ASSEMBLY AND PETITION

Primicias vs. Fugoso

[GR L-1800, 27 January 1948]

Resolution En Banc, Feria (J): 5 concur

Facts:
The Philippine Legislature has delegated the exercise of the police power to the Municipal Board
of the City of Manila, which according to section 2439 of the Administrative Code is the legislative
body of the City. Section 2444 of the same Code grants the Municipal Board, among others, the
following legislative powers, to wit: "(p) to provide for the prohibition and suppression of riots,
affrays, disturbances and disorderly assemblies, (u) to regulate the use of streets, avenues,
parks, cemeteries and other public places and "for the abatement of nuisances in the same,"
and "(ee) to enact all ordinances it may deem necessary and proper for sanitation and safety, the
furtherance of prosperity and the promotion of morality, peace, good order, comfort, convenience,
and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants." Under the above delegated power, the
Municipal Board of the City of Manila, enacted sections 844 and 1119. Section 844 of the
Revised Ordinances of 1927 prohibits as an offense against public peace, and section 1262 of
the same Revised Ordinance 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." And section 1119 provides that The streets and public places of the city
shall be kept free and clear for the use of the public, and the sidewalks and crossings for the
pedestrians, and the same shall only be used or occupied for other purposes as provided by
ordinance or regulation: Provided, That the holding of athletic games, sports, or exercises during
the celebration of national holidays in any streets or public places of the city and on the patron
saint day of any district in question, may be permitted by means of a permit issued by the Mayor,
who shall determine the streets or public places, or portions thereof, where such athletic games,
sports, or exercises may be held: And provided, further, That the holding of any parade or
procession in any streets or public places is prohibited unless a permit therefor is first secured
from the Mayor, who shall, on every such occasion, determine or specify the streets or public
places for the formation, route, and dismissal of such parade or procession: And provided, finally,
That all applications to hold a parade or procession shall be submitted to the Mayor not less than
twenty-four hours prior to the holding of such parade or procession." An action of mandamus was
instituted by Cipriano Primicias, a campaign manager of the Coalesced Minority Parties against
Valeriano Fugoso, as Mayor of the City of Manila, to compel the latter to issue a permit for the
holding of a public meeting at Plaza Miranda on Sunday afternoon, 16 November 1947, for the
purpose of petitioning the government for redress to grievances on the ground that Fugoso
refused to grant such permit. Due to the urgency of the case, the Court, after mature deliberation,
issued a writ of mandamus, as prayed for in the petition on 15 November 1947, without prejudice
to writing later an extended and reasoned decision.

Issue:
Whether the Mayor of Manila may be compelled to issue a permit to use Plaza Miranda to hold a
public meeting.

Held:
The right to 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 constitutions of democratic countries. But it is a settled principle growing out of the nature
of well-ordered civil societies that the exercise of those rights is not absolute for it may be so
regulated that it shall not be injurious to the equal enjoyment of others having equal rights, nor
injurious to the rights of the community or society. The power to regulate the exercise of such and
other constitutional rights is termed the sovereign "police power," which is the power to prescribe
regulations, to promote the health, morals, peace, education, good order or safety, and general
welfare of the people. This sovereign police power is exercised by the government through its
legislative branch by the enactment of laws regulating those and other constitutional and civil
rights, and it may be delegated to political subdivisions, such as towns, municipalities and cities
by authorizing their legislative bodies called municipal and city councils to enact ordinances for
the purpose. Herein, as there is no express and separate provision in the Revised Ordinance of
the City regulating the holding of public meeting or assembly at any street or public places, the
provisions of said section 1119 regarding the holding of any parade or procession in any street or
public places may be applied by analogy to meeting and assembly in any street or public places.
The provisions of the said ordinance are construed to mean that it does not confer upon the
Mayor the power to refuse to grant the permit, but only the discretion, in issuing the permit, to
determine or specify the streets or public places where the parade or procession may pass or the
meeting may be held. The Court cannot adopt the other alternative construction or construe the
ordinance under consideration as conferring upon the Mayor power to grant or refuse to grant the
permit, which would be tantamount to authorizing him to prohibit the use of the streets and other
public places for holding of meetings, parades or processions, because such a construction
would make the ordinance invalid and void or violative of the constitutional limitations. As the
Municipal Board is empowered only to regulate the use of streets, parks, and other public places,
and the word "regulate," as used in section 2444 of the Revised Administrative Code, means and
includes the power to control, to govern, and to restrain, but can not be construed as
synonymous with "suppress" or "prohibit,", the Municipal Board can not grant the Mayor a power
which it does not have. In view of all the foregoing, the petition for mandamus was granted and,
there appearing no reasonable objection to the use of the Plaza Miranda, Quiapo, for the meeting
applied for, the mayor was ordered to issue the corresponding permit, as requested.

