1 PRIMICIAS VS.

FUGOSO

Keywords: Mayor, Plaza Miranda, Ordinance, Limitations of Powers of Mayor, 3 Instances

When Freedom of Speech is Justified

Important Ratio:

The right of the Mayor is subject to reasonable discretion to determine or specify the streets or
public places to be used with the view to prevent confusion by overlapping, to secure
convenient use of the streets and public places by others, and to provide adequate and proper
policing to minimize the risk of disorder.

Under our democratic system of government no such unlimited power may be validly granted
to any officer of the government, except perhaps in cases of national emergency.

To justify suppression of free speech there must be reasonable ground to fear that serious evil
will result if free speech is practiced.

There must be reasonable ground to believe that the danger apprehended is imminent.

There must be reasonable ground to believe that the evil to be prevented is a serious one.

Facts:

• An action was instituted by the petitioner for the refusal of the respondent to issue a permit to
them to hold a public meeting in Plaza Miranda for redress of grievances to the government.

• The reason alleged by the respondent in his defense for refusing the permit is, "that there is a
reasonable ground to believe, basing upon previous utterances and upon the fact that
passions, specially on the part of the losing groups, remains bitter and high, that similar
speeches will be delivered tending to undermine the faith and confidence of the people in
their government, and in the duly constituted authorities, which might threaten breaches of
the peace and a disruption of public order."

• Another reason was the emphasis on the delegated police power to local government.

• Respondent also stated that the Revised Ordinances of 1927 prohibiting as an offense
against public peace, and penalizes as a misdemeanor, "any act, in any public place,
meeting, or procession, tending to disturb the peace or excite a riot; or collect with other
persons in a body or crowd for any unlawful purpose; or disturb or disquiet any congregation
engaged in any lawful assembly." Included herein is Sec. 1119, Free use of Public Place.

Issue:

W/N the freedom of speech was violated.

Held:

Yes.

Dealing with the ordinance, specifically, Sec. 1119, said section provides for two constructions:

(1) The Mayor of the City of Manila is vested with unregulated discretion to grant or refuse, to
grant permit for the holding of a lawful assembly or meeting, parade, or procession in the
streets and other public places of the City of Manila;

(2) The right of the Mayor is subject to reasonable discretion to determine or specify the
streets or public places to be used with the view to prevent confusion by overlapping,
to secure convenient use of the streets and public places by others, and to provide
adequate and proper policing to minimize the risk of disorder.

The court favored the second construction.

First construction tantamount to authorizing the Mayor to prohibit the use of the streets.

Under our democratic system of government no such unlimited power may be validly
granted to any officer of the government, except perhaps in cases of national emergency.

The Mayor’s first defense is untenable.

Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly.

It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears.

• To justify suppression of free speech there must be reasonable ground to fear that
serious evil will result if free speech is practiced.

• There must be reasonable ground to believe that the danger apprehended is imminent.

• There must be reasonable ground to believe that the evil to be prevented is a serious
one.

The fact that speech is likely to result in some violence or in destruction of property is not
enough to justify its suppression. There must be the probability of serious injury to the state.

2 US VS. BUSTOS

Keywords: Justice of Peace, Criticism of a Judge, 1915, Pampanga, Libel

Important Ratio:

The guaranties of a free speech and a free press include the right to criticize judicial conduct.

If the people cannot criticize a justice of the peace or a judge the same as any other public
officer, public opinion will be effectively suppressed.

Facts:

• In the latter part of 1915, numerous citizens of the Province of Pampanga assembled, and
prepared and signed a petition to the Executive Secretary (privileged communication) through
the law office of Crossfield and O’Brien

• Five individuals signed affidavits, charging Roman Punsalan, Justice of the Peace of
Macabebe and Masantol, Pampanga, with malfeasance in office and asking for his removal.

• The specific charges against the Justice of the Peace include the solicitation of money from
persons who have pending cases before the judge.

• Now, Judge Punsalan alleged that the accused published a writing which was false,
scandalous, malicious, defamatory, and libelous against him.

Issue:

W/N Bustos is entitled to constitutional protection by virtue of his right to free speech
and free press

Held:

Yes.

