary authority, making him in its exercise a petty tyrant."

In re Frazee, 63 Michigan 399, 30 N.W., 72, a city or ordinance providing that "no person or persons,
or associations or organizations shall march, parade, ride or drive, in ou upon or through the public
streets of the City of Grand Rapids with musical instrument, banners, flags, ... without first having
obtained the consent of the mayor or common council of said city;" was held by the Supreme Court
of Michigan to be unreasonable and void. Said Supreme Court in the course of the decision held:

". . . We must therefore construe this charter, and the powers it assumes to grant, so far as it
is not plainly unconstitutional, as only conferring such power over the subjects referred to as
will enable the city to keep order, and suppress mischief, in accordance with the limitations
and conditions required by the rights of the people themselves, as secured by the principles
 of law, which cannot be less careful of private rights under the constitution than under the
common law."

"It is quite possible that some things have a greater tendency to produce danger and
disorder in cities than in smaller towns or in rural places. This may justify reasonable
precautionary measures, but nothing further; and no inference can extend beyond the fair
scope of powers granted for such a purpose, and no grant of absolute discretion to suppress
lawful action altogther can be granted at all. . . . ."

"It has been customary, from time immemorial, in all free countries, and in most civilized
countries, for people who are assembled for common purposes to parade together, by day or
reasonable hours at night, with banners and other paraphernalia, and with music of various
kinds. These processions for political, religious, and social demonstrations are resorted to for
the express purpose of keeping unity of feeling and enthusiasm, and frequently to produce
some effect on the public mind by the spectacle of union and numbers. They are a natural
product and exponent of common aims, and valuable factors in furthering them. ... When
people assemble in riotous mobs, and move for purposes opposed to private or public
security, they become unlawful, and their members and abettors become punishable. . . ."

"It is only when political, religious, social, or other demonstrations create public disturbances,
or operate as a nuisance, or create or manifestly threaten some tangible public or private
mischief, that the law interferes."

"This by-law is unreasonable, because it suppresses what is in general perfectly lawful, and
because it leaves the power of permitting or restraining processions, and thier courses, to an
unregulated official discretion, when the whole matter, if regualted at all, must be permanent,
legal provisions, operating generally and impartially."

In Rich vs. Napervill, 42 Ill., App. 222, the question was raised as to the validity of the city ordinance
which made it unlawful for any person, society or club, or association of any kind, to parade any of
the streets, with flags, banners, or transparencies, drums, horns, or other musical instruments,
without the permission of the city council first had and obtained. The appellants were members of
the Salvation Army, and were prosecuted for a violation of the ordinance, and the court in holding
the ordinance invalid said, "Ordinances to be valid must be reasonable; they must not be oppressive;
they must be fair and impartial; they must not be so framed as to allow their enforcement to rest on
official discretion ... Ever since the landing of the Pilgrims from the Mayflower the right to assemble
and worship accordingto the dictates of one's conscience, and the right to parade in a peaceable
manner and for a lawful purpose, have been fostered and regarded as among the fundamental rights
of a free people. The spirit of our free institutions allows great latitude in public parades and
emonstrations whether religious or political ... If this ordinance is held valid, then may the city council
shut off the parades of those whose nations do not suit their views and tastes in politics or religion,
and permit like parades of those whose nations do. When men in authority are permitted in their
discretion to exercise power so arbitrary, liberty is subverted, and the spirit of of our free institutions
violated. ... Where the granting of the permit is left to the unregulated discretion of a small body of
city eldermen, the ordinance cannot be other than partial and discriminating in its practical operation.
The law abhors partiality and discrimination. ... (19 L.R.A., p. 861)

In the case of Trujillo vs. City of Walsenburg, 108 Col., 427; 118 P. [2d], 1081, the Supreme Court of
Colorado, in construing the provision of section 1 of Ordinance No. 273 of the City of Walsenburg,
which provides: "That it shall be unlawful for any person or persons or association to use the street
of the City of Walsenburg, Colorado for any parade, procession or assemblage without first obtaining
a permit from the Chief of Police of the City of Walsenburg so to do," held the following:
 "[1] The power of municipalities, under our state law, to regulate the use of public streets is
conceded. "35 C.S.A., chapter 163, section 10, subparagraph 7. "The privilege of a citizen of
the United States to use the streets ... may be regulated in the interest of all; it is not
absolute, but relative, and must be excercised in subordination to the general, be abridged or
denied." Hague, Mayor vs. Committee for Industrial Organization, 307 U.S., 496, 516; 59 S.
Ct., 954, 964; 83 Law, ed., 1423.

