For example, Tignan nyo ito:
Under BP 880, once the mayors do not act on applications to stage a rally within two days, the application is deemed approved. In such event, maximum tolerance is applied.
Ang problema dito is that if you don't have a permit to show to the police, madi-disperse ka pa rin, kahit na "automatically deemed approved" na yung permit application mo (dahil lumampas na ng dalawang araw na hindi in-aksyonan ng mayor ang request mo.)
Kasi eto ang sabi ng pulis ni Arroyo: PNP will still disperse illegal street protests
2ND UPDATE) POLICE will still disperse street protests without permits or those that obstruct traffic flow, a police spokesman said following a Supreme Court ruling declaring Malacañang’s calibrated preemptive response (CPR) as unconstitutional.
Even without CPR, police could still invoke Batas Pambansa 880 or the Public Assembly Act, which bans demonstrations without permits, except in designated freedom parks, Senior Superintendent Samuel Pagdilao Jr. said Tuesday.
"Rallies without permits are banned… They can be dispersed," Pagdilao said in a phone interview.
At least nung panahon nina Erap, Ramos at Cory, pwede kang magrally sa kalsada ng Mendiola, Makati at Edsa, ano? Ngayon, virtually bawal na siya.
More here from Atty Ted Te.
(UPDATE: Pwede na kayang magbigay ng rally permits ulit si Mayor Binay ng Makati. Last year kasi, Arroyo suspended Binay's powers to issue rally permits eh, even though we had two huge and peaceful anti-Arroyo rallies in makati before CPR became policy.)
Read this too from Jose Sison (thanks to Baycas for the tip):
MANILA, October 14, 2005 (STAR) (KEEPS TROUBLE AWAY) By Jose C. Sison - One of the guarantees inviolably enshrined in the Bill of Rights of the past and present constitutions of our republic is that "No Law shall be passed abridging…the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for redress of grievances". "Abridge" in any parlance and as used in this Constitutional provision simply means to "curtail, cut down, prune or reduce". Thus in the case of J.B.L. Reyes vs. Bagatsing (GR 65366, November 9, 1983), our Supreme Court (SC) declared that the presumption "must be to incline the weight of the scales of justice on the side of such right (of free speech and peaceful assembly), enjoying as they do precedence and primacy". The SC went as far as to stress that "it is settled law that as to public places, especially so as to parks and streets, there is freedom of access". In fact in the much earlier case of Primicias vs. Fugoso (80 Phil. 71), the Supreme Court categorically declared that the right to assemble is not subject to prior restraint. It may not be conditioned upon issuance of a permit, although if it is to be held in a pubic place, a permit for the use of the place, not of the assembly itself may be validly required. Hence in Ruiz vs. Gordon 126 SCRA 241, the SC reaffirmed and reproduces the guidelines laid down in the Reyes case to be followed by the licensing authorities, generally the city or town mayors. In his separate opinion then Justice Teehankee said that "the granting of such permits for the exercise of a fundamental right, absent any clear or present danger, is after all practically a ministerial duty. The burden to show the existence of such grave and imminent danger that would justify an adverse action lies on the mayor as licensing authority". And if he is of "the view that there is such an imminent and grave danger of a substantive evil, the applicants must be heard on the matter". Underscoring the ruling in the Reyes case, the SC further said that the exercise of this right "is not to be abridged on the plea that it may be exercised in some other place".
Reyes and Ruiz were decided at the height of the rallies and demonstrations during the Marcos era following the Ninoy Aquino assassination. And due to such rulings people enjoyed ample freedom in the exercise of this right even under an admittedly more repressive regime. Compared to the present rallies, the rallies at that time were generally more peaceful and orderly. The reasons were obvious. The Mayors then invariably granted the permits, as a rule, cognizant of the settled doctrine that the power to issue permits should be used merely as means to regulate rather than a pretext to preclude the holding of rallies. In fact the SC even observed in the Ruiz case following the Reyes ruling, that the then Mayor of Manila, Ramon Bagatsing, "granted all subsequent applications for such permits, ensuring only that there be no conflict in the scheduling of such assemblies and thereby eliminated the need for the applicant’s having to go to court". At present however, the Mayors apparently found more leeway in their licensing power under the Public Assembly Act (B.P. 880) passed by the Marcos Batasan in 1985. Under said act, permit is required for all rallies in public places except in designated freedom parks, in the campus of a government owned and operated educational institution, and of course in private places which only requires the owner’s permission. While the Act provides that denial of the permit may be justified only upon clear and convincing evidence that the public assembly will create a clear and present danger to public order, safety, convenience, morals or health, it did not expressly place the burden on the licensing authority to submit such proof. Hence, permits may be denied solely on the Mayor’s own appraisal of what public order, peace or safety may require, as what is happening now. Besides, B.P. 880 requires the mayors to designate within six months from its passage the freedom parks where rallies can be held. But up to now, nobody knows for sure where these freedom parks are. There is an area in front of Malacañang long known as "Freedom Park", but who will believe that rallyists can assemble there when they can’t even pass through Mendiola because of CPR?
"Calibrated Preemptive Response" (CPR) is actually the bigger cause of the less peaceful and more disorderly rallies happening now. Its justification seems plausible because it is directed only against street protesters without permits. But this "no permit, no rally" policy sounds good and looks unassailable only if the granting or denial of the rally permits is not susceptible to abuse or arbitrariness that consumes time to redress or remedy. In fact CPR precisely deprives people arbitrarily denied a permit to rally, the right to air their grievance against such arbitrary denial. The very word "preemptive" connotes prior restraint that is repugnant to the exercise of this right. And it becomes more oppressive if the denial is done by the local officials sympathetic to the party against whom the rally is directed. Riskier still is the physical confrontation engendered by the CPR. Frontal clashes between human beings vulnerable to uncontrollable passions and emotions may lead to consequences as dire as lawless violence, insurrection or rebellion. With CPR in place, the Philippines is virtually sitting on a power keg.
The administration should therefore rethink its policy on CPR. B.P. 880 itself says that if it becomes necessary to maintain order, law enforcers must be at least 100 meters away from the assembly. If they assemble despite being justly denied a permit, charges could simply be filed in court and arrest of the leaders thereafter made by virtue of a warrant. The ranks of rallyists are anyway dwindling as to be a threat to National Security. In fact during the Marcos time, "maximum tolerance" was the policy adopted. Physical confrontations in prohibited zones were avoided more by putting up barb wires instead of deploying humans whose response may not be as calibrated as envisioned by the CPR policy makers.
Pwede kayang gamitin yung "Freedom Park" sa may Malacanang? ;)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment