JBL Reyes vs. Bagatsing [G.R. No. 65366, 1983]
Facts:
Petitioner, JBL Reyes, on behalf of the Anti-Biases Coalition, sought a permit to hold a peaceful march and rally for 3 hours from the City of Manila. The route of the march would cover from Luneta Park to the gates of the United States Embassy where they would hold a short program. Respondent, Bagatsing, as the City Mayor denied the petition for reasons due to police intelligence reports that some would enter the rally with subversive or criminal intentions and would disrupt the assembly where a large number of people are expected to attend. Petitioner was given the chance to be issued a permit if only they would hold their rally at the Rizal Coliseum or any other enclosed area where the safety of the participants themselves and the general public may be ensured.
Hence, this petition for mandamus with writ of preliminary injunction to review the decision of the Manila mayor denying the permit.
Issue:
Did the mayor really have justifiable reasons/grounds in denying the permit for petitioner to hold a rally?
Held:
The Supreme Court ruled in the negative on the ground that there was no showing of a clear and present danger of substantive evil that could justify the denial of the permit. As a signatory of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations adopted in 1961, the Philippines, as the receiving State is under a special duty to take appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity. The Constitution adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land. The Vienna Convention should be pat of the law of the land since it is a restatement of the generally accepted principles of international law. Respondent would only be justified in denying petitioner’s application if there were a clear and present danger of any intrusion or damage, or disturbance of the peace of the mission, or impairment of its dignity insofar as the terminal point would be the Embassy. Moreover, respondent Mayor relied on Ordinance No. 7295 of the City of Manila prohibiting the holding or staging of rallies or demonstrations within a radius of 500 feet from any foreign mission or chancery and for other purposes. Unless the ordinance is nullified, or declared ultra vires, its invocation as a defense is understandable but not decisive, in view of the primacy accorded the constitutional rights of free speech and peaceable assembly.
The mandatory injunction prayed for is granted.
Facts:
Petitioner, JBL Reyes, on behalf of the Anti-Biases Coalition, sought a permit to hold a peaceful march and rally for 3 hours from the City of Manila. The route of the march would cover from Luneta Park to the gates of the United States Embassy where they would hold a short program. Respondent, Bagatsing, as the City Mayor denied the petition for reasons due to police intelligence reports that some would enter the rally with subversive or criminal intentions and would disrupt the assembly where a large number of people are expected to attend. Petitioner was given the chance to be issued a permit if only they would hold their rally at the Rizal Coliseum or any other enclosed area where the safety of the participants themselves and the general public may be ensured.
Hence, this petition for mandamus with writ of preliminary injunction to review the decision of the Manila mayor denying the permit.
Issue:
Did the mayor really have justifiable reasons/grounds in denying the permit for petitioner to hold a rally?
Held:
The Supreme Court ruled in the negative on the ground that there was no showing of a clear and present danger of substantive evil that could justify the denial of the permit. As a signatory of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations adopted in 1961, the Philippines, as the receiving State is under a special duty to take appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity. The Constitution adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land. The Vienna Convention should be pat of the law of the land since it is a restatement of the generally accepted principles of international law. Respondent would only be justified in denying petitioner’s application if there were a clear and present danger of any intrusion or damage, or disturbance of the peace of the mission, or impairment of its dignity insofar as the terminal point would be the Embassy. Moreover, respondent Mayor relied on Ordinance No. 7295 of the City of Manila prohibiting the holding or staging of rallies or demonstrations within a radius of 500 feet from any foreign mission or chancery and for other purposes. Unless the ordinance is nullified, or declared ultra vires, its invocation as a defense is understandable but not decisive, in view of the primacy accorded the constitutional rights of free speech and peaceable assembly.
The mandatory injunction prayed for is granted.
No comments:
Post a Comment