The guaranties of a free speech and a free press include the right to criticize judicial conduct.

The administration of the law is a matter of vital public concern.

Whether the law is wisely or badly enforced is, therefore, a fit subject for proper comment.

If the people cannot criticize a justice of the peace or a judge the same as any other public
officer, public opinion will be effectively suppressed.

It is a duty which every one owes to society or to the State to assist in the investigation of any
alleged misconduct.

It is further the duty of all who know of any official dereliction on the part of a magistrate or the
wrongful act of any public officer to bring the facts to the notice of those whose duty it is to
inquire into and punish them.

 Government here is an employer because the public school teachers are employees of the former. It’s not an “Assembly” under Art.
3, Sec. 4
3 DELA CRUZ v. COURT OF APPEALS

Keywords: Teachers, DECS, Strike, CSC, Backpay, Disruption of Classes, Substitute Teachers

Important Ratio:

The right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances to be
upheld, like any other liberty, it must be exercised within reasonable limits so as not to prejudice
the public welfare.

There was a strike - The mass actions staged by Metro Manila public school teachers amounted
to a strike in every sense of the term, constituting as they did, a concerted and unauthorized
stoppage of or absence from work which it was said teachers' sworn duty to perform, carried
out for essentially economic reasons — to protest and pressure the Government to correct
what, among other grievances, the strikers perceived to be the unjust or prejudicial
implementation of the salary standardization law insofar as they were concerned,

FACTS:

• The respective school principals submitted reports to the Secretary of DECS regarding the
participation of public school teachers (petitioners) in an illegal strike and their defiance to the
return-to-work order issued by the DECS Secretary

• The Sec. of DECS, on his own, filed an administrative complaint against the petitioners for
the said acts which were considered as a violation of the Civil Service Decree of the
Philippines

• For failure to submit their answers, the Sec. of DECS issued an order of dismissal against the
teachers which was implemented immediately.

• Petitioners appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and then to the Civil
Service Commission (CSC).

• The CSC found petitioners guilty of "conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service"
for having participated in the mass actions and imposed upon them the reduced penalty of
six (6) months' suspension.

• However, in view of the length of time that petitioners had been out of the service by reason
of the immediate implementation of the dismissal orders of Secretary Cariño, the CSC
likewise ordered petitioners' automatic reinstatement in the service without back wages.

• Petitioners were unhappy with the CSC decision.

• They initially filed petitions for certiorari with the SC which were all referred to the CA.

• The CA ruled that the questioned resolutions of the Civil Service Commission finding
petitioners guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service were based on
reasonable and justifiable grounds

• The CA said that petitioners' perceived grievances were no excuse for them not to conduct
classes and defy the return-to-work order issued by their superiors; that the immediate
execution of the dismissal orders of Secretary Cariño was sanctioned under law.

• Petitioners contend that the Court of Appeals grievously erred in affirming the CSC
resolutions finding them guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service when
their only "offense" was to exercise their constitutional right to peaceably assemble and
petition the government for redress of their grievances.

• Moreover, petitioners insist that the mass actions of September/October 1990 were not
"strikes" as there was no actual disruption of classes because there were substitute teachers

• Petitioners therefore ask for exoneration or, in the alternative, award of back wages for the
period of three (3) years when they were not allowed to work while awaiting resolution of their
appeals by the MSPB and CSC, deducting the period of six (6) months' suspension
eventually meted them.

ISSUES:

1. W/N the public school teachers were involved in a strike?

2. W/N the teachers should be penalized for participating in the strike?

HELD:

1. YES.

The persistent refusal of the striking teachers to call the mass actions by the conventional term
"strike" did not erase the true nature of the mass actions as unauthorized stoppages of work
the purpose of which was to obtain a favorable response to the teachers' economic
grievances.

The mass actions staged by Metro Manila public school teachers amounted to a strike in every
sense of the term, constituting as they did, a concerted and unauthorized stoppage of or
absence from work which it was said teachers' sworn duty to perform, carried out for
essentially economic reasons — to protest and pressure the Government to correct what,
among other grievances, the strikers perceived to be the unjust or prejudicial implementation of
the salary standardization law insofar as they were concerned, the non-payment or delay in
payment of various fringe benefits and allowances to which they were entitled, and the
imposition of additional teaching loads and longer teaching hours.

