HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH

Denial of Permit to Rally Unlawful – Constitutionalist

A constitutional law professor says that even with the no-permit-no-rally policy, applications for permits to rally cannot be denied. In another interview, an activist leader said that the policy – a Marcos edict - reflects the “extreme paranoia” of a government increasingly isolated from the public.

BY ALEXANDER MARTIN REMOLLINO
Bulatlat

Taking issues to the streets is a legal form of protest. But instead of respecting this right, government has resorted to ways both cruel and unusual as cause-oriented groups and individuals try to send their message across to motorists and passers-by.

For instance, the Alliance of Health Workers (AHW) and the Health Alliance for Democracy (HEAD) were supposed to observe Health Workers’ Day last May 6 with a rally at the foot of the Chino Roces Bridge in Manila, near the presidential palace. However, they were stopped by the anti-riot police before they could even leave the Philippine General Hospital (PGH), the country’s main state hospital, where they had assembled. They were then forced to hold a program within the PGH compound.

Police truncheon ralliers during April 7 dispersal in Malate, Manila Bulatlat File Photo

The police claimed that the demonstrators’ application for a permit to rally remained unapproved by the Manila City Hall until the day of the rally itself.

BP 880

The no-permit-no-rally policy is based on Batas Pambansa (BP) 880 or the Public Assembly Act of 1985. Sec. 6, paragraph (a) of BP 880 – enacted during martial law - provides that an application for a permit to rally should be acted upon within two working days by the mayor of the city or municipality where a rally is to be held, after which the permit is deemed granted.

In Manila, the recent cases of violent dispersal were the April 7, 2005 rally led by Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan, or New Patriotic Alliance) in Malate and the July 13, 2004 prayer rally at the Plaza Miranda in Quiapo. Both rallies protested against the U.S.-led wars of aggression.

Amie Dural, secretary-general of the Promotion of Church People’s Response (PCPR) whose members were among those hurt in the April 7 dispersal, recalled in an interview with Bulatlat that Bayan applied for a permit to rally in front of the Philippine International Convention Center (PICC) where a summit of the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) was being held that same day. The permit was denied, she said.

In the case of the July 13, 2004 rally, it was held in a venue declared a freedom park during the presidency of Corazon Aquino.

Reyes v. Bagatsing

Lawyer Marvic Leonen, who teaches Constitutional Law at the University of the Philippines (UP), said in a separate interview with Bulatlat that even with BP 880, the government cannot deny applications for permits to rally.

Leonen, who is also UP’s legal counsel, cited the case of Reyes v. Bagatsing, in which the Supreme Court (SC) said that freedom of speech cannot be suppressed, but if ever the streets are to be used for the exercise of this right, the State can only regulate as to time and place. “In other words, there is supposed to be a balance between the rights of those who traverse the streets and the rights of the ralliers,” Leonen said.

“The application for a permit to rally should not be denied, but there should only be regulation on time and place,” he added.

Regarding rallies held without permit, Leonen said that police should not automatically use force to disperse ralliers. “There should be negotiations first,” he explained. “But if all attempts at negotiation have failed and the situation turns violent, the police could use force to disperse the rally, but the force should be calibrated – not excessive.”

Dispersal without negotiation

Dural recalled that the April 7 rally was dispersed without negotiation. Scores of protesters were reported hurt in the dispersal, including PCPR chairman Fr. Allan Jose Arcebuche, who sustained head and body injuries. Also injured were a few journalists who covered the event, including Bulatlat’s Ronald Escanlar, who held his press ID card when police truncheoned him and tried to drag him away.

In rallies held at freedom parks, Leonen said that they should not be dispersed even when the rallyers have no permit. Manila police cited the absence of a permit to rally in explaining why the July 13, 2004 rally at Plaza Miranda was dispersed with force. Several protesters were hurt during the dispersal, including Bayan chairperson Dr. Carol Araullo, who sustained a head wound that needed seven stitches.

“Extreme paranoia”

Dural said that the emphasis presently being placed on the no-permit-no-rally policy reflects the “extreme paranoia” of the Macapagal-Arroyo administration on demonstrations.

She also observed that in previous administrations, there were several rallies without permit that were met with tolerance from the authorities, unlike today. “This is because there are so many reasons for the people to protest these days,” she said.

A survey by the socio-economic think tank IBON Foundation revealed that 58 percent of the respondents wanted a change in the national leadership.

Last January, the Social Weather Station (SWS) released the results of its survey for last year’s fourth quarter, revealing the prevalence of pessimism among Filipinos. This situation previously occurred only in 1984 (a year after the assassination of former Sen. Benigno Aquino, Jr.), in September-October 2000 (the Juetenggate expose against then President Joseph Estrada), and in March 2003 (the outbreak of the U.S.-led war on Iraq, which the Macapagal-Arroyo administration supported). Ferdinand Marcos, who was president in 1984, was deposed through a popular uprising two years later; Estrada suffered the same fate in 2001.

“We are no longer surprised that the government would do everything to suppress the people’s rights these days,” Dural said. Bulatlat