IBP v.
CA Manila Police Department who earlier barred
GR# 175241
Petitioners: Integrated Bar of the Philippines
through its President Jose Anselmo I. Cadiz,
Harry Roque, and Joel Ruiz Butuyan
Respondent: Honorable Manila Mayor Jose
“lito” Atienza
Ponente: Carpio-Morales, J.
Date: February 24, 2010
TOPIC Unprotected Speech
DOCTRINE
. (1) The respondent failed to indicate how he had
Freedom of assembly is not to be limited, much
less denied, except on a showing, as is the case
with freedom of expression, of a clear and
present danger of a substantive evil that the state
has a right to prevent.
(SHORT VERSION)
IBP filed for a permit to rally at the foot of
Mendiola bridge. The Office of the Manila
Mayor issued the same but it changed the venue
of the rally to Plaza Miranda. IBP allege that
such modification violated their Freedom of
Assembly. SC held for the Petitioners,
respondent failed to show that there is a clear
and present danger as his reason for the
modification.
FACTS
IBP, through is National President Jose Anselmo
Cadiz, filed with the Office of the City Mayos of
Manila a letter of application for a permit to
rally at the foot of Mendiola Bridge. The
respondent issued the permit but with
modifications. Aside from permitting the rally to
be held at Mendiola Bridge, the permit states
that it would be held at Plaza Miranda.
IBP filed a certiorari but to no avail.
The rally pushed through at Mediola Bridge,
after Cadiz discussed with a contingent from the
them from proceeding thereto.
MPD then filed a criminal action against Cadiz
for violating the Public Assembly Act.
ISSUES/HELD
(1) WON the modification of place in the
permit issued for the rally constitute a
violation of Freedom of Assembly– YES
RATIO
arrived at modifying the terms of the permit
against the standard of a clear and present
danger test which is an indispensible condition
to such modification.
In KMP v Ermita
Freedom of assembly is not to be limited, much
less denied, except on a showing, as is the case
with freedom of expression, of a clear and
present danger of a substantive evil that the state
has a right to prevent.
The sole justification for a limitation on the
exercise of this right so fundamental to the
maintenance of democratic institutions, is the
danger, of a character both grave and imminent,
of a serious evil to public safety, public morals,
public health, or any other legitimate public
interest.
In Reyes v. Bagatsing
It is an indispensible condition to such refusal or
modification that the clear and present danger
test be the standard for the decision reached.
Also, the applicants must be heard on the matter.
DECISION CA Reversed
O