2. YES.

The teachers were penalized not because they exercised their right to peaceably assemble but
because of the manner by which such right was exercised, i.e., going on unauthorized and
unilateral absences thus disrupting classes in various schools in Metro Manila which produced
adverse effects upon the students for whose education the teachers were responsible.

Although petitioners contend that classes were not actually disrupted because substitute
teachers were immediately appointed by Secretary Cariño, that the prompt remedial action
taken by Secretary Cariño might have partially deflected the adverse effects of the mass
protests did not erase the administrative liability of petitioners for the intended consequences
thereof which were the very reason why such prompt remedial action became necessary.

This Court denies the claim that the teachers were thereby denied their rights to peaceably
assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances reasoning that this
constitutional liberty to be upheld, like any other liberty, must be exercised within reasonable
limits so as not to prejudice the public welfare.

The public school teachers in these mass actions did not exercise their constitutional rights
within reasonable limits.

On the contrary, they committed acts prejudicial to the best interest of the service by staging
the mass protests on regular school days, abandoning their classes and refusing to go back
even after they had been ordered to do so.

Had the teachers availed of their free time - recess, after classes, weekends or holidays - to
dramatize their grievances and to dialogue with the proper authorities within the bounds of law,
no one - not the DECS, the CSC or even the Supreme Court - could have held them liable for
their participation in the mass actions.

In Rolando Gan v. Civil Service Commission, it was held that for the right to peaceably
assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances to be upheld, like any
other liberty, it must be exercised within reasonable limits so as not to prejudice the
public welfare.

The public school teachers in the case of the 1990 mass actions did not exercise their
constitutional rights within reasonable limits.

4 Philippine Blooming Mills (PBM) EMPLOYEES VS. PBM

Keywords: Pasig Police, Union, RA 875, No Strike and No Lockout, Hierarchy of Rights

Important Ratio:

A constitutional or valid infringement of human rights requires a more stringent criterion,

namely, existence of a grave and immediate danger of a substantive evil which the State has the
right to prevent.

In seeking sanctuary behind their freedom of expression as well as their right of assembly and
of petition against alleged persecution of local officialdom, the employees and laborers of
herein private respondent firm were fighting for their very survival, utilizing only the weapons
afforded them by the Constitution — the enjoyment of their basic human rights.

The absence of one-third of their members will be regarded as a substantial indication of

disunity in their ranks which will enervate their position and abet continued alleged police
persecution.

Facts:

• The petitioner Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization (PBMEO) is a legitimate

labor union composed of the employees of the respondent Philippine Blooming Mills Co.,
Inc., and petitioners.

• Benjamin Pagcu and Rodulfo Munsod are officers and members of the petitioner Union.

• Petitioners claim that on March 1, 1969, they decided to stage a mass demonstration at
Malacañang on March 4, 1969, in protest against alleged abuses of the Pasig police.

• PBMEO, through Benjamin Pagcu, confirmed the planned demonstration and stated that the
demonstration or rally cannot be cancelled because it has already been agreed upon in the
meeting.

• Pagcu explained further that the demonstration has nothing to do with the Company because
the union has no quarrel or dispute with Management.

• The Management, through Atty. C.S. de Leon, Company personnel manager, informed
PBMEO that the demonstration is an inalienable right of the union guaranteed by the
Constitution but emphasized that any demonstration for that matter should not unduly
prejudice the normal operation of the Company.

• Workers who, without previous leave of absence approved by the Company, particularly, the
officers present who are the organizers of the demonstration, who shall fail to report for work
the following morning shall be dismissed, because such failure is a violation of the existing
Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) and, therefore, would be amounting to an illegal
strike.

• Because the petitioners and their members numbering about 400 proceeded with the
demonstration despite the pleas of the respondent Company that the first shift workers
should not be required to participate in the demonstration and that the workers in the second
 and third shifts should be utilized for the demonstration from 6 A.M. to 2 P.M. on March 4,
1969, filed a charge against petitioners and other employees who composed the first shift,
for a violation of Republic Act No. 875 (Industrial Peace Act), and of the CBA providing for
'No Strike and No Lockout.'

