Let's Test CPR

I was thinking of a way to judicially test CPR. Here is the scenario:

1. Apply for a rally permit to rally in Mendiola. Mayor Atienza will not issue the permit;

2. Rally nonetheless;

3. On that day, police will be there to block and disperse the rally;

4. But two hours or so before the rally, file a petition for Temporary Restraining Order/Preliminary Injunction before the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court enjoining the police from blocking the rally and dispering the rallyists. At the same time, question the constitutionality of B. P. Blg. 880 or The Public Assembly Act of 1985;

5. If CA/SC grants TRO. If they obey, rally goes on. But most likely, police will disobey;

6. Cite Generals Bulaong, Querol and Lomibao for contempt;

7. CA/SC will hear the case.

The legal basis for B. P. Blg. 880 was the precedent setting case of “Reyes versus Bagatsing” (125 SCRA 552) dealing with freedom of expression vis-à-vis the clear and present danger test. This case was subsequently invoked in “Pita v. Court of Appeals, Bagatsing et al.” And in that case, the Supreme Court quoted Reyes and stated that:

“the burden to show the existence of grave and imminent danger that would justify adverse action ... lies on the. . . authorities."

"There must be objective and convincing, not subjective or conjectural, proof of the existence of such clear and present danger."

"It is essential for the validity of ... previous restraint or censorship that the ... authority does not rely solely on his own appraisal of what the public welfare, peace or safety may require."

"To justify such a limitation, there must be proof of such weight and sufficiency to satisfy the clear and present danger test."

None of the rallies conducted so far in Mendiola even come close to posing a danger clear and present to this government. Unfortunately, the police, Mayor Atienza and the present administration have adopted a Gestapo attitude. The mayor even raised the specter of the Mendiola Massacre as fallacious basis to deny the rallies. But as pointed out by the Supreme Court, the fear of ghosts is no reason to deny freedom of expression.

It is only through filing a case can the judiciary and the Supreme Court, the last line of defense of our civil, political and constitutional rights, rightfully enter the fray and put a stop to this present lunacy. Other cases have been filed to thwart B. P. Blg. 880. That is good. For once, I can safely say that we lawyers are not such a bad bunch after all.

Let us hope that before he retires, Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. will gift our country with his wisdom and broad strokes in defense of the people’s right for redress of grievances.

To paraphrase Princess Leia: “Help us Obi Wan Davide, you’re our only hope”.