Bayan v Ermita W/N BP 880 violates Art 3, section 4 of the Constitution as it causes a
GR No. 169838 disturbing effect on the exercise by the people of the right to peaceably
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:
assemble. No.
Holding:
 BP 880 not an absolute ban of public assemblies, but a restriction
that simply regulates time, place and manner of assemblies.
Maximum tolerance is for the protection and benefit of all rallyists
and is independent of the content of the expressions in the rally.
 Permit can only be denied on the ground of clear and present
danger to Public order, public safety, convenience, morals or public
health. This is recognized as an exception to the exercise of the right
to assembly even under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Article 20
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly
and association.
xxx
Article 29
1. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the
free and full development of his personality is possible.
2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall
be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law
solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and
respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting
the just requirements of morality, public order and the
general welfare in a democratic society.
3. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised
contrary to the purposes and principles of the United
Nations.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights
Article 19.
1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without
interference.
 2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression;
this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers,
either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or
through any other media of his choice.
3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of
this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities.
It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these
shall only be such as are provided by law and are
necessary:
(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of
others;
(b) For the protection of national security or of
public order (order public), or of public health or
morals.
 Law is not overbroad, it regulates the exercise of the right to peaceful
assembly and petition only to the extent needed to avoid a clear and
present danger of the substantive evils Congress has the right to
prevent.
 CPR, however which is the same as the definition of maximum
tolerance (highest degree of restraint that the military, police and
other peacekeeping authorities shall observe during a public assembly
or in the dispersal of the same.) in the BP 880 has to be struck down
because it may entitle some of the police agents to justify abuses.

Judgment:
 Petition partly granted. BP 880 constitutional. CPR struck down.