Case Title: Bagong Alyansang Makabayan v Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita

Case Number: G.R. No. 169838

Date of Decision: April 25, 2006

Parties:
Petitioners: Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (BAYAN) et al.

Respondents: Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita, et al.

Facts
Batas Pambansa Blg. 880, otherwise known as the Public Assembly Act of 1985, was enacted to
regulate the right of the people to peaceful assembly and to petition the government for redress of
grievances.

In 2005, various groups announced their plan to hold mass actions in the streets of Metro Manila
to call for the resignation of the President. In response, the Philippine National Police (PNP)
deployed personnel to key areas in the metropolis to ensure peace and order. However, the planned
protest actions pushed through, and on May 1, 2005, members of Bayan and other groups marched
to Mendiola Street. The police used water cannons and other measures to disperse the protesters,
which resulted in several injuries and arrests.

The following day, then-President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo issued a memorandum authorizing
the implementation of the Calibrated Preemptive Response (CPR) policy as a means to prevent
similar incidents in the future. Under the CPR, police officers may take “pro-active meaures to
prevent the commission of a crime in the face of an imminent and unlawful aggression.” It allows
the police to conduct pre-emptive actions, such as the blocking of access routes and the setting up
of checkpoints, to deter and stop potential protesters from congregating and causing chaos.

A few days later, the CPR was used to prevent another protest action, resulting in the arrest of
some members of the National Secretariat for Social Action (NASSA) of the Catholic Bishops’
Conference of the Philippines (CBCP).

Bayan and other groups filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Supreme Court,
challenging the constitutionality of the CPR and Batas Pambansa Blg. 880 (BP 880), the law used
to justify the CPR.
 Issues
1. Whether or not the petitioners have legal standing to question the constitutionality of the
CPR and BP 880.
2. Whether or not the CPR is unconstitutional for being vague and overbroad.
3. Whether or not BP 880 is unconstitutional for violating the freedom of expression and
assembly.
Ruling
1. The petitioners have legal standing to question the constitutionality of the CPR and BP
880. Bayan and the other petitioners are organizations that have alleged injuries to their
rights and interests due to the implementation of the CPR and BP 880.
2. The CPR is unconstitutional for being broad and overbroad. The Court held that the CPR’s
definition of “imminent lawless action” is too broad and can be used to suppress protected
speech and assembly. The CPR also gives the police too much discretion in deciding when
to use pre-emptive measures.
3. BP 880 is constitutional, except for the provisions that require permits for rallies and
require rallyists to take “maximum tolerance” measures. The Court held that BP 880’s
provisions on permits for rallies and the “maximum tolerance” standard are
unconstitutional, as they effectively impose prior restraint on the exercise of the right to
assembly and suppress protected speech.

The Court further explained that the permit requirement for rallies is an impermissible restriction
on the right to assembly, as it gives the government unbridled discretion in deciding whether or
not to grant permits. The “maximum tolerance” standard, on the other hand, is vague and can be
used to justify police intervention and dispersal even in peaceful assemblies.

The Supreme Court ruled that while the Calibrated Preemptive Response (CPR) and Batas
Pambansa Blg. 880, are not unconstitutional per se, their application in certain instances may
violate the Constitution. The Court stated that the CPR and BP 880 are not inconsistent with the
Constitution, as they are aimed at promoting public order, safety, and the general welfare.
However, the Court held that the manner in which the CPR was implemented during the rally, and
the lack of guidelines for its application, rendered the police action unconstitutional. The Court
found that the police used excessive force and unnecessary violence in dispersing the rally, which
resulted in the violation of the rallyists’ constitutional rights to free speech, peaceful assembly,
and petition for redress of grievances.

As for BP 880, the Court held that it does not violate the Constitution, but it can be unconstitutional
if applied arbitrarily or in a discriminatory manner. The Court emphasized that BP 880 should be
read in conjunction with Constitution, particularly the provisions on freedom of speech,
expression, and peaceful assembly. The Court held that BP 880 should be applied in a manner that
respects and protects the constitutional rights of individuals to free speech and peaceful assembly.
The Court also underscored the importance of the principle of proportionality in the application of
BP 880, which requires that the government’s response to any public disturbance should be
commensurate with the situation.
In sum, the Court declared that the CPR and BP 880 are not unconstitutional per se, but their
application in certain instances may violate the Constitution. The Court stressed the importance of
striking a balance between promoting public order and safety and respecting and protecting the
constitutional rights of individuals to free speech, peaceful assembly, and petition for redress of
grievances.

Disposition
The Court declared the CPR unconstitutional and void, as it violates the right to assembly and
freedom of speech. It also declared BP 880 constitutional, except for provisions on permits for
rallies and the “maximum tolerance” standard, which are declared unconstitutional and void. The
Court directed the government to refrain from implementing these provisions and to uphold the
people’s right to peaceful assembly and free expression.

Ratio Decidendi

1. BP 880 is constitutional.
The Court held that the law regulates only the time, place, and manner of holding public
assemblies, and does not curtail or suppress freedom of speech or expression. The law only
requires that those who wish to hold a public assembly must obtain a permit from the local
government unit concerned. The permit requirement is a reasonable regulation that is
necessary to avoid the chaotic situation that may result from simultaneous activities in a
given place.
2. The “Calibrated Preemptive Response” is unconstitutional.
The Court held that the “Calibrated Preemptive Response” is a content-based regulation
that violates the principle of maximum tolerance and the right to due process. The
regulation does not distinguish between a peaceful assembly and a violent one, and
therefore, is prone to abuse. The regulation also does not provide clear standards for the
police to follow, and therefore, is susceptible to arbitrary application.

Principles Applied

1. Freedom of speech and expression, and the right to peaceably assemble and the petition
the government for redress of grievances are constitutionally protected rights.
2. The State may regulate the exercise of these rights to protect public order and safety, but
only if the regulation is content-neutral, narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state
interest, and leaves open ample alternatives for communication.
3. A permit requirement for public assemblies is a reasonable regulation that is necessary to
avoid the chaotic situation that may result from simultaneous activities in a given place.
4. The principle of maximum tolerance requires the government to permit peaceful
assemblies as far as possible, and to allow for the least intrusive means of controlling the
crowd when it becomes unruly.
 Doctrines Applied

1. Overbreadth Doctrine – This doctrine states that a law is considered invalid if it is so

broad that it prohibits even lawful activities, which violates the constitutional right to free
speech.
2. Void-for-Vagueness Doctrine – This doctrine states that a law is considered invalid if it
is so unclear and indefinite that it fails to give adequate notice to individuals of what is
prohibited or required by the law.
3. Right to Assembly and Freedom of Expression – These constitutional rights are
protected under the 1987 Constitution and should be upheld and promoted by the
government. Any law or policy that curtails these rights should be carefully scrutinized and
evaluated.
4. Principle of Strict Scrutiny – This principle requires the government to show a
compelling interest in order to justify any law or policy that impinges on fundamental
rights, such as the right to assembly and freedom of expression.
5. Presumption of Constitutionality – This principle assumes that laws passed by the
legislature are constitutional unless there is clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.
However, this presumption can be overcome by a showing that a law violates a
fundamental right or is unconstitutional on its face.