Reyes vs.

Bagatsing (1983)
G.R. No. L-65366 | 1983-11-09
Subject:
Denial of permit in violation of freedom of speech and to peaceably assemble; Primacy of Constitution over
International Treaties; Clear and present danger in order deny permit or in designating another place for rally;
Requirements to hold an assembly
Facts:
Retired Justice J.B.L Reyes on behalf of the Anti-Bases Coalition sought a permit from the City of Manila to hold a
peaceful march and rally on October 26, 1983 from 2:00 to 5:00 in the afternoon starting from the Luneta Park (a
public park) to the gates of the United States Embassy. Once there, a short program would be held consisting of the
delivery of speeches and the presentation of a petition (based on the resolution adopted by the International
Conference for General Disarmament, World Peace and the Removal of All Foreign Military Bases held in Manila)
addressed to the United States Ambassador. There was an assurance in the petition that in the exercise of the
constitutional rights to free speech and assembly, all the necessary steps would be taken to ensure a peaceful
march and rally.
The permit application was denied by Mayor Ramon Bagatsing. The denial of the permit was due to police
intelligence reports affirming the plans of subversive or criminal elements to infiltrate or disrupt any assembly or
congregations where a large number of people are expected to attend.
Justice Reyes was unaware of such denial as it was sent through an ordinary mail.
Despite the denial of the permit, the Mayor suggested that a permit may be issued for the rally if it will be held in
Rizal Coliseum or any other enclosed areas where the safety of the participants and the general public may be
assured. He also raised the applicability of Ordinance No. 7925 of the City of Manila prohibiting the holding and
staging of rallies or demonstration within a radius of 500 feet from any foreign mission or chancery, in this case the
US Embassy. There was however no proof that the US Embassy was indeed 500 feet away.
The court deliberated on the matter. A minute resolution was issued stating that there was no showing of the
existence of a clear and present danger of a substantive evil that could justify the denial of a permit.
Issue: Whether or not the freedom of expression and the right to peaceably assemble violated?
Held: Yes.
Denial of permit in violation of freedom of speech and to peaceably assemble
1. The Constitution states that "No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right
of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for redress of grievances." Free speech, like free

press, may be identified with the liberty to discuss publicly and truthfully any matter of public concern without
censorship or punishment.
2. There shall be no previous (prior) restraint on the communication of views or subsequent liability unless there be
a clear and present danger of a substantive evil that the State has the right to prevent. It means that for the
constitutional right to be invoked, riotous conduct, injury to property, and acts of vandalism must be avoided.
3. In this case, there can be no legal objection on the choice of Luneta as the place where the peace rally would
start. Neither can there be any valid objection to the use of the streets to the gates of the US Embassy, hardly two
blocks away at the Roxas Boulevard.
4. The reliance on the ordinance prohibiting the holding or staging of rallies or demonstrations within a radius of five
hundred (500) feet from any foreign mission or chancery, although valid, cannot be raised in lieu of the primacy
accorded to the constitutional rights of free speech and peaceable assembly.
Primacy of Constitution over International Treaties
5. Although the Philippines is a signatory to the Vienna Convention for the protection of the premises of a diplomatic
mission such as the US Embassy, the denial of the permit to rally is not justified in the absence of a clear and
present danger to life or property of the embassy. The rights provided under the constitution prevails over the
Vienna Convention.
Clear and present danger, not mere assertions, in order deny permit or in designating another place for
rally
6. The general rule is that while a permit should recognize the right of the applicants to hold their assembly at a
public place of their choice, another place may be designated by the licensing authority if it be shown that there is a
clear and present danger of a substantive evil if no such change were made. The group that applied for a permit
even assured that all necessary steps would be taken in order to ensure a peaceful march and really. The police
force also assured that they will be in the position to cope in case an emergency should arise.
Requirements to hold an assembly
7. The applicants for a permit to hold an assembly should inform the licensing authority of the date, the public place
where and the time when it will take place. If it were a private place, only the consent of the owner or the one
entitled to its legal possession is required. Such application should be filed well ahead in time to enable the public
official concerned to appraise whether there may be valid objections to the grant of the permit or to its grant but at
another public place. It is an indispensable condition to such refusal or modification that the clear and present
danger test be the standard for the decision reached. If he is of the view that there is such an imminent and grave
danger of a substantive evil, the applicants must be heard on the matter. Thereafter, his decision, whether favorable
or adverse, must be transmitted to them at the earliest opportunity. Thus if so minded, they can have recourse to
the proper judicial authority.