Title:
Jose B.L. Reyes, in behalf of the Anti-Bases Coalition v. Ramon Bagatsing, Mayor of
Manila
G.R. No. L-65366, November 9, 1983 (125 SCRA 553)
Ponente: Chief Justice Enrique M. Fernando
Facts:
Retired Justice J. B. L. Reyes, representing the Anti-Bases Coalition (ABC), filed for a
permit on October 26, 1983, to hold a peaceful march and rally starting at Luneta
Park and ending near the U.S. Embassy. Participants included local and foreign
delegates from an international conference on disarmament and base removal. A short
program and petition handover were planned.
The Mayor of Manila, Ramon Bagatsing, denied the permit—citing police intelligence
reports warning of subversive infiltration and suggesting relocation to an enclosed venue
like Rizal Coliseum. The denial, sent via ordinary mail, failed to reach the petitioner in
time
ABC petitioned for mandamus, alternatively a preliminary mandatory injunction,
arguing that denial violated constitutional guarantees of free speech and peaceable
assembly.
Issue:
Did the denial of the rally permit, based on speculative intelligence reports and
proximity to a foreign mission, infringe constitutional rights to freedom of speech and
peaceable assembly?
Was there a clear and present danger justifying the restriction?
Did Ordinance No. 7295 (prohibiting rallies within 500 feet of foreign embassies), under
the Vienna Convention, validly limit these rights?
Held:
Yes: The Supreme Court granted the mandatory injunction, ruling that the right to
assemble and speak was impermissibly suppressed.
There was no clear and present danger of substantive evil warranted to override these
rights, and mere intelligence warnings were insufficient.
No conclusive proof showed that the area was within 500 feet of the embassy, and even if
it were, the ordinance could not override constitutional protections absent imminent risk.
Conclusion:
The petition was granted, and the Mayor was ordered to issue the rally permit. The Court
reaffirmed the supremacy of constitutional rights—applying the clear and present danger test
as the threshold standard before any government authority may restrict peaceful dissent in public
spaces.
✅ Why This Falls Under Constitutional Law
1. Fundamental Rights – At its core, the case protects the constitutional rights to free
speech and assembly under the Bill of Rights.
2. Judicial Review & Protective Standard – The Court enforced the clear and present
danger standard, limiting state discretion in balancing civil liberties and security.
3. International Law and Constitutional Incorporation – It applied Article 22 of the
Vienna Convention (an international diplomatic protocol), invoking the constitutional
doctrine that generally accepted rules of international law are part of the law of the
land, yet subordinate to constitutional rights when conflict arises.
4. Scope of Local Ordinances – The decision limited local ordinances (like Manila’s ban
on protests near embassies) when they impinge on constitutionally protected conduct—
reinforcing the Constitution’s primacy over municipal ordinances.
5. Doctrine of Access to Public Spaces – It reinforced the constitutional principle that
public streets, parks, and plazas are open forums for expression, unless narrowly
justified otherwise.
This case led to the concept of “freedom parks” and was codified in Batas Pambansa Blg. 880
(Public Assembly Act of 1985), ensuring that peaceful public assembly cannot be unduly
restricted
