CIPRIANO P. PRIMICIAS v.

VALERIANO FUGOSO
(G.R. No. L-1800, January 27, 1948)
FERIA, J.:
FACTS:
This case is an action of mandamus instituted by petitioner Cipriano Primicias, manager of the Coalesced
Minority Parties, against respondent Manila City Mayor, Valeriano Fugoso, to compel the latter to issue a
permit for the holding of a public meeting at the Plaza Miranda on Nov 16, 1947. The petitioner requested
for a permit to hold a “peaceful public meeting”. However, the respondent refused to issue such permit
because he found “that there is a reasonable ground to believe, basing upon previous utterances and upon
the fact that passions, especially 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 peace and a disruption of public order.” Respondent based his refusal to 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."
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Mayor has the right to refuse to issue permit hence violating freedom of assembly.
HELD:
The answer is negative. Supreme Court states that the freedom of speech, and to peacefully assemble and
petition the government for redress of grievances, are fundamental personal rights of the people
recognized and guaranteed by the constitution. However, these rights are not absolute. They can be
regulated under the state’s police power – that they should not be injurious to the equal enjoyment of
others having equal rights, nor to the rights of the community or society. The Court holds that there can
be 2 interpretations of Sec. 1119:
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; and
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 since the first construction is 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. It is to be noted that the permit to be issued is for the use of public places and not for
the assembly itself. The Court holds that the assembly is lawful and thus cannot be struck down. 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
Opinion:
Freedom of peaceful assembly enables individuals to express themselves as part of a collective, including
by engaging in public marches, protests, pickets and demonstrations. Assemblies can be platforms to
advocate for change and for people to raise awareness about the issues that matter to them, whether it
relates to human rights or otherwise.
By putting unregulated power in the hands of an official make him a tyrant or a dictator of some sort? Or
is it justified because he fears for his people? Freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom of expression and
freedom of association are the foundations of a democratic, tolerant and pluralist society in which
individuals and groups with different backgrounds and beliefs can interact peacefully with one another.
As such, they enable the enjoyment of other fundamental rights, including the right to freedom of religion
or belief. They can help give voice to minority opinions and support the voices of marginalized or
underrepresented groups to be heard. Though we must still give the public assurance that assembly will
maintain peaceful and orderly.