[2, 3] An excellent statement of the power of a municipality to impose regulations in the use
of public streets is found in the recent case of Cox vs. New Hampshire, 312 U.S., 569; 61 S.
Ct., 762, 765; 85 Law, ed. 1049; 133 A.L.R., 1936, in which the following appears; "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. The control of travel on the streets of cities is the most
familiar illustration of this recognition of social need. Where a restriction of the use of
highways in that relation is designed to promote the public convenience in the interest of all,
it cannot be disregarded by the attempted excercise of some civil right which in other
circumstances would be entitled to protection. One would not be justified in ignoring the
familiar red traffic light because he thought it his religious duty to disobey the municipal
command or sought by that means to direct public attention to an announcement of his
opinions. As regulation of the use of the streets for parades and processions is a traditional
excercise of control by local government, the question in a particular case is whether that
control is exerted so as not to deny or unwarrantedly abridge the right of assembly and the
opportunities for the communication of thought and the discussion of public questions
immemorially associated with resort to public places. Lovell vs. Criffin, 303 U.S., 444, 451;58
S. Ct., 666, 668, 82 Law. ed., 949 [953]; Hague vs. Committee for Industrial Organization,
307 U. S., 496, 515, 516; 59 S. Ct., 954, 963, 964; 83 Law. ed., 1423 [1436, 1437];
Scheneider vs. State of New Jersey [Town of Irvington]; 308 U.S., 147, 160; 60 S. Ct., 146,
150; 84 Law. ed., 155 [164]; Cantwell vs. Connecticut, 310 U. S., 296, 306, 307; 60 S. Ct.,
900, 904; 84 Law. ed., 1213 [1219, 1220]; 128 A.L.R. 1352."

[4] Our concern here is the validity or nonvalidity of an ordinance which leaves to the
uncontrolled official discretion of the chief of police of the municipal corporation to say who
shall, who shall not, be accorded the privilege of parading on its public streets. No standard
of regulation is even remotely suggested. Moreover, under the ordinance as drawn, the chief
of police may for any reason which he may entertain arbitrarily deny this privelege to any
group. in Cox vs. New Hampshire, 312 U. S., 569, 85 Law. ed., 1049, 1054, said:

"In the instant case the uncontrolled official suppression of the privilege of using the public
streets in a lawful manner clearly is apparent from the face of the ordinance before us, and
we therefore hold it null and void."

The Supreme Court of the United States in Hague vs. Committee for Industrial Organization, 307 U.
S., 496, 515, 516; 83 Law. ed., 1423, declared that a municipal ordinance requiring the obtaining of
a permit for a public assembly in or upon the public streets, highways, public parks, or public
buildings of the city and authorizing the director of public safety, for the purpose of preventing riots,
disturbances, or disorderly assemblage, to refuse to issue a permit when after investigation of all the
facts and circumstances pertinent to the application he believes it to be proper to refuse to issue a
permit, is not a valid exercise of the police power. Said Court in the course of its opinion in support of
the conclusion said:
 ". . . Wherever the title of streets and parks may rest, they have immemorially been held in
trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of
assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions. Such
use of the streets and public places has, from ancient times, been a part of the privileges,
immunities, rights, and liberties of citizens. The privilege of a citizen of the United States to
use the streets and parks for communication of views on national questions may be
regulated in the interest of all; it is not absolute, but relative, and must be exercised in
subordination to the general comfort and convenience, and in consonance with peace and
good order; but it must not, in the guise of regulation, be abridged or denied.

"We think the court below was right in holding the ordinance quoted in Note 1 void upon its
face. It does not make comfort or convenience in the use of streets or parks the standard of
official action. It enables the Director of Safety to refuse a permit on his mere opinion that
such refusal will prevent 'riots, disturbances or disorderly assemblage.' It can thus, as the
record discloses, be made the instrument of arbitrary suppression of free expression of views
on national affairs for the prohibition of all speaking will undoubtedly 'prevent' such
eventualities. But uncontrolled official suppression of the privilege cannot be made a
substitute for the duty to maintain order in connection with the exercise of the right."

Section 2434 of the Administrative Code, a part of the Charter of the City of Manila, which provides
that the Mayor shall have the power to grant and refuse municipal licenses or permits of all classes,
cannot be cited as an authority for the Mayor to deny the application of the petitioner, for the simple
reason that said general power is predicated upon the ordinances enacted by the Municipal Board
requiring licenses or permits to be issued by the Mayor, such as those found in Chapters 40 to 87 of
the Revised Ordinances of the City of Manila. It is not a specific or substantive power independent
from the corresponding municipal ordinances which the Mayor, as Chief Executive of the City, is
required to enforce under the same section 2434. Moreover "one of the settled maxims in
constitutional law is that the power conferred upon the Legislature to make laws cannot be delegated
by that department to any other body or authority," except certain powers of local government,
specially of police regulation which are conferred upon the legislative body of a municipal
corporation. Taking this into consideration, and that the police power to regulate the use of streets
and other public places has been delegated or rather conferred by the Legislature upon the
Municipal Board of the City (section 2444 [u] of the Administrative Code) it is to be presumed that
the Legislature has not, in the same breath, conferred upon the Mayor in section 2434 (m) the same
power, specially if we take into account that its exercise may be in conflict with the exercise of the
same power by the Municipal Board.

