CIPRIANO P. PRIMICIAS vs. VALERIANO E.

FUGOSO
G.R. No. L-1800, J9nu9ry 27, 1948
FERIA, J.:

FACTS:

This c)se is )n )ction of m)nd)mus instituted by petitioner Cipri)no Primici)s,

m)n)ger of the Co)lesced Minority P)rties, )g)inst respondent M)nil) City
M)yor, V)leri)no Fugoso, to compel the l)tter to issue ) permit for the holding
of ) public meeting )t the Pl)z) Mir)nd) on Nov 16, 1947. The
petitioner requested for ) permit to hold ) “pe)ceful public meeting”.

However, the respondent refused to issue such permit bec)use he found “th)t
there is ) re)son)ble ground to believe, b)sing upon previous utter)nces )nd
upon the f)ct th)t p)ssions, speci)lly on the p)rt of the losing groups, rem)ins
bitter )nd high, th)t simil)r speeches will be delivered tending to undermine
the f)ith )nd confidence of the people in their government, )nd in the duly
pe)ce )nd ) disruption of public order.” Respondent b)sed his refus)l to the
Revised Ordin)nces of 1927 prohibiting )s )n offense )g)inst public pe)ce,
)nd pen)lizes )s ) misdeme)nor, ")ny )ct, in )ny public pl)ce, meeting,
or procession, tending to disturb the pe)ce or excite ) riot; or collect with other
persons in ) body or crowd for )ny unl)wful purpose; or disturb or disquiet )ny
congreg)tion eng)ged in )ny l)wful )ssembly." Included herein is Sec. 1119,
Free use of Public Pl)ce.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the M)yor h)s the right to refuse to issue permit hence
viol)ting freedom of )ssembly.

HELD:

The )nswer is neg)tive. Supreme Court st)tes th)t the freedom of speech, )nd
to pe)cefully )ssemble )nd petition the government for redress of griev)nces,
)re fund)ment)l person)l rights of the people recognized )nd gu)r)nteed by
the constitution. However, these rights )re not )bsolute. They c)n be regul)ted
under the st)teʼs police power –th)t they should not be injurious to the equ)l
enjoyment of others h)ving equ)l rights, nor to the rights of the community or
society.

The Court holds th)t there c)n be 2 interpret)tions of Sec. 1119: 1) the M)yor
of the City of M)nil) is vested with unregul)ted discretion to gr)nt or refuse, to
gr)nt permit for the holding of ) l)wful )ssembly or meeting, p)r)de, or
procession in the streets )nd other public pl)ces of the City of M)nil); )nd 2)
The right of the M)yor is subject to re)son)ble discretion to determine or
specify the streets or public pl)ces to be used with the view to prevent
confusion by overl)pping, to secure convenient use of the streets )nd public
pl)ces by others, )nd to provide )dequ)te )nd proper policing to minimize the
risk of disorder.

The court f)vored the second construction since the first construction is
t)nt)mount to )uthorizing the M)yor to prohibit the use of the streets. Under
our democr)tic system of government no such unlimited power m)y be v)lidly
gr)nted to )ny officer of the government, except perh)ps in c)ses of n)tion)l
emergency. It is to be noted th)t the permit to be issued is for the use of public
pl)ces )nd not for the )ssembly itself.

The Court holds th)t the )ssembly is l)wful )nd thus c)nnot be struck down.
Fe)r of serious injury c)nnot )lone justify suppression of free speech )nd
)ssembly. It is the function of speech to free men from the bond)ge of
irr)tion)l fe)rs. To justify suppression of free speech there must be re)son)ble
ground to fe)r th)t serious evil will result if free speech is pr)cticed. There
must be re)son)ble ground to believe th)t the d)nger )pprehended is
imminent. There must be re)son)ble ground to believe th)t the evil to be
prevented is ) serious one . The f)ct th)t speech is likely to result in some
violence or in destruction of property is not enough to justify its suppression.
There must be the prob)bility of serious injury to the st)te.