Malabanan vs. Ramento

[GR 62270, 21 May 1984]

En Banc, Fernando (CJ): 10 concur, 3 took no part

Facts:
Crispin Malabanan, Evilio Jalos, Ben Luther Lucas, Sotero Leonero and June Lee were officers
of the Supreme Student Council of the Gregorio Araneta University Foundation. They sought and
were granted by the school authorities a permit to hold a meeting from 8:00 A.M. to 12:00 P.M. on
27 August 1982. Pursuant to such permit, along with other students, they held a general
assembly at the Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science basketball court (VMAS), the place
indicated in such permit, not in the basketball court as therein stated but at the second floor lobby.
At such gathering they manifested In vehement and vigorous language their opposition to the
proposed merger of the Institute of Animal Science with the Institute of Agriculture. At 10:30 A.M.,
the same day, they marched toward the Life Science Building and continued their rally. It was
outside the area covered by their permit. They continued their demonstration, giving utterance to
language severely critical of the University authorities and using megaphones in the process.
There was, as a result, disturbance of the classes being held. Also, the non-academic
employees, within hearing distance, stopped their work because of the noise created. They were
asked to explain on the same day why they should not be held liable for holding an illegal
assembly. Then on 9 September 1982, they were informed through a memorandum that they
were under preventive suspension for their failure to explain the holding of an illegal assembly in
front of the Life Science Building. The validity thereof was challenged by Malabanan, et. al. both
before the Court of First Instance of Rizal in a petition for mandamus with damages against
Cesar Mijares, in his capacity as the President of GAUF, Gonzalo del Rosario, in his capacity as
the Director for Academic Affairs of GAUF; Tomas B. Mesina, in his capacity as the Dean of
Student Affairs of GAUF; Atty. Leonardo Padilla, in his capacity as Chief Legal Counsel &
Security Supervisor of GAUF; Atty. Fablita Ammay, Rosendo Galvante and Eugenia Tayao, in
their capacities as members of the Ad Hoc Committee of GAUF and before the Ministry of
Education, Culture, and Sports. On 20 October 1982, Anastacio D. Ramento, as Director of the
National Capital Region, found Malabanan, et. al. guilty of the charge of having violated
paragraph 146(c) of the Manual for Private Schools more specifically their holding of an illegal
assembly which was characterized by the violation of the permit granted resulting in the
disturbance of classes and oral defamation. The penalty was suspension for one academic year.
Hence, the petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.

Issue:
Whether the students were properly meted out a year suspension due to the disruption of
classes in GAUF attended by the students concerted activity.

Held:
Malabanan, et.al. are entitled to their rights to peaceable assembly and free speech. They enjoy
like the rest of the citizens the freedom to express their views and communicate their thoughts to
those disposed to listen in gatherings. They do not, to borrow from the opinion of Justice Fortas in
Tinker v. Des Moines Community School District, "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of
speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." While, therefore, the authority of educational
institutions over the conduct of students must be recognized, it cannot go so far as to be violative
of constitutional safeguards. On a more specific level, there is persuasive force to this formulation
in the Fortas opinion: "The principal use to which the schools are dedicated is to accommodate
students during prescribed hours for the purpose of certain types of activities. Among those
activities is personal intercommunication among the students. This is not only an inevitable part
of the process of attending school; it is also an important part of the educational process. A
student's rights, therefore, do not embrace merely the classroom hours. When he is in the
cafeteria, or on the playing field, or on the campus during the authorized hours, he may express
his opinions, even on controversial subjects like the conflict in Vietnam, if he does so without
'materially and substantially interfer[ing] with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the
operation of the school' and without colliding with the rights of others. But conduct by the student,
in class or out of it, which for any reason whether it stems from time, place, or type of behavior
materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others
is, of course, not immunized by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech." It does not
follow, however, that Malabanan, et. al. can be totally absolved for the events that transpired.
Admittedly, there was a violation of the terms of the permit. The rally was held at a place other
than that specified, in the second floor lobby, rather than the basketball court, of the VMAS
building of the University. Moreover, it was continued longer than the period allowed. The
"concerted activity went on until 5:30 p.m." The University could thus, take disciplinary action. On
those facts, however, an admonition, even a censure certainly not a suspension could be
the appropriate penalty. A one-year period of suspension is much too severe, While the discretion
of both the University and Director Ramento is recognized, the rule of reason, the dictate of
fairness calls for a much lesser penalty. If the concept of proportionality between the offense
committed and the sanction imposed is not followed, an element of arbitrariness intrudes. That
would give rise to a due process question. To avoid this constitutional objection, it is the holding of
the Court that a one-week suspension would be punishment enough.
De la Cruz vs. Court of Appeals
[G.R. No. 126183, March 25, 1999]

