BAYAN v.

ERMITA labor dispute as defined by the Labor Code, its implementing rules and
GR Nos. 169838,169848, 169881 regulations, and by the Batas Pambansa Bilang 227.
En Banc; April 25, 2006 · xxxx
Azcuna, J.
SEC. 4. Permit when required and when not required.
FACTS:
· A written permit shall be required for any person or persons to organize and
Several rallies were organized and participated by the petitioners, hold a public assembly in a public place.
Bayan, Jess del Prado, KMU, etc on September 26, October 5, and October 6, · However, no permit shall be required if the public assembly shall be done
2005. According to the petitioners, these rallies were violently dispersed and or made in a freedom park duly established by law or ordinance or in private
several participants were injured, arrested and detained by the policemen property, in which case only the consent of the owner or the one entitled to
implementing B.P. 880 and the Calibrated Preemptive Response policy issued its legal possession is required, or in the campus of a government-owned and
by the Malacanang. operated educational institution which shall be subject to the rules and
regulations of said educational institution. Political meetings or rallies held
All petitioners assail Batas Pambansa No. 880, some of them in during any election campaign period as provided for by law are not covered
toto and others only Sections 4, 5, 6, 12, 13(a), and 14(a), as well as the policy by this Act.
of CPR.
SEC. 5. Application requirements.
They seek to stop violent dispersals of rallies under the no permit, no
rally policy and the CPR policy recently announced. All applications for a permit shall comply with the following guidelines:
a) The applications shall be in writing and shall include the names of the leaders
BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 880; KEY PROVISIONS; or organizers; the purpose of such public assembly; the date, time and
· Public Assembly Act Of 1985 duration thereof, and place or streets to be used for the intended activity;
· An Act Ensuring the Free Exercise By The People Of Their Right Peaceably and the probable number of persons participating, the transport and the
To Assemble And Petition The Government [And] For Ther Purposes public address systems to be used.
· Effectivity: October 22, 1985 b) The application shall incorporate the duty and responsibility of the applicant
under Section 8 hereof.
SEC. 3. Definition of terms. c) The application shall be filed with the office of the mayor of the city or
· (a) Public assembly means any rally, demonstration, march, parade, municipality in whose jurisdiction the intended activity is to be held, at least
procession or any other form of mass or concerted action held in a public five (5) working days before the scheduled public assembly.
place for the purpose of presenting a lawful cause; or expressing an opinion d) Upon receipt of the application, which must be duly acknowledged in writing,
to the general public on any particular issue; or protesting or influencing any the office of the city or municipal mayor shall cause the same to immediately
state of affairs whether political, economic or social; or petitioning the be posted at a conspicuous place in the city or municipal building.
government for redress of grievances.
· The processions, rallies, parades, demonstrations, public meetings and SEC. 6. Action to be taken on the application.
assemblages for religious purposes shall be governed by local
ordinances; Provided, however, That the declaration of policy as provided in a) It shall be the duty of the mayor or any official acting in his behalf to issue or
Section 2 of this Act shall be faithfully observed. grant a permit unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the public
· The definition herein contained shall not include picketing and other assembly will create a clear and present danger to public order, public safety,
concerted action in strike areas by workers and employees resulting from a public convenience, public morals or public health.
b) The mayor or any official acting in his behalf shall act on the application within however, That no person can be punished or held criminally liable for
two (2) working days from the date the application was filed, failing which, participating in or attending an otherwise peaceful assembly;
the permit shall be deemed granted. Should for any reason the mayor or any xxxx
official acting in his behalf refuse to accept the application for a permit, said
application shall be posted by the applicant on the premises of the office of SEC. 14. Penalties.
the mayor and shall be deemed to have been filed. Any person found guilty and convicted of any of the prohibited acts defined
c) If the mayor is of the view that there is imminent and grave danger of a in the immediately preceding section shall be punished as follows:
substantive evil warranting the denial or modification of the permit, he shall a) violation of subparagraph (a) shall be punished by imprisonment of one
immediately inform the applicant who must be heard on the matter. month and one day to six months;
d) The action on the permit shall be in writing and served on the applica[nt] xxxx
within twenty-four hours.
e) If the mayor or any official acting in his behalf denies the application or CALIBRATED PRE-EMPTIVE RESPONSE
modifies the terms thereof in his permit, the applicant may contest the · A policy set forth in a press release by Malacañang dated September 21,
decision in an appropriate court of law. 2005
f) In case suit is brought before the Metropolitan Trial Court, the Municipal Trial
Court, the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, the Regional Trial Court, or the Malacanang Official
Intermediate Appellate court, its decisions may be appealed to the Manila, Philippines
appropriate court within forty-eight (48) hours after receipt of the same. No NEWS Release No. 2 September 21, 2005
appeal bond and record on appeal shall be required. A decision granting such
