Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    PIL - Reyes - Vs - Bagatsing

    Uploaded by

    michelle zatarain
    The Supreme Court ruled that the denial of a permit for a peaceful march and rally from Luneta Park to the gates of the US Embassy was invalid. While the authorities have a duty to protect diplomatic missions under international law, there was no clear and present danger shown that would justify restricting the right to peaceful assembly. The marchers assured that the protest would be peaceful, and the short distance involved did not raise security issues. Authorities cannot deny permits to limit free speech and assembly rights absent a substantive threat.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    PIL - Reyes - Vs - Bagatsing

    Uploaded by

    michelle zatarain
    1K views3 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that the denial of a permit for a peaceful march and rally from Luneta Park to the gates of the US Embassy was invalid. While the authorities have a duty to protect diplomatic missions under international law, there was no clear and present danger shown that would justify restricting the right to peaceful assembly. The marchers assured that the protest would be peaceful, and the short distance involved did not raise security issues. Authorities cannot deny permits to limit free speech and assembly rights absent a substantive threat.

    Original Title

    9. PIL_Reyes_vs_Bagatsing

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the denial of a permit for a peaceful march and rally from Luneta Park to the gates of the US Embassy was invalid. While the authorities have a duty to protect diplomatic missions under international law, there was no clear and present danger shown that would justify restricting the right to peaceful assembly. The marchers assured that the protest would be peaceful, and the short distance involved did not raise security issues. Authorities cannot deny permits to limit free speech and assembly rights absent a substantive threat.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    1K views3 pages

    PIL - Reyes - Vs - Bagatsing

    Uploaded by

    michelle zatarain
    The Supreme Court ruled that the denial of a permit for a peaceful march and rally from Luneta Park to the gates of the US Embassy was invalid. While the authorities have a duty to protect diplomatic missions under international law, there was no clear and present danger shown that would justify restricting the right to peaceful assembly. The marchers assured that the protest would be peaceful, and the short distance involved did not raise security issues. Authorities cannot deny permits to limit free speech and assembly rights absent a substantive threat.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 3

    2S PIL Case Digests

    TOPIC Diplomatic Relations AUTHOR #9_Fortes

    CASE Reyes v. Bagatsing L-65366


    GR NO
    TITLE
    JOSE B.L. REYES, in behalf of the ANTI-BASES COALITION
    (ABC), petitioner,
    vs.
    RAMON BAGATSING, as Mayor of the City of Manila, respondent.
    TICKLER Luneta Park to US Embassy peaceful march and rally DATE November 9, 1983

    DOCTRINE The privilege of a citizen of the United States to use the streets and parks for communication of views on
    national questions may be regulated in the interest of all; it is not absolute, but relative, and must be
    exercised in subordination to the general comfort and convenience, and in consonance with peace and
    good order; but it must not, in the guise of regulation, be abridged or denied.

    The second paragraph of the Article 22, Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations adopted in 1961.
    reads:

    "2. The receiving State is under a special duty to take appropriate steps to protect the premises
    of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of
    the mission or impairment of its dignity. "
    FACTS
    Petitioner, retired Justice JB L. Reyes, on behalf of the Anti-Bases Coalition sought a permit from the City
    of Manila to hold a peaceful march and rally on October 26, 1983 from 2:00 to 5:00 in the afternoon,
    starting from the Luneta, a public park, to the gates of the United States Embassy, hardly two blocks
    away. Once there, and in an open space of public property, a short program would be held. There was
    likewise 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 by it “to ensure a peaceful march and rally.”

    Petitioner filed suit for mandamus unaware that permit was denied, because it was sent by ordinary mail.
    The reason for refusal of permit was due to police intelligence reports which strongly militate against the
    advisability of issuing such permit at this time and at the place applied for.

    ISSUE/S Whether or not the denial of permit for the conduct peaceable assembly to the gates of U.S. Embassy
    may be validly enforced. (NO)

    RULING/S
    NO. Mandatory injunction prayed was granted.

    The Court is called upon to protect the exercise of the cognate rights to free speech and peaceful
    assembly, arising from the denial of a permit. The Constitution is quite explicit: “No law shall be passed
    abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and
    petition the Government for redress of grievances.”. There can be no legal objection, absent the existence
    of a clear and present danger of a substantive evil, on the choice of Luneta as the place where the peace
    rally would start. Neither can there be any valid objection to the use of the streets, to the gates of the US
    Embassy, hardly two block-away at the Roxas Boulevard.

    There is merit to the observation that except as to the novel aspects of a litigation, the judgment must be
    confined within the limits of previous decisions. The law declared on past occasions is, on the whole, a
    safe guide, So it has been here. While the General rule is that a permit should recognize the right of the

    2S [AY 2020-2021]
    San Beda University – College of Law
    2S PIL Case Digests
    applicants to hold their assembly at a public place of their choice, another place may be designated by
    the licensing authority if it be shown that there is a clear and present danger of a substantive evil if no
    such change were made.

    By way of a summary The applicants for a permit to hold an assembly should inform the licensing authority
    of the date, the public place where and the time when it will take place. If it were a private place, only the
    consent of the owner or the one entitled to its legal possession is required. Such application should be
    filed well ahead in time to enable the public official concerned to appraise whether there may be valid
    objections to the grant of the permit or to its grant but at another public place.

    PIL RELATED:

    The Philippines is a signatory of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations adopted in 1961.

    It was concurred in by the then Philippine Senate on May 3, 1965 and the instrument of ratification was
    signed by the President on October 11, 1965, and was thereafter deposited with the Secretary General
    of the United Nations on November 15.

    As of that date then, it was binding on the Philippines.

    The second paragraph of the Article 22 reads:

    - "2. The receiving State is under a special duty to take appropriate steps to protect the premises
    of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of
    the mission or impairment of its dignity. "

    The Constitution "adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the
    land. ..."

    To the extent that the Vienna Convention is a restatement of the generally accepted principles of
    international law, it should be a 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 the 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 Embassy.

    Respondent Mayor posed the issue of the applicability of Ordinance No. 7295 of the City of Manila
    prohibiting the holding or staging of rallies or demonstrations within a radius of five hundred (500) feet
    from any foreign mission or chancery and for other purposes.

    It is to be admitted that it finds support in the previously quoted Article 22 of the Vienna Convention
    on Diplomatic Relations.

    There was no showing, however, that the distance between the chancery and the embassy gate is
    less than 500 feet.

    Even if it could be shown that such a condition is satisfied, it does not follow that respondent Mayor could
    legally act the way he did.

    The validity of his denial of the permit sought could still be challenged.

    2S [AY 2020-2021]
    San Beda University – College of Law
    2S PIL Case Digests
    It could be argued that a case of unconstitutional application of such ordinance to the exercise of the right
    of peaceable assembly presents itself.

    As in this case there was no proof that the distance is less than 500 feet, the need to pass on that
    issue was obviated, Should it come, then the qualification and observation of Justices Makasiar and Plana
    certainly cannot be summarily brushed aside.

    NOTES

    2S [AY 2020-2021]
    San Beda University – College of Law

    You might also like