||| (Bayan v. Ermita, G.R. No.

169838, 169848, 169881,

April 25, 2006)
Facts: Rallies of September 20, October 4, 5 and 6,
2005 is at issue. BAYANs rally was violently dispersed.
26 petitioners were injured, arrested and detained
when a peaceful mass action they was preempted and
violently dispersed by the police. KMU asserts that the
right to peaceful assembly, are affected by Batas
Pambansa No. 880 and the policy of Calibrated
Preemptive Response (CPR) being followed to
implement it. KMU, et al., claim that on October 4,
2005, a rally KMU co-sponsored was to be conducted
at the Mendiola bridge but police blocked them along
C.M. Recto and Lepanto Streets and forcibly dispersed
them, causing injuries to several of their members.
They further allege that on October 6, 2005, a multisectoral rally which KMU also co-sponsored was
scheduled to proceed along Espaa Avenue in front of
the UST and going towards Mendiola bridge. Police
officers blocked them along Morayta Street and
prevented them from proceeding further. They were
then forcibly dispersed, causing injuries on one of
them.
Three
other
rallyists
were
arrested.
All petitioners assail Batas Pambansa No. 880 The
Public Assembly Act of 1985, some of them in toto and
others only Sections 4, 5, 6, 12, 13(a), and 14(a), as
well as the policy of CPR. They seek to stop violent
dispersals of rallies under the no permit, no rally
policy and the CPR policy announced on Sept. 21,
2005.
Petitioners Bayan, et al., contend that BP 880 is clearly

a violation of the Constitution and the International

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and other human
rights treaties of which the Philippines is a signatory.
They argue that B.P. No. 880 requires a permit before
one can stage a public assembly regardless of the
presence or absence of a clear and present danger. It
also curtails the choice of venue and is thus repugnant
to the freedom of expression clause as the time and
place of a public assembly form part of the message
for
which
the
expression
is
sought.
Petitioners Jess del Prado, et al., in turn, argue that B.P.
No. 880 is unconstitutional as it is a curtailment of the
right to peacefully assemble and petition for redress of
grievances because it puts a condition for the valid
exercise of that right. It also characterizes public
assemblies without a permit as illegal and penalizes
them and allows their dispersal. Thus, its provisions
are not mere regulations but are actually prohibitions.
Regarding the CPR policy, it is void for being an ultra
vires act that alters the standard of maximum
tolerance set forth in B.P. No. 880, aside from being
void for being vague and for lack of publication.
KMU, et al., argue that the Constitution sets no limits
on the right to assembly and therefore B.P. No. 880
cannot put the prior requirement of securing a permit.
And even assuming that the legislature can set limits
to this right, the limits provided are unreasonable:
First, allowing the Mayor to deny the permit on clear
and convincing evidence of a clear and present danger
is
too
comprehensive.
Second,
the
five-day
1

requirement to apply for a permit is too long as certain

events require instant public assembly, otherwise
interest on the issue would possibly wane.As to the
CPR policy, they argue that it is preemptive, that the
government takes action even before the rallyists can
perform their act, and that no law, ordinance
orexecutive order supports the policy. Furthermore, it
contravenes the maximum tolerance policy of B.P. No.
880 and violates the Constitution as it causes a chilling
effect on the exercise by the people of the right to
peaceably
assemble.
Respondents argued that petitioners have no standing.
BP 880 entails traffic re-routing to prevent grave public
inconvenience and serious or undue interference in the
free flow of commerce and trade. It is content-neutral
regulation of the time, place and manner of holding
public assemblies. According to Atienza RA. 7160 gives
the Mayor power to deny a permit independently of
B.P. No. 880. and that the permit is for the use of a
public place and not for the exercise of rights; and that
B.P. No. 880 is not a content-based regulation because
it
covers
all
rallies.

Issue: Whether or Not BP 880 and the CPR Policy

unconstitutional.

Held: No question as to standing. Their right as citizens

to engage in peaceful assembly and exercise the right
of petition, as guaranteed by the Constitution, is
directly affected by B.P. No. 880. B.P. 880 is not an

absolute ban of public assemblies but a restriction that

simply regulates the time, place and manner of the
assemblies. It refers to all kinds of public assemblies
that would use public places. The reference to lawful
cause does not make it content-based because
assemblies really have to be for lawful causes,
otherwise they would not be peaceable and entitled
to protection. Maximum tolerance1 is for the
protection and benefit of all rallyists and is
independent of the content of the expressions in the
rally. There is, likewise, no prior restraint, since the
content of the speech is not relevant to the regulation.
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. Insofar as it would
purport to differ from or be in lieu of maximum
tolerance, this was declared null and void.
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.
After thirty (30) days from the finality of this Decision,
subject to the giving of advance notices, no prior
permit shall be required to exercise the right to
peaceably assemble and petition in the public parks or
plazas of a city or municipality that has not yet
complied with Section 15 of the law.
2