Besides, assuming arguendo that the Legislature has the power to confer, and in fact has conferred,
upon the Mayor the power to grant or refuse licenses and permits of all classes, independent from
ordinances enacted by the Municipal Board on the matter, and the provisions of section 2444 (u) of
the same Code and of section 1119 of the Revised Ordinances to the contrary notwithstanding, such
grant of unregulated and unlimited power to grant or refuse a permit for the use of streets and other
public places for processions, parades, or meetings, would be null and void, for the same reasons
stated in the decisions in the cases above quoted, specially in Willis Cox vs. New Hampshire, supra,
wherein the question involved was also the validity of a similar statute of New Hamsphire. Because
the same constitutional limitations applicable to ordinances apply to statutes, and the same
objections to a municipal ordinance which grants unrestrained discretion upon a city officer are
applicable to a law or statute that confers unlimited power to any officer either of the municipal or
state governments. Under our democratic system of government no such unlimited power may be
validly granted to any officer of the government, except perhaps in cases of national emergency. As
stated in State ex rel. Garrabad vs. Dering, supra, "The discretion with which the council is vested is
a legal discretion to be exercised within the limits of the law, and not a discretion to transcend it or to
confer upon any city officer an arbitrary authority making in its exercise a petty tyrant."
It is true that Mr. Justice Ostrand cited said provision of article 2434 (m) of the Administrative Code
apparently in support of the decision in the case of Evangelista vs. Earnshaw, 57 Phil., 255- 261, but
evidently the quotation of said provision was made by the writer of the decision under a mistaken
conception of its purview and is an obiter dictum, for it was not necessary for the decision rendered.
The popular meeting or assemblage intended to be held therein by the Communist Party of the
Philippines was clearly an unlawful one, and therefore the Mayor of the City of Manila had no power
to grant the permit applied for. On the contrary, had the meeting been held, it was his duty to have
the promoters thereof prosecuted for violation of section 844, which is punishable as misdemeanor
by section 1262 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of Manila. For, according to the decision, "the
doctrine and principles advocated and urged in the Constitution and by-laws of the said Communist
Party of the Philippines, and the speeches uttered, delivered, and made by its members in the public
meetings or gatherings, as above stated, are highly seditious, in that they suggest and incite
rebelious conspiracies and disturb and obstruct the lawful authorities in their duty."

The reason alleged by the respondent in his defense for refusing the permit is, "that there is a
reasonable ground to believe, basing upon previous utterances and upon the fact that passions,
specially on the part of the losing groups, remains bitter and high, that similar speeches will be
delivered tending to undermine the faith and confidence of the people in their government, and in the
duly constituted authorities, which might threaten breaches of the peace and a disruption of public
order." As the request of the petition was for a permit "to hold a peaceful public meeting," and there
is no denial of that fact or any doubt that it was to be a lawful assemblage, the reason given for the
refusal of the permit can not be given any consideration. As stated in the portion of the decision in
Hague vs. Committee on Industrial Organization, supra, "It does not make comfort and convenience
in the use of streets or parks the standard of official action. It enables the Director of Safety to refuse
the permit on his mere opinion that such refusal will prevent riots, disturbances or disorderly
assemblage. It can thus, as the record discloses, be made the instrument of arbitrary suppression of
free expression of views on national affairs, for the prohibition of all speaking will undoubtedly
'prevent' such eventualities." To this we may add the following, which we make our own, said by Mr.
Justice Brandeis in his concurring opinion in Whitney vs. California, 71 U. S. (Law. ed.), 1105-1107:

"Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. Men
feared witches and burned women. 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 that serious evil will result if free speech is practiced. There must be reasonable ground
to believe that the danger apprehended is imminent. There must be reasonable ground to
believe that the evil to be prevented is a serious one . . .

"Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear
political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. . . .

"Moreover, even imminent danger cannot justify resort to prohibition of these functions
essential effective democracy, unless the evil apprehended is relatively serious. Prohibition
of free speech and assembly is a measure so stringent that it would be inappropriate as the
means for averting a relatively trivial harm to a society. . . . The fact that speech is likely to
result in some violence or in destruction of property is not enough to justify its suppression.
There must be the probability of serious injury to the state. Among freemen, the deterrents
ordinarily to be applied to prevent crimes are education and punishment for violations of the
law, not abridgment of the rights of free speech and assembly." Whitney vs. California, U. S.
Sup. Ct. Rep., 71 Law., ed., pp. 1106-1107.)
In view of all the foregoing, the petition for mandamus is granted and, there appearing no reasonable
objection to the use of the Plaza Miranda, Quiapo, for the meeting applied for, the respondent is
ordered to issue the corresponding permit, as requested. So ordered.