Primary Holding

The Supreme Court ruled that while the government may regulate the time, place, and manner of public assemblies, it cannot grant arbitrary discretion to a single official to deny such rights. The ordinance must be interpreted to allow regulation but not prohibition of lawful assemblies.

Background

Cipriano P. Primicias requested a permit from Mayor Fugoso to hold a political rally at Plaza Miranda on November 16, 1947, to protest alleged election fraud. Initially approved by the Vice Mayor, the permit was revoked by the Mayor the next day, citing concerns over public order and the potential for unrest. Primicias filed a petition for mandamus to compel the Mayor to grant the permit.

Facts

• 1. Cipriano Primicias sought a permit for a political rally at Plaza Miranda to protest alleged election fraud.
• 2. The Vice Mayor approved the request with conditions on public order.
• 3. Mayor Fugoso revoked the permit the next day, citing potential disturbances due to political tensions.
• 4. Primicias filed a petition for mandamus to compel the Mayor to grant the permit.
• 5. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Primicias and ordered the Mayor to issue the permit.

Arguments of the Petitioners

• 1. The right to peaceful assembly is a constitutional guarantee under the Bill of Rights.
• 2. The denial of the permit was arbitrary and unfounded since no evidence suggested the assembly would be unlawful.
• 3. The Mayor’s discretion must be limited to reasonable regulations of time, place, and manner, not outright prohibitions.
• 4. The denial of the permit violated freedom of expression and the right to petition the government for redress.

Arguments of the Respondents

• 1. As Mayor, he had police power to regulate public spaces to prevent disturbances.
• 2. There was reasonable ground to believe that the rally could incite disorder due to political tensions.
• 3. His discretion under Section 1119 of the Revised Ordinances of Manila allowed him to grant or deny permits for public assemblies.
• 4. The previous Evangelista v. Earnshaw case allowed for such discretion in prohibiting assemblies that threatened public order.

Issues

• 1. Does the Mayor have absolute discretion to grant or deny a permit for a public assembly?
• 2. Was the denial of the permit an unconstitutional restriction on the right to peaceful assembly and free speech?

Ruling

• 1. The Mayor's discretion is limited to regulating the time, place, and manner of an assembly, not prohibiting it outright.
• 2. The Constitution guarantees the right to peacefully assemble and petition the government, subject only to reasonable regulations.
• 3. The Revised Ordinances of Manila cannot be interpreted to grant the Mayor absolute power to deny permits arbitrarily.
• 4. The fear of potential disorder is not enough to justify suppression of fundamental rights. If disorder occurs, authorities should address it through law enforcement, not prior restraint.
• 5. The mandamus was granted, ordering the Mayor to issue the permit.

Doctrines

• 1. Freedom of Assembly and Speech is a Fundamental Right – The government may regulate but not prohibit peaceful assemblies.
• 2. Police Power Must Be Reasonable – Regulation must balance public order with constitutional freedoms.
• 3. Prior Restraint is Invalid – Officials cannot deny fundamental rights based on mere speculation of disorder.
• 4. Legal Discretion Must Be Guided – A law or ordinance must lay down clear guidelines and not grant unchecked power to an official.

Key Excerpts

• 1. "Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burned women." – Justice Brandeis (quoted in the decision)
• 2. "The privilege of the citizen of the United States to use the streets and parks for communication of views on national questions may be regulated in the interest of all; it is not absolute, but relative." – Hague v. CIO (cited in the decision)
• 3. "Under our democratic system of government, no unlimited power may be validly granted to any officer of the government, except perhaps in cases of national emergency."

Precedents Cited

• 1. Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization (CIO) – Affirmed the right to assemble in public places subject to reasonable regulations.
• 2. Cox v. New Hampshire – Upheld permit requirements for parades but limited official discretion to time, place, and manner.
• 3. Evangelista v. Earnshaw – Distinguished from this case because the Communist Party was deemed seditious, whereas Primicias’ rally was lawful.
• 4. Kwong Sing v. City of Manila – Defined "regulate" as control or govern, not prohibit.

Statutory and Constitutional Provisions

• 1. Article III, Section 1 (Bill of Rights), Philippine Constitution – Guarantees freedom of speech, assembly, and petition.
• 2. Revised Administrative Code, Section 2434 – Defines the Mayor’s executive powers.
• 3. Revised Ordinances of Manila, Section 1119 – Requires permits for public assemblies but must be interpreted within constitutional limits.
• 4. Revised Penal Code, Article 131 – Penalizes public officers who unjustly prohibit peaceful assemblies.