Freedom of Assembly and Petition
The right to free and peaceful assembly protects the right of individuals and groups to meet and
to engage in peaceful protest. It is a right that has been safeguarded by our fundamental law
starting from the 1935 constitution and carried over until our present one without any significant
alteration. Clearly, it is a right corollary to the freedom for expression for it is a platform utilized
to effectively redress our concerns to the government. Quite arguably, there are other platforms
available to express such concerns and grievances, but it is through a collective voice that we
are better heard.
The Philippines is rich in occurrences where the Freedom of Assembly has been demonstrated dating
back to as early as Spanish colonial era. In contemporary times, EDSA has witnessed instances where the
Filipinos have voiced out their dissent and opposition against the country’s leaders. In 1986, millions of
civilian Filipinos as well as several political, religious and military groups have marched to topple a
dictator that has led the country for decades. In 2001, the millennium was welcomed by a series of
demonstrations calling for the resignation of President Estrada. Evidently, our history books are filled
with the Filipinos’ unwavering fire in making their voices heard and it has never been more exemplified
and utilized than in recent years.
Although subject to regulations, it is important to note that this right enjoys the freedom from being
subjected to restrictions. In this regard, it is important to distinguish the difference between regulations
and restrictions so as not to create confusion. To regulate means to fix, establish, control; to adjust by
rule, method or established mode. On the other hand, to restrict means to restrain within bounds; to
limit; to confine. While there is a thin line between the two, to subject a right to regulations does not
necessarily impede said rights it merely prescribes rules as to how such rights could be freely expressed
without causing injury to others or to other rights. Meanwhile, to restrict would involve the hindrance in
the enjoying certain rights either partially or in full.
In Primicias v. Fugoso1, the Supreme Court laid out the scope of a local authority’s power in regulating a
person’s right to peacefully assemble. In the said case, the petitioner sought from the office of the
respondent, a former Manila Mayor, a permit in order for their group to hold a peaceful public meeting
at Plaza Miranda. In refusing to grant the said permit, the respondent interposed an unfounded belief
that the said rally would breach public safety and order. In ruling in favor of the petitioner, the Court
held that the power of local authorities in releasing permits is to regulate and not to prohibit the people
from enjoying their right to assemble, to wit: “it does not confer upon the Mayor the power to refuse to
1
G.R. No. L-1800, January 27, 1948
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.”
Batas Pambansa Blg. 880 or the Public Assembly Assemly Act of 1985 protects the rights of the Filipino
people to assemble and to petition the government for redress of grievances. Under its declaration of
policy, it states that “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.” 2 Although this might be the case, it still did not
escape the careful scrutiny of the populace. In Bayan v. Ermita3, the petitioners claimed that the said law
violates a person’s constitutional right to assemble for requiring a permit before one could peaceably
assemble regardless of the presence of a clear and present danger. On the contrary, the Supreme Court
ruled that BP 880 does not impose of an absolute ban on public assemblies but rather, it only aims to
regulate the time, place and manner of the said assemblies.
Furthermore, BP 880 distinguishes the instances where a permit may be needed in order to publicly
assemble with those that doesn’t. Under Sec. 4 4 of herein law, a permit is needed when the place or
venue where a person seeks to assemble is a public place. On the other hand, a permit is no longer
necessary if the venue is a private property or in a freedom park. In the case of the latter, a law or
ordinance shall establish such in every municipality.
Since a public assembly also involves the public’s safety, it permits police presence near the vicinity
where a public meeting is held but directs the latter from observing “maximum tolerance” and prevents
them from using any kind of firearms. 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. 5
In Malabanan v. Romero6, the High Court discussed the importance of this right within the bounds of our
academic institutions and was even candid in saying that “the student’s right to peaceably assemble and
free speech were not shed at the school house gate”. In the said case, the student council officers of
private respondent school opposed the merger of two departments which would result to a possible
increase in the tuition fees. A permit to rally was granted to them by their school but the petitioners
went to carry their rally somewhere not specified in their permit. Thus, they underwent a preventive
2
Sec 2, Batas Pambansa Blg. 880
3
G.R. No. 169838, April 25, 2006
4
Supra.
5
Sec. 10, Supra
6
G.R. No. 62270, May 21, 1984
suspension imposed by their school administrators. In ruling in favor of the petitioner students, the
Supreme Court held that although it recognizes the authority of educational institutions in overseeing
the conduct of their students, such duty should not be violative of their constitutional rights.
On a more affectionate note, the Court went into saying that “If in the course of such demonstration,
with an enthusiastic audience goading them on, utterances, extremely critical, at times even vitriolic,
were let loose, that is quite understandable. Student leaders are hardly the timid, diffident types. They
are likely to be assertive and dogmatic. They would be ineffective if during a rally they speak in the
guarded and judicious language of the academe. At any rate, even a sympathetic audience is not
disposed to accord full credence to their fiery exhortations. They take into account the excitement of
the occasion, the propensity of speakers to exaggerate, the exuberance of youth. They may give the
speakers the benefit of their applause, but with the activity taking place in the school premises and
during the daytime, no clear and present danger of public disorder is discernible.