Facts:
Petitioners are public school teachers from various schools in Metro Manila who were
simultaneously charged, preventively suspended, and eventually dismissed in October 1990 by
the Secretary of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) in connection with the
administrative complaints filed before its office by their respective principals for participating in a
mass action/strike and subsequently defying the return-to-work order by DECS constituting grave
misconduct., gross neglect of duty, gross violation of Civil Service Law, Rules and Regulations
and reasonable office regulations, refusal to perform official duty, gross insubordination conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of the service and absence without official leave (AWOL), in
violation of Presidential Decree 807, otherwise known as the Civil Service Decree of the
Philippines. Petitioners contend they are merely participating in a peaceful assembly to petition
the government for redress of their grievances in the exercise of their constitutional right and
insist their assembly does not constitutes as a strike as there is no actual disruption of classes.

Issue:
Whether or not the petitioners exercise of their right to freedom to assembly and petition were
valid.

Held:
The court held that previous jurisprudence laid down a rule that public teachers in the exercise of
their right to ventilate their grievances by petitioning the government for redress should be done
within reasonable limits so as not to prejudice the public welfare. The conduct of mass protests
during school days while abandoning classes is highly prejudicial to the best interest of public
service. The court stresses that teachers are penalized not because they exercised their right to
peaceably assemble but because of the manner by which such right was exercised, i.e., going on
unauthorized and unilateral absences thus disrupting classes in various schools in Metro Manila
which produced adverse effects upon the students for whose education the teachers were
responsible.

PBM Employees Association vs. Philippine Blooming Mills

[G.R. No. L-31195, June 5, 1973]

Facts:
The petitioner Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization (PBMEO) is a legitimate labor
union composed of the employees of the respondent Philippine Blooming Mills Co., Inc., and
petitioners. Benjamin Pagcu and Rodulfo Munsod are officers and members of the petitioner
Union. Petitioners claim that on March 1, 1969, they decided to stage a mass demonstration at
Malacaang on March 4, 1969, in protest against alleged abuses of the Pasig police. PBMEO
thru Pagcu confirmed the planned demonstration and stated that the demonstration or rally
cannot be cancelled because it has already been agreed upon in the meeting. Pagcu explained
further that the demonstration has nothing to do with the Company because the union has no
quarrel or dispute with Management. The Management, thru Atty. C.S. de Leon, Company
personnel manager, informed PBMEO that the demonstration is an inalienable right of the union
guaranteed by the Constitution but emphasized that any demonstration for that matter should not
unduly prejudice the normal operation of the Company. Workers who without previous leave of
absence approved by the Company, particularly , the officers present who are the organizers of
the demonstration, who shall fail to report for work the following morning shall be dismissed,
because such failure is a violation of the existing CBA and, therefore, would be amounting to an
illegal strike. Because the petitioners and their members numbering about 400 proceeded with
the demonstration despite the pleas of the respondent Company that the first shift workers
should not be required to participate in the demonstration and that the workers in the second and
third shifts should be utilized for the demonstration from 6 A.M. to 2 P.M. on March 4, 1969, filed a
charge against petitioners and other employees who composed the first shift, for a violation of
Republic Act No. 875(Industrial Peace Act), and of the CBA providing for 'No Strike and No
Lockout.' Petitioners were held guilty in by CIR for bargaining in bad faith, hence this appeal.

Issue:
Whether or Not the petitioners right to freedom of speech and to peaceable assemble violated.

