.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

San Juan Gossip Mills Outlet

A veritable fanatic of the Internet. His avocation is teaching while his main vocation is practicing the much maligned law profession. Currently teaching Constitutional Law at the FEU Institute of Law and a guest lecturer at the De La Salle University teaching "Freedom and Regulation in Cyberspace" in the Graduate Program of the Department of Communication. He is married to his beautiful Ateneo law school classmate and is blessed with a daughter and a son.

Name:
Location: San Juan, Metro Manila, Philippines

Tuesday, April 25, 2006

CPR Declared Void - Comments & Questions

Today, the Supreme Court handed down a decision, BAYAN et. al., versus EDUARDO ERMITA et al., declaring two things: (a) declaring B. P. Blg. 880 otherwise known as the Public Assembly Act constitutional; and (b) declaring the policy of Calibrated Preemptive Response unconstitutional. In the words of Helga, YEBAH!

Two things noticeable that were unanswered: (1) if CPR is unconstitutional, does it follow all charges filed by the PNP against any rallyist subsequent to the imposition of the CPR policy should be dismissed, their acts being violation of freedom of expression?

And (2) since the local governments failed to enact freedom parks for a good twenty years, inspite of the injunction contained in B. P. Blg. 880, does it not follow that the rallyists should not be charged with violation of B. P. Blg. 880 since the local government officials either deliberately or negligently failed to implement the letter of the law, i.e., to establish freedom parks within their respective jurisdiction where rallyists can peacefully gather? Is it not logical to expect that B. P. Blg. 880 should be held in suspended animation while there are still no declared freedom parks?

Like the E. O. 464 decision, this decision will require further stretching from lawyers of both sides as to how to prosecute or defend a case.

I believe the petitioners should also file either a Motion for Reconsideration or a Clarification as to the status of the arrests made pursuant to the void Calibrated Preemptive Response Policy of the government. Otherwise, we will be left again to the discretion of police officials whose minds have been made up against those who wish to seek redress for their grievances.

A general statement of policy declaring all arrests void as a result of CPR would go a long way to enhancing and institutionalizing freedom of expression against a repressive police force and government.

3 Comments:

Blogger Juan said...

Hi Ed,

Passing by,if i may,

About the 'freedom park', after the lapse of the prescibed period:
PB880 "In the cities and municipalities of Metropolitan Manila, the respective mayors shall establish the freedom parks within the period of six months from the effectivity this Act.”
“Section 18. Effectivity - This Act shall take effect upon its approval.
Approved, October 22, 1985.”

Wouldn't it be reasonable to apply the "the public parks or plazas of a city or municipality that has not yet complied with Section 15 of the law" BE DEEMED AS FREEDOM PARKS?

What was the basis of the SC's dictum to DILG etal who "are DIRECTED to take all necessary steps for the immediate compliance with Section 15 of Batas Pambansa No. 880 through the establishment or designation of at least one suitable freedom park or plaza in every city and municipality of the country. After thirty (30) days from the finality of this Decision,..." The SC gave the grace period without need for remedial legislation?

The no permit no rally really sucks. M. Atienza says he is applying 'clear and present danger' prov of whatever law to deny permits.
I'm not a lawyer,

6:01 PM  
Blogger juan tamad said...

The no-permit no-rally policy is really a political constraint outside of the law. The Supreme Court clarified this via the no-application no-rally policy.

No-permit no-rally really sucks. But we should not blame BP 880, for it has been upheld already.

What we should contest is the manner of its implementation - the CPR and the no-permit no-rally.

The High Court said that a mere rally application must be honored by the police as a permit. Otherwise they must proved that the application was denied.

And how can an application be denied without hearing its applicant? So the rally organizer must have knowledge of a denial and the right to appeal it before proceeding to the streets.

The law is clear and the Supreme Court ruling extends it.

This must be obeyed.

But unfortunately, the PNP, through Pagdilao is still continuing it's scare-tactics of dispersing unlawful assemblies, without mention of adherance to the Supreme Court ruling.

And most obviously, Bunye, warns assemblies that as he described, 'disturbed public peace.'

So the policy of dispersing assemblies becomes an executive judgement call. Then again, the executive's judgement call is politically polutted for survival.

Facing the Supreme Court, Nachura, Atienza, Ermita et.al., suggests compliance to BP 880. But on its implementation suggests compliance to the letter on Gloria's survival.

Gloria through the Sol. Gen, need not appeal this ruling for they can't.
And I agree, Edwin, the petitioners are the one's that need to appeal or file a motion for clarification on the matter.

A clarification to force Malacanan and the PNP on its knees to surrender to the letters of BP 880.

10:42 PM  
Blogger Juan said...

"A clarification to force Malacanan and the PNP on its knees to surrender to the letters of BP 880".

V.Quirol's reaction to SC's ruling on CPR, "it has no bearing on the actions of PNP which is based on BP880".

May 1 is a good day for a big, big rally. Can a non-KMU event be organized by advocates of civil liberties for people to just be along Ayala to celebrate " CPR is un-constitutional day". Mayor Binay might have some event in mind.

12:31 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Performancing
Google