Facts : Petitioner 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 starting from the Luneta Park (public park) to the gates of the United States Embassy. 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.”
It turned out that the permit was denied by the respondent Mayor. Petitioner was unaware of such denial as it was sent through an ordinary mail.
The reason of refusing the permit was due to “police intelligence reports which strongly militate against the advisability of issuing such permit. To be more specific, reference was made to “persistent intelligence reports affirming the plans of subversive/criminal elements to infiltrate and/or disrupt any assembly or congregations where a large number of people are expected to attend. Mayor suggested, however, 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 general public may be assured. The Mayor also posed 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. However, there was no proof that the US Embassy was indeed 500 feet away.
Issue : Whether or not the denial of permit to rally by the respondent Mayor is valid.
Held : Even if it can be shown that such condition existed (500 feet away), it does not follow that the respondent could legally act the way he did. Such denial can still be challenged as to the constitutionality of the ordinance.
The Philippines is a signatory to the Vienna Convention which calls for the protection of the premises of a diplomatic mission. But, the denial of permit to rally in front of the US Embassy is only justified in the presence of clear and present danger to life or property of the embassy. This is binding on the Philippines to take appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against intrusion or damage and prevent any disturbance of peace or impairment of its dignity. To the extent that the Vienna Convention is a restatement of the generally accepted principles of international law, it should be part of the law of the land. That being the case, if there were a clear and present danger of any intrusion or damage or disturbance of peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity, there would be a justification for the denial of the permit insofar as the terminal point would be the US Embassy - but there was none.
Respondent official was ordered to grant the permit.
Mandatory injunction prayed for is GRANTED. No cost.
It turned out that the permit was denied by the respondent Mayor. Petitioner was unaware of such denial as it was sent through an ordinary mail.
The reason of refusing the permit was due to “police intelligence reports which strongly militate against the advisability of issuing such permit. To be more specific, reference was made to “persistent intelligence reports affirming the plans of subversive/criminal elements to infiltrate and/or disrupt any assembly or congregations where a large number of people are expected to attend. Mayor suggested, however, 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 general public may be assured. The Mayor also posed 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. However, there was no proof that the US Embassy was indeed 500 feet away.
Issue : Whether or not the denial of permit to rally by the respondent Mayor is valid.
Held : Even if it can be shown that such condition existed (500 feet away), it does not follow that the respondent could legally act the way he did. Such denial can still be challenged as to the constitutionality of the ordinance.
The Philippines is a signatory to the Vienna Convention which calls for the protection of the premises of a diplomatic mission. But, the denial of permit to rally in front of the US Embassy is only justified in the presence of clear and present danger to life or property of the embassy. This is binding on the Philippines to take appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against intrusion or damage and prevent any disturbance of peace or impairment of its dignity. To the extent that the Vienna Convention is a restatement of the generally accepted principles of international law, it should be part of the law of the land. That being the case, if there were a clear and present danger of any intrusion or damage or disturbance of peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity, there would be a justification for the denial of the permit insofar as the terminal point would be the US Embassy - but there was none.
Respondent official was ordered to grant the permit.
Mandatory injunction prayed for is GRANTED. No cost.
No comments:
Post a Comment