Held:
Yes. A constitutional or valid infringement of human rights requires a more stringent criterion,
namely existence of a grave and immediate danger of a substantive evil which the State has the
right to prevent. This is not present in the case. It was to the interest herein private respondent
firm to rally to the defense of, and take up the cudgels for, its employees, so that they can report
to work free from harassment, vexation or peril and as consequence perform more efficiently their
respective tasks enhance its productivity as well as profits. Herein respondent employer did not
even offer to intercede for its employees with the local police. In seeking sanctuary behind their
freedom of expression well as their right of assembly and of petition against alleged persecution
of local officialdom, theemployees and laborers of herein private respondent firm were fighting for
their very survival, utilizing only the weapons afforded them by the Constitution the
untrammelled enjoyment of their basic human rights. The pretension of their employer that it
would suffer loss or damage by reason of the absence of its employees from 6 o'clock in the
morning to 2 o'clock in the afternoon, is a plea for the preservation merely of their property rights.
The employees' pathetic situation was a stark reality abused, harassment and persecuted as
they believed they were by thepeace officers of the municipality. As above intimated, the
condition in which the employees found themselves vis-a-vis the local police of Pasig, was a
matter that vitally affected their right to individual existence as well as that of their families.
Material loss can be repaired or adequately compensated. The debasement of the human being
broken in morale and brutalized in spirit-can never be fully evaluated in monetary terms. As
heretofore stated, the primacy of human rights freedom of expression, of peaceful assembly
and of petition for redress of grievances over property rights has been sustained. To regard
the demonstration against policeofficers, not against the employer, as evidence of bad faith in
collective bargaining and hence a violation of the collective bargaining agreement and a cause
for the dismissal from employment of the demonstratingemployees, stretches unduly the
compass of the collective bargainingagreement, is "a potent means of inhibiting speech" and
therefore inflicts a moral as well as mortal wound on the constitutional guarantees of free
expression, of peaceful assembly and of petition. Circulation is one of the aspects of freedom of
expression. If demonstrators are reduced by one-third, then by that much the circulation of the
Issue raised by the demonstration is diminished. The more the participants, the more persons
can be apprised of the purpose of the rally. Moreover, the absence of one-third of their members
will be regarded as a substantial indication of disunity in their ranks which will enervate their
position and abet continued alleged police persecution.

Bayan vs. Ermita

[G.R. No. 169838, April 25, 2006]

Facts:
The petitioners, Bayan, et al., alleged that they are citizens and taxpayers of the Philippines and
that their right as organizations and individuals were violated when the rally they participated in
on October 6, 2005 was violently dispersed by policemen implementing Batas Pambansa No.
880.

Petitioners contended that Batas Pambansa No. 880 is clearly a violation of the Constitution and
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and other human rights treaties of which
the Philippines is a signatory. They argue that B.P. No. 880 requires a permit before one can
stage a public assembly regardless of the presence or absence of a clear and present danger. It
also curtails the choice of venue and is thus repugnant to the freedom of expression clause as
the time and place of a public assembly form part of the message which the expression is
sought. Furthermore, it is not content-neutral as it does not apply to mass actions in support of
the government. The words lawful cause, opinion, protesting or influencing suggest the
exposition of some cause not espoused by the government. Also, the phrase maximum
tolerance shows that the law applies to assemblies against the government because they are
being tolerated. As a content-based legislation, it cannot pass the strict scrutiny test. This petition
and two other petitions were ordered to be consolidated on February 14, 2006. During the course
of oral arguments, the petitioners, in the interest of a speedy resolution of the petitions, withdrew
the portions of their petitions raising factual issues, particularly those raising the issue of whether
B.P. No. 880 and/or CPR is void as applied to the rallies of September 20, October 4, 5 and 6,
2005.

Issue:
Whether the Calibrated Pre-emptive response and the Batas Pambansa No. 880, specifically
Sections 4, 5, 6, 12, 13(a) and 14(a) violates Art. III Sec. 4 of the Philippine Constitution as it
causes a disturbing effect on the exercise by the people of the right to peaceably assemble.

Held:
Section 4 of Article III of the Philippine Constitution provides that no law shall be passed abridging
the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances. The right to peaceably
assemble and petition for redress of grievances, together with freedom of speech, of expression,
and of the press, is a right that enjoys dominance in the sphere of constitutional protection. For
this rights represent the very basis of a functional democratic polity, without which all the other
rights would be meaningless and unprotected.

However, it must be remembered that the right, while sacrosanct, is not absolute. It may be
regulated that it shall not be injurious to the equal enjoyment of others having equal rights, nor
injurious to the rights of the community or society. The power to regulate the exercise of such and
other constitutional rights is termed the sovereign police power, which is the power to prescribe
regulations, to promote the health, morals, peace, education, good order or safety, and general
welfare of the people.

