Primicias Vs Fugoso

1
G.R. No. L-1800 January 27, 1948

CIPRIANO P. PRIMICIAS, petitioner
vs.
VALERIANO E. FUGOSO, respondent
3
Facts:
 2
The petitioner, Cipriano Primicias, a campaigning manager of the Coalesced
Minority Parties, issued an action of mandamus against Valeriano 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
ground that the respondent refused to grant such permit.
 4
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.
Issues:
5
Whether or not the respondent is authorized to utilize streets and public places in
the city. (YES)
Ruling:
6
According to 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."
7
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 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.
8
The Court also compared the case to 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"
9
The Supreme Court also added the following statement regarding Mr. Justice
Brandeis in his concurring opinion in Whitney vs. California, 71 U. S. (Law. ed.), 1105-
1107:
"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”
10
Thus, 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.

Primicias Vs Fugoso

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Primicias Vs Fugoso

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Primicias Vs Fugoso

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

G.R. No. L-1800 January 27, 1948

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.