• Petitioners were held guilty in by CIR for bargaining in bad faith, hence this appeal.

Issue:

W/N the petitioners right to freedom of speech and to peaceable assemble was violated.

Held:

Yes.

A constitutional or valid infringement of human rights requires a more stringent criterion,

namely, existence of a grave and immediate danger of a substantive evil which the State has
the right to prevent.

This is not present in the case.

It was to the interest herein private respondent firm to rally to the defense of, and take up the
cudgels for, its employees, so that they can report to work free from harassment, vexation or
peril and as consequence perform more efficiently their respective tasks enhance its
productivity as well as profits.

Herein respondent employer did not even offer to intercede for its employees with the local
police.

In seeking sanctuary behind their freedom of expression as well as their right of assembly and
of petition against alleged persecution of local officialdom, the employees and laborers of
herein private respondent firm were fighting for their very survival, utilizing only the weapons
afforded them by the Constitution — the enjoyment of their basic human rights.

The pretension of their employer that it would suffer loss or damage by reason of the absence
of its employees from 6 o'clock in the morning to 2 o'clock in the afternoon, is a plea for the
preservation merely of their property rights.

The employees' pathetic situation was a stark reality — abused, harassed and persecuted as
they believed they were by the peace officers of the municipality.

As above intimated, the condition in which the employees found themselves vis-a-vis the local
police of Pasig, was a matter that vitally affected their right to individual existence as well as
that of their families.

Material loss can be repaired or adequately compensated.

The debasement of the human being broken in morale and brutalized in spirit-can never be
fully evaluated in monetary terms.

As heretofore stated, the primacy of human rights — freedom of expression, of peaceful

assembly and of petition for redress of grievances — over property rights has been sustained.

To regard the demonstration against police officers, not against the employer, as evidence of
bad faith in collective bargaining and hence a violation of the collective bargaining agreement
and a cause for the dismissal from employment of the demonstrating employees, stretches
unduly the compass of the collective bargaining agreement, is "a potent means of inhibiting
speech" and therefore inflicts a moral as well as mortal wound on the constitutional guarantees
of free expression, of peaceful assembly and of petition.

Circulation is one of the aspects of freedom of expression. If demonstrators are reduced by

one-third, then by that much the circulation of the Issue raised by the demonstration is
diminished.

The more the participants, the more persons can be apprised of the purpose of the rally.

Moreover, the absence of one-third of their members will be regarded as a substantial

indication of disunity in their ranks which will enervate their position and abet continued alleged
police persecution.

5 BAYAN VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY ERMITA

Keywords: BP 880, Kilusang Mayo Uno, Bayan, Calibrated PreEmptive Response (CPR),
Mendiola, Injury, Rallyists

Important Ratio:

BP 880 is constitutional, CPR Policy is void.

Mayor has the right to issue permits - for determination of clear and present danger

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.

Facts:

• Rallies of September 20, October 4, 5 and 6, 2005 is at issue.

• BAYAN’s rally was violently dispersed.

• 26 petitioners were injured, arrested and detained during a peaceful mass action.

• They were preempted and violently dispersed by the police.

• Petitioners allege that they are citizens and taxpayers of the Philippines and that their rights
as organizations and individuals were violated when the rally they participated in on October
6, 2005 was violently dispersed by policemen implementing Batas Pambansa (B.P.) No. 880.
Malacanang also issued a policy denominated as ―Calibrated Pre-emptive Response‖ (CPR)
on all rallies. Said ―CPR Policy

• Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU) asserts that the right to peaceful assembly.

• Respondents say that their right is affected by Batas Pambansa No. 880 and that the
“Calibrated Preemptive Response” (CPR) must be followed.

• 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 multi-sectoral rally which KMU also co-
sponsored was scheduled to proceed along España 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.

• Respondents 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, petitioners contend that 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 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 pre-emptive, that the government takes action even
before the rallyists can perform their act, and that no law, ordinance or executive 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:

W/N BP 880 and the CPR Policy unconstitutional.

Held:

BP 880 is valid as it is not prior restraint, since the content of the speech is not relevant to the
regulation. However, CPR Policy is unconstitutional.

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.

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.