permit or modifying it in terms satisfactory to the applicant shall be STATEMENT OF EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA
immediately executory.
g) All cases filed in court under this section shall be decided within twenty-four • On Unlawful Mass Actions
(24) hours from date of filing. Cases filed hereunder shall be immediately • In view of intelligence reports pointing to credible plans of anti-government
endorsed to the executive judge for disposition or, in his absence, to the next groups to inflame the political situation, sow disorder and incite people
in rank. against the duly constituted authorities, we have instructed the PNP as well
h) In all cases, any decision may be appealed to the Supreme Court. as the local government units to strictly enforce a no permit, no rally policy,
i) Telegraphic appeals to be followed by formal appeals are hereby allowed. disperse groups that run afoul of this standard and arrest all persons violating
the laws of the land as well as ordinances on the proper conduct of mass
SEC. 12. Dispersal of public assembly without permit. actions and demonstrations.
• The rule of calibrated preemptive response is now in force, in lieu of
When the public assembly is held without a permit where a permit is maximum tolerance. The authorities will not stand aside while those with
required, the said public assembly may be peacefully dispersed. ill intent are herding a witting or unwitting mass of people and inciting them
into actions that are inimical to public order, and the peace of mind of the
SEC. 13. Prohibited acts. national community.
• Unlawful mass actions will be dispersed. The majority of law-abiding citizens
The following shall constitute violations of the Act: have the right to be protected by a vigilant and proactive government.
a) The holding of any public assembly as defined in this Act by any leader or • We appeal to the detractors of the government to engage in lawful and
organizer without having first secured that written permit where a permit is peaceful conduct befitting of a democratic society.
required from the office concerned, or the use of such permit for such • The Presidents call for unity and reconciliation stands, based on the rule of
purposes in any place other than those set out in said permit: Provided, law.
 Contentions of the Petitioners:
 BP 880 is a CONTENT-NEUTRAL REGULATION.
• BP 880 is clearly a violation of the Constitution and the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and other human rights treaties of § It is a restriction that simply regulates the time, place and manner of the
which the Philippines is a signatory. assemblies. This was adverted to in Osmena v. Comelec, where the Court
• BP 880 requires a permit before one can stage a public assembly regardless referred to it as a content-neutral regulation of the time, place, and manner
of the presence or absence of a clear and present danger. It also curtails the of holding public assemblies.
choice of venue and is thus repugnant to the freedom of expression clause § it refers to all kinds of public assemblies that would use public places. The
as the time and place of a public assembly form part of the message for which reference to lawful cause does not make it content-based because assemblies
the expression is sought. really have to be for lawful causes, otherwise they would not be peaceable
• BP 880 is not content-neutral as it does not apply to mass actions in support and entitled to protection. Neither are the words opinion, protesting and
of the government. influencing in the definition of public assembly content based, since they can
• The words lawful cause, opinion, protesting or influencing suggest the refer to any subject. The words petitioning the government for redress of
exposition of some cause not espoused by the government. grievances come from the wording of the Constitution, so its use cannot be
• The phrase maximum tolerance shows that the law applies to assemblies avoided. Finally, maximum tolerance is for the protection and benefit of all
against the government because they are being tolerated. As a content-based rallyists and is independent of the content of the expressions in the rally.
legislation, it cannot pass the strict scrutiny test. § Furthermore, the permit can only be denied on the ground of clear and
• B.P. No. 880 is unconstitutional as it is a curtailment of the right to peacefully present danger to public order, public safety, public convenience, public
assemble and petition for redress of grievances because it puts a condition morals or public health. This is a recognized exception to the exercise of the
for the valid exercise of that right. It also characterizes public assemblies right even under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the
without a permit as illegal and penalizes them and allows their dispersal. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Thus, its provisions are not mere regulations but are actually prohibitions.
• Furthermore, the law delegates powers to the Mayor without providing  BP 880 is not vague.
clear standards. The two standards stated in the laws (clear and present
danger and imminent and grave danger) are inconsistent. § the law is very clear and is nowhere vague in its provisions. Public does not
• Regarding the CPR policy, it is void for being an ultra vires act that alters the have to be defined. Its ordinary meaning is well-known. Websters Dictionary
standard of maximum tolerance set forth in B.P. No. 880, aside from being defines it, thus:
void for being vague and for lack of publication. § public, n, x x x 2a: an organized body of people x x x 3: a group of people
distinguished by common interests or characteristics x x x.
ISSUE: § Not every expression of opinion is a public assembly. The law refers to rally,
demonstration, march, parade, procession or any other form of mass or
1. Whether BP 880 is constitutional; concerted action held in a public place. So it does not cover any and all kinds
2. Whether the CPR policy is constitutional. of gatherings.