Although, the right to assemble and petition are free from prior restrictions and only subject to
regulations, just like any right under our constitution, it is not without its limits. Ideally, the test of a
lawful assembly should be the purpose for which it is held, regardless of the auspices under which it is
organized. For even if the organizers of the meeting be unquestionably lawful, the assembly will still be
illegal if its objective is, say, to incite sedition or rebellion. 7
This was better explained by the Court in their ruling in Dela Cruz v. Court of Appeals where a group of
teachers joined a mass action or a strike which resulted to their preventive suspension and eventual
dismissal. In affirming the resolutions resulting to their dismissal, the Supreme Court distinguished the
right to assemble from that of a strike. Although both involves mass action in order to redress
grievances, the latter involves stoppage of work which becomes injurious to others, in this case, to the
students of said teachers.
But it does not mean that holding a strike is prohibited under our jurisdiction. In fact, strikes are
acknowledged under our Labor Code as a valid means for workers to advocate for their issues and
concerns in collective bargaining or for their mutual benefit and protection. 8 Nevertheless, it is still
subject to the certain provisions of the law. One of which is Art. 264 of the Labor Code which says that
“No strike or lockout shall be declared after assumption of jurisdiction by the President or the Minister
7
Cruz
8
Art. 263 (b), Labor Code
or after certification or submission of the dispute to compulsory or voluntary arbitration or during the
pendency of cases involving the same grounds for the strike or lockout”
In Dela Cruz, it is important to note that the petitioners invoked in their favor the Court’s ruling in the
case of PBM Employeers Association v. Philippine Blooming Mills 9. In the latter case, petitioner employee
union held a mass demonstration at Malacanang in order to protest against the alleged abuses of the
Pasig Police. Their employer sought to cancel the said demonstration for it would interrupt their normal
course of business and would be violative of their Collective Bargaining Agreement. In ruling for the
petitioners, the Supreme Court highlighted that civil and political rights such as the freedom of
expression, assembly and petition occupy a more favorable position in the hierarchy of rights for they
are “essential to the preservation and vitality of our civil and political institutions; and such priority
"gives these liberties the sanctity and the sanction not permitting dubious intrusions."
However, in Dela Cruz, the Court said that the factual antecedents of their case are different from the
case of PBM Employees Assocation. For in their Dela Cruz, what is impeded in their stoppage of work is
the education of the youth which is a right wanting a higher consideration, whereas in PBMEA, what was
pitted against the right to freedom of expression, assembly and petition is a property right which is
regarded to occupy a lesser favorable place in the hierarchy of rights.
Indisputably, the right to assembly and petition are corollary in our right to freely express our grievances
against the government. It is eminent in a democratic country, such as ours, that the people are given
the platform to be heard and to participate in governance; and there is no better way to do that than if
the voices of the population are collective, in unison and unaltered.
Summary:
Our right to Assemble and Petition works hand in hand with our Freedom of Expression; it is thru this
right that our expression of concerns and grievances are amplified. It is important to note that although
the said right could not be subjected to prior restrictions, it is subject to certain regulations under BP
880. To regulate is not tantamount to restrict for the former only seeks to prescribe the manner by
which the said right could be better expressed without causing undue injury to others. But just like any
other right, it is not without its limits. In this regard, it is important to ascertain the purpose for which it
is to be held in order to determine its legality.
Current Events:
9
G.R. No. L-31195, June 5, 1973
With the insurgence of Covid-19, the government has released certain guidelines that aims to prevent
the fast spread of the said virus amongst the people. One of the prohibitions imposed by the
government was the holding of mass gatherings. Of course, it is in the very nature of our right to
assembly and petition to gather in masses. But if we are to weigh as to which has a heavier bearing and
deserves better focus between public safety and mass gatherings, without batting an eyelash, we could
easily say that public safety deserves more attention.
Annually, we celebrate our workforce through Labor Day held every 1 st of May. It has been a norm
during said day that different Labor movements march together to redress their concerns. But our most
recent celebration of Labor Day has been one for the books. Unlike previous years, protesters have
resorted to online protests via Zoom, Skype and other platforms. Indeed, necessity is the mother of
invention. The question now lies if online protests would fall under the scope of “assembly” as
safeguarded under our constitution? This goes without saying that online protests do not require “mass
gathering”. With online protests being an unchartered territory, we are of the opinion that, although it
does not necessarily fall under “assembly” in its most basic term, such right is still guarded under our
Freedom of Expression.
