KEMBAR78
Reyes vs. Bagatsing | PDF | First Amendment To The United States Constitution | Freedom Of Speech
Scribd
Upload
139 views2 pages

Reyes vs. Bagatsing

The petitioner sought a permit from Manila to hold a peaceful march and rally but the request was denied over security concerns. The Supreme Court ruled that the denial was unconstitutional as there was no clear and present danger to justify restricting the freedom of speech and right to peaceably assemble. While dissenting, the majority found that historic public places like Luneta are open for lawful assembly and discussion of public issues. Even if an ordinance was violated, it did not allow the respondent to deny the permit without valid justification under the Constitution.

Uploaded by

Reah Vannessa Talaña
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
139 views2 pages

Reyes vs. Bagatsing

The petitioner sought a permit from Manila to hold a peaceful march and rally but the request was denied over security concerns. The Supreme Court ruled that the denial was unconstitutional as there was no clear and present danger to justify restricting the freedom of speech and right to peaceably assemble. While dissenting, the majority found that historic public places like Luneta are open for lawful assembly and discussion of public issues. Even if an ordinance was violated, it did not allow the respondent to deny the permit without valid justification under the Constitution.

Uploaded by

Reah Vannessa Talaña
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Reyes vs.

Bagatsing,

G.R. No. L-65366 November 9, 1983

Facts: Petitioner 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 to
the gates of the United States Embassy. Once there, a short program would be held.
The march would be attended by the local and foreign participants of such conference.
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 by it "to ensure a
peaceful march and rally. However, the request was denied. Reference was made to
persistent intelligence reports affirming the plans of subversive/criminal elements to
infiltrate or disrupt any assembly or congregations where a large number of people is
expected to attend. Respondent suggested that a permit may be issued if it is to be held
at the Rizal Coliseum or any other enclosed area where the safety of the participants
may be ensured. An oral argument was heard and the mandatory injunction was
granted on the ground that there was no showing of the existence of a clear and present
danger of a substantive evil that could justify the denial of a permit. However Justice
Aquino dissented that the rally is violative of Ordinance No. 7295 of the City of Manila.

Issue:

WON the freedom of expression and the right to peaceably assemble violated.

Held:

Yes. 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 is no limitation on the exercise of this
right, except in the presence of a serious evil to public safety, public morals, public
health, or any other legitimate public interest. There was no justification to deny the right
to freedom of peaceable assembly and the right to free speech, as there was absence
of clear and present danger of a substantive, evil to a legitimate public interest. It is
settled law that as to public places, especially so as to parks and streets, there is
freedom of access. Nor is their use dependent on who is the applicant for the permit,
whether an individual or a group. Time immemorial Luneta has been used for purposes
of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public
questions. Such use of the public places has from ancient times, been a part of the
privileges, immunities, rights, and liberties of citizens. With regard to the ordinance,
there was no showing that there was violation and even if it could be shown that such a
condition is satisfied it does not follow that respondent could legally act the way he did.
The validity of his denial of the permit sought could still be challenged.

You might also like