B.P. No 880 is not an absolute ban of public assemblies but a restriction that simply regulates the
time, place and manner of the assemblies. B.P. No. 880 thus readily shows that it refers to all
kinds of public assemblies that would use public places. The reference to lawful cause does not
make it content-based because assemblies really have to be for lawful causes, otherwise they
would not be peaceable and entitled to protection. Neither the words opinion, protesting, and
influencing in of grievances come from the wording of the Constitution, so its use cannot be
avoided. Finally, maximum tolerance is for the protection and benefit of all rallyist and is
independent of the content of the expression in the rally.
Furthermore, the permit can only be denied on the ground of clear and present danger to public
order, public safety, public convenience, public morals or public health. This is a recognized
exception to the exercise of the rights even under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Wherefore, the petitions are GRANTED in part, and respondents, more particularly the Secretary
of the Interior and Local Governments, are DIRECTED to take all necessary steps for the
immediate compliance with Section 15 of Batas Pambansa No. 880 through the establishment or
designation of at least one suitable freedom park or plaza in every city and municipality of the
country. After thirty (30) days from the finality of this Decision, subject to the giving of advance
notices, no prior permit shall be required to exercise the right to peaceably assemble and petition
in the public parks or plaza in every city or municipality that has not yet complied with section 15
of the law. Furthermore, Calibrated pre-emptive response (CPR), insofar as it would purport to
differ from or be in lieu of maximum tolerance, is NULL and VOID and respondents are
ENJOINED to REFRAIN from using it and to STRICTLY OBSERVE the requirements of
maximum tolerance, The petitions are DISMISSED in all other respects, and the constitutionality
of Batas Pambansa No. 880 is SUSTAINED

BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 880

AN ACT ENSURING THE FREE EXERCISE BY THE PEOPLE OF THEIR RIGHT

PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE AND PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR OTHER
PURPOSES

Section 1. Title - This Act shall be known as "The Public Assembly Act of 1985."

Section 2. Declaration of policy - The constitutional right of the people peaceably to assemble
and petition the government for redress of grievances is essential and vital to the strength and
stability of the State. To this end, the State shall ensure the free exercise of such right without
prejudice to the rights of others to life, liberty and equal protection of the law.

Section 3. Definition of terms - For purposes of this Act:

(a) "Public assembly" means any rally, demonstration, march, parade, procession or any
other form of mass or concerted action held in a public place for the purpose of presenting a
lawful cause; or expressing an opinion to the general public on any particular issue; or protesting
or influencing any state of affairs whether political, economic or social; or petitioning the
government for redress of grievances.

The processions, rallies, parades, demonstrations, public meetings and assemblages for
religious purposes shall be governed by local ordinances: Provided, however, That the
declaration of policy as provided in Section 2 of this Act shall be faithfully observed.

The definition herein contained shall not include picketing and other concerted action in strike
areas by workers and employees resulting from a labor dispute as defined by the Labor Code, its
implementing rules and regulations, and by the Batas Pambansa Bilang 227.

(b) "Public place" shall include any highway, boulevard, avenue, road, street, bridge or other
thoroughfare, park, plaza, square, and/or any open space of public ownership where the people
are allowed access.
(c) "Maximum tolerance" means the highest degree of restraint that the military, police and
other peace keeping authorities shall observe during a public assembly or in the dispersal of the
same.

(d) "Modification of permit" shall include the change of the place and time of the public
assembly, rerouting of the parade or street march, the volume of loud-speakers or sound system
and similar changes.

Section 4. Permit when required and when not required - A written permit shall be required for
any person or persons to organize and hold a public assembly in a public place. However, no
permit shall be required if the public assembly shall be done or made in a freedom park duly
established by law or ordinance or in private property, in which case only the consent of the
owner or the one entitled to its legal possession is required, or in the campus of a government-
owned and operated educational institution which shall be subject to the rules and regulations of
said educational institution. Political meetings or rallies held during any election campaign period
as provided for by law are not covered by this Act.

Section 5. Application requirements - All applications for a permit shall comply with the
following guidelines:

(a) The applications shall be in writing and shall include the names of the leaders or
organizers; the purpose of such public assembly; the date, time and duration thereof, and place
or streets to be used for the intended activity; and the probable number of persons participating,
the transport and the public address systems to be used.