SEPARATE OPINIONS:

PARAS, J., concurring:

The petitioner is ) distinguished member of the b)r )nd Floor Le)der of the
N)cion)list) P)rty in the House of Represent)tives; he w)s the chief
c)mp)igner of the s)id p)rty in the l)st elections. As the petition comes from )
responsible p)rty, in contr)st to Ev)ngelist)'s Communist P)rty which w)s
considered subversive, I believe th)t the fe)r which c)used the M)yor to deny
it w)s not well founded )nd his )ction w)s )ccordingly f)r from being ) sound
exercise of his discretion.

BRIONES, M., conforme: (IN SPANISH TEXT, BUT I HAVE IT TRANSLATED.

YOUʼRE WELCOME!)

It is not up to us to determine the degree of cert)inty of the elector)l fr)ud )nd

irregul)rities th)t the minority co)lition tried to )ir )t the meeting in question
with ) view to obt)ining from the government )nd the people their own )nd
corresponding remedy. They could be re)l or they could be im)gin)ry, in whole
or in p)rt. But one thing we )re )bsolutely sure is th)t democr)cy c)n not
survive unless it is founded on the b)sis of effective suffr)ge, sincere, free,
cle)n )nd orderly. The elector)l college is the c)stle, better yet, the bulw)rk of
democr)cy. Suppress th)t, )nd democr)cy is ) f)rce.

So everything th)t tends to est)blish )n effective suffr)ge not only should not
be repressed, but should be encour)ged. And for this, in gener)l for the he)lth
of the republic, there is no better prophyl)xis, there is no better hygiene th)n
free criticism, censorship unp)cked. Only )buses c)n be corrected by )llowing
public denunci)tion without hindr)nce without fe)r.5 This is the best w)y to
ensure the rule of l)w over violence.

HILADO, J., dissenting:

The inst)nt c)se is concerned with )n "indign)tion r)lly" to be held )t one of

the busiest )nd most frequented public pl)ces in this big cosmopolit)n city,
with ) present popul)tion estim)ted to be 150 per cent l)rger th)n its prew)r
popul)tion, )nd the public officer who w)s being c)lled upon to )ct on the
petition for permit w)s the chief executive of the city who w)s by re)son of his
office the officer most directly responsible for the keeping )nd m)inten)nce of
pe)ce )nd public order for the common good. And )s st)ted elsewhere in this
dissent, his power in the premises w)s not without control, limit)tion or guide
)nd, l)stly, the )ction t)ken by him w)s not )n )bsolute suppression of the
right cl)imed but w)s merely ) postponement of the use of ) public pl)ce for
the excercise of th)t right when popul)r p)ssions should h)ve c)lmed down
)nd public excitement cooled off sufficiently to better insure the )void)nce of
public pe)ce )nd order being undermined

TUASON, J., dissenting:.

The m)yor did not )ct c)priciously or )rbitr)rily in withholding or postponing

the permit )pplied for by the petitioner. His re)sons were re)l, b)sed on
contempor)ry events of public knowledge, )nd his tempor)ry refus)l w)s
re)son)bly c)lcul)ted to )void possible disturb)nces )s well )s to )d)v)nce
)nd protect the public in the proper use of the most congested streets )nd
public pl)z) in )n overcrowded city. There w)s re)son to fe)r disturb)nces,
not from the petitioner )nd his men but from elements who h)d no connection
with the holding of the meeting but who, h)ving gripes, might be e)sily excited
to violence by infl)mm)tory h)r)ngues when nerves were on edge. The f)ct
th)t no untow)rd incident occurred does not prove the judiciousness of this
Court's resolution. The court is not de)ling with )n isol)ted c)se; it is l)ying
down ) rule of tr)nscendent)l import)nce )nd f)r-re)ching consequences, in
the )dministr)tion of cities )nd towns. If nothing h)ppened, it is well to
remember th)t, )ccording to newsp)pers, 500 policemen were det)iled to
prevent possible disorder )t the g)thering. It should )lso be borne in mind th)t
vehicul)r tr)ffic in the vicinity of Pl)z) Mir)nd) h)d to be suspended )nd
vehicles h)d to be rerouted, during )nd )fter the meeting. All of which ent)iled
enormous expense by the city )nd discomforts to the gener)l public..