RULING:  BP 880 is not overbroad

1. BP 880 is CONSTITUTIONAL. § It regulates the exercise of the right to peaceful assembly and petition only to
the extent needed to avoid a clear and present danger of the substantive evils
o The provisions of BP 880 practically codify the ruling in Reyes v. Bagatsing. Congress has the right to prevent.
 in any public park or plaza of a city or municipality until that city or
 No prior restraint municipality shall have complied with Section 15 of the law.
o For without such alternative forum, to deny the permit would in effect be to
§ There is, likewise, no prior restraint, since the content of the speech is not deny the right.
relevant to the regulation. o Advance notices should, however, be given to the authorities to ensure proper
coordination and orderly proceedings.
 Valid Delegation of power
2. CPR Policy declared null and void.
§ As to the delegation of powers to the mayor, the law provides a precise and
sufficient standard the clear and present danger test stated in Sec. 6(a). The · CPR serves no valid purpose if it means the same thing as maximum
reference to imminent and grave danger of a substantive evil in Sec. 6(c) tolerance and is illegal if it means something else.
substantially means the same thing and is not an inconsistent standard. o The Solicitor General agreed with the observation of the Chief Justice that CPR
should no longer be used as a legal term inasmuch as, according to
On Freedom Parks respondents, it was merely a catchword intended to clarify what was thought
to be a misunderstanding of the maximum tolerance policy set forth in B.P.
· Finally, for those who cannot wait, Section 15 of the law provides for an No. 880 and that, as stated in the affidavit executed by Executive Secretary
alternative forum through the creation of freedom parks where no prior Eduardo Ermita and submitted to the Ombudsman, it does not replace B.P.
permit is needed for peaceful assembly and petition at any time: No. 880 and the maximum tolerance policy embodied in that law.
·
 SEC. 15. Freedom parks. Every city and municipality in the country shall What is to be followed is and should be that mandated by the law itself,
within six months after the effectivity of this Act establish or designate at namely, maximum tolerance:
least one suitable freedom park or mall in their respective jurisdictions which,
as far as practicable, shall be centrally located within the poblacion where o SEC. 3. Definition of terms. For purposes of this Act:
demonstrations and meetings may be held at any time without the need of o xxx
any prior permit. o (c) Maximum tolerance means the highest degree of restraint that the
military, police and other peace keeping authorities shall observe during a
o In the cities and municipalities of Metropolitan Manila, the respective mayors public assembly or in the dispersal of the same.
shall establish the freedom parks within the period of six months from the
effectivity this Act. Presumption of Grant of Permit
· Compliance with Sec. 15
o Only Cebu City has declared a freedom park Fuente Osmea. That of Manila, • There is need to address the situation adverted to by petitioners where
the Sunken Gardens, has since been converted into a golf course. mayors do not act on applications for a permit and when the police demand
o The degree of observance of B.P. No. 880s mandate that every city and a permit and the rallyists could not produce one, the rally is immediately
municipality set aside a freedom park within six months from its effectivity in dispersed.
1985, or 20 years ago, would be pathetic and regrettable. The matter appears • In such a situation, as a necessary consequence and part of maximum
to have been taken for granted amidst the swell of freedom that rose from tolerance, rallyists who can show the police an application duly filed on a
the peaceful revolution of 1986. given date can, after two days from said date, rally in accordance with their
· The Court is constrained to rule that after thirty (30) days from the finality application without the need to show a permit, the grant of the permit being
of this Decision, no prior permit may be required for the exercise of such right then presumed under the law, and it will be the burden of the authorities to
show that there has been a denial of the application, in which case the rally
 may be peacefully dispersed following the procedure of maximum tolerance
prescribed by the law.

In Sum:

• 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.

• B.P. No. 880 cannot be condemned as unconstitutional; it does not curtail or

unduly restrict freedoms; it merely regulates the use of public places as to
the time, place and manner of assemblies. Far from being insidious,
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.

• in safeguarding liberty by giving local governments a deadline of 30 days

within which to designate specific freedom parks as provided under B.P. No.
880. If, after that period, no such parks are so identified in accordance with
Section 15 of the law, all public parks and plazas of the municipality or city
concerned shall in effect be deemed freedom parks; no prior permit of
whatever kind shall be required to hold an assembly therein. The only
requirement will be written notices to the police and the mayors office to
allow proper coordination and orderly activities.