(b) The application shall incorporate the duty and responsibility of applicant under Section 8
hereof.

(c) The application shall be filed with the office of the mayor of the city or municipality in
whose jurisdiction the intended activity is to be held, at least five (5) working days before the
scheduled public assembly.

(d) Upon receipt of the application, which must be duly acknowledged in writing, the office of
the city or municipal mayor shall cause the same to immediately be posted at a conspicuous
place in the city or municipal building.

Section 6. Action to be taken on the application -

(a) It shall be the duty of the mayor or any official acting in his behalf to issue or grant a permit
unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the public assembly will create a clear and
present danger to public order, public safety, public convenience, public morals or public health.

(b) The mayor or any official acting in his behalf shall act on the application within two (2)
working days from the date the application was filed, failing which, the permit shall be deemed
granted. Should for any reason the mayor or any official acting in his behalf refuse to accept the
application for a permit, said application shall be posted by the applicant on the premises of the
office of the mayor and shall be deemed to have been filed.

(c) If the mayor is of the view that there is imminent and grave danger of a substantive evil
warranting the denial or modification of the permit, he shall immediately inform the applicant who
must be heard on the matter.
(d) The action on the permit shall be in writing and served on the application within twenty-
four hours.

(e) If the mayor or any official acting in his behalf denies the application or modifies the terms
thereof in his permit, the applicant may contest the decision in an appropriate court of law.

(f) In case suit is brought before the Metropolitan Trial Court, the Municipal Trial Court, the
Municipal Circuit Trial Court, the Regional Trial Court, or the Intermediate Appellate Court, its
decisions may be appealed to the appropriate court within forty-eight (48) hours after receipt of
the same. No appeal bond and record on appeal shall be required. A decision granting such
permit or modifying it in terms satisfactory to the applicant shall, be immediately executory.

(g) All cases filed in court under this Section shall be decided within twenty-four (24) hours
from date of filing. Cases filed hereunder shall be immediately endorsed to the executive judge
for disposition or, in his absence, to the next in rank.

(h) In all cases, any decision may be appealed to the Supreme Court.

(i) Telegraphic appeals to be followed by formal appeals are hereby allowed.

Section 7. Use of public thoroughfare - Should the proposed public assembly involve the use,
for an appreciable length of time, of any public highway, boulevard, avenue, road or street, the
mayor or any official acting in his behalf may, to prevent grave public inconvenience, designate
the route thereof which is convenient to the participants or reroute the vehicular traffic to another
direction so that there will be no serious or undue interference with the free flow of commerce
and trade.

Section 8. Responsibility of applicant - It shall be the duty and responsibility of the leaders
and organizers of a public assembly to take all reasonable measures and steps to the end that
the intended public assembly shall be conducted peacefully in accordance with the terms of the
permit. These shall include but not be limited to the following:

(a) To inform the participants of their responsibility under the permit;

(b) To police the ranks of the demonstrators in order to prevent non-demonstrators from
disrupting the lawful activities of the public assembly;

(c) To confer with local government officials concerned and law enforcers to the end that the
public assembly may be held peacefully;

(d) To see to it that the public assembly undertaken shall not go beyond the time stated in the
permit; and

(e) To take positive steps that demonstrators do not molest any person or do any act unduly
interfering with the rights of other persons not participating in the public assembly.

Section 9. Non-interference by law enforcement authorities - Law enforcement agencies shall

not interfere with the holding of a public assembly. However, to adequately ensure public safety, a
law enforcement contingent under the command of a responsible police officer may be detailed
and stationed in a place at least one hundred (100) meter away from the area of activity ready to
maintain peace and order at all times.
Section 10. Police assistance when requested - It shall be imperative for law enforcement
agencies, when their assistance is requested by the leaders or organizers, to perform their duties
always mindful that their responsibility to provide proper protection to those exercising their right
peaceably to assemble and the freedom of expression is primordial. Towards this end, law
enforcement agencies shall observe the following guidelines:

(a) Members of the law enforcement contingent who deal with the demonstrators shall be in
complete uniform with their nameplates and units to which they belong displayed prominently on
the front and dorsal parts of their uniform and must observe the policy of "maximum tolerance" as
herein defined;

(b) The members of the law enforcement contingent shall not carry any kind of firearms but
may be equipped with baton or riot sticks, shields, crash helmets with visor, gas masks, boots or
ankle high shoes with shin guards;

(c) Tear gas, smoke grenades, water cannons, or any similar anti-riot device shall not be
used unless the public assembly is attended by actual violence or serious threats of violence, or
deliberate destruction of property.

Section 11. Dispersal of public assembly with permit - No public assembly with a permit shall
be dispersed. However, when an assembly becomes violent, the police may disperse such public
assembly as follows:

(a) At the first sign of impending violence, the ranking officer of the law enforcement
contingent shall call the attention of the leaders of the public assembly and ask the latter to
prevent any possible disturbance;

(b) If actual violence starts to a point where rocks or other harmful objects from the
participants are thrown at the police or at the non-participants, or at any property causing
damage to such property, the ranking officer of the law enforcement contingent shall audibly warn
the participants that if the disturbance persists, the public assembly will be dispersed;

(c) If the violence or disturbances prevailing as stated in the preceding subparagraph should
not stop or abate, the ranking officer of the law enforcement contingent shall audibly issue a
warning to the participants of the public assembly, and after allowing a reasonable period of time
to lapse, shall immediately order it to forthwith disperse;

(d) No arrest of any leader, organizer or participant shall also be made during the public
assembly unless he violates during the assembly a law, statute, ordinance or any provision of this
Act. Such arrest shall be governed by Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended:

(e) Isolated acts or incidents of disorder or branch of the peace during the public assembly
shall not constitute a group for dispersal.

Section 12. Dispersal of public assembly without permit - When the public assembly is held
without a permit where a permit is required, the said public assembly may be peacefully
dispersed.

Section 13. Prohibited acts - The following shall constitute violations of this Act:
(a) The holding of any public assembly as defined in this Act by any leader or organizer
without having first secured that written permit where a permit is required from the office
concerned, or the use of such permit for such purposes in any place other than those set out in
said permit: Provided, however, That no person can be punished or held criminally liable for
participating in or attending an otherwise peaceful assembly;

(b) Arbitrary and unjustified denial or modification of a permit in violation of the provisions of
this Act by the mayor or any other official acting in his behalf.

(c) The unjustified and arbitrary refusal to accept or acknowledge receipt of the application for
a permit by the mayor or any official acting in his behalf;

(d) Obstructing, impeding, disrupting or otherwise denying the exercise of the right to
peaceful assembly;

(e) The unnecessary firing of firearms by a member of any law enforcement agency or any
person to disperse the public assembly;

(f) Acts in violation of Section 10 hereof;

(g) Acts described hereunder if committed within one hundred (100) meters from the area of
activity of the public assembly or on the occasion thereof;

1. the carrying of a deadly or offensive weapon or device such as firearm, pillbox, bomb, and
the like;

2. the carrying of a bladed weapon and the like;

3 the malicious burning of any object in the streets or thoroughfares;

4. the carrying of firearms by members of the law enforcement unit;

5. the interfering with or intentionally disturbing the holding of a public assembly by the use
of a motor vehicle, its horns and loud sound systems.

Section 14. Penalties - Any person found guilty and convicted of any of the prohibited acts
defined in the immediately preceding Section shall be punished as follows:

(a) violation of subparagraph (a) shall be punished by imprisonment of one month and one
day to six months;

(b) violations of subparagraphs (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), and item 4, subparagraph (g) shall be
punished by imprisonment of six months and one day to six years;

(c) violation of item 1, subparagraph (g) shall be punished by imprisonment of six months and
one day to six years without prejudice to prosecution under Presidential Decree No. 1866;

(d) violations of item 2, item 3, or item 5 of subparagraph (g) shall be punished by

imprisonment of one day to thirty days.

Section 15. Freedom parks - Every city and municipality in the country shall within six months
after the effectivity of this Act establish or designate at least one suitable "freedom park" or mall in
their respective jurisdictions which, as far as practicable, shall be centrally located within the
poblacion where demonstrations and meetings may be held at any time without the need of any
prior permit.

In the cities and municipalities of Metropolitan Manila, the respective mayors shall establish the
freedom parks within the period of six months from the effectivity of this Act.

Section 16. Constitutionality - Should any provision of this Act be declared invalid or
unconstitutional, the validity or constitutionality of the other provisions shall not be affected
thereby.

Section 17. Repealing clause - All laws, decrees, letters of instructions, resolutions, orders,
ordinances or parts thereof which are inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby
repealed, amended, or modified accordingly.

Section 18. Effectivity - This Act shall take effect upon its approval.

Approved, October 22, 1985.