Batas Pambansa Bilang 880

IF it is any indication of the times that we are now in, one piece of legislation often cited by authorities these days is the Marcos-era Batas Pambansa 880 (BP 880).

Passed by the rubberstamp Batasan Pambansa, BP 880 — also known as the Public Assembly Act of 1985 — has gained currency of late, especially in the aftermath of the declaration of a state of national emergency last February 24. Though Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo lifted the emergency proclamation a week later, the law has been used by the police as basis for subsequently arresting and charging anti-Arroyo protesters who have since been staging weekly rallies and demonstrations. The latest to be charged for violation of BP 880 were former social welfare secretary Dinky Soliman and Vicente Romano III, one of the leaders of the Black and White Movement.

Legislators and civil libertarians have been calling for the repeal of BP 880, which they claim is an enduring threat to civil liberties and a mockery of the freedoms regained in Edsa 1.

The Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) has maintained that the “no permit, no rally” provision in BP 880 is unconstitutional. In its petition against the Arroyo government’s “calibrated preemptive response” (CPR) rule adopted last year against anti-Arroyo street protests in lieu of the maximum tolerance policy provided under BP 880, the lawyers’ group said that:

• The right to peaceably assemble is enshrined in the 1987 Constitution: “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances” (Sec. 4, Article III, 1987 Constitution).

• In a number of decisions, the Supreme Court upheld the right to peaceably assemble as a “necessary consequence of republican and democratic institutions, and the complement of the right of free speech” (US v. Bustos, et. al., No. 12592, 8 March 1918 (37 Phil. 731); US. V. Perfecto and Mendoza, No. 177493, 4 March 1922 (43 Phil. 58); among others). The Court further held that freedom of assembly “is entitled to be accorded utmost deference and respect” (Reyes v. Bagatsing, G.R. No. L-65366, November 9, 1983).

• In Primicias v. Fugoso, L-1800, 27 January 1948 (80 Phil. 71), the Court held that an ordinance “conferring upon the Mayor power to grant or refuse to grant the permit, … would be tantamount to authorizing him to prohibit the use of the streets and other public places for holding of meetings, parades or processions” and that “would make the ordinance invalid and void or violative of the constitutional limitations.”

Last year, party-list representatives introduced separate bills seeking to strengthen the constitutional right of the people to free expression, peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.

House Bill No. 1555 is authored by Reps. Satur Ocampo, Teodoro Casiño Jr. and Joel Virador of Bayan Muna, Crispin Beltran and Rafael Mariano of Anakpawis, and Liza Maza of Gabriela. HB 4802, on the other hand, was filed by Reps. Loretta Ann Rosales, Mario Joyo Aguja and Ana Theresia Hontiveros-Baraquel of Akbayan.

Among the bills’ salient features is the provision that “no permit shall be required for any person or persons to organize and hold a public assembly in a public place.”

Under HB 1555, law enforcement agencies are barred from interfering in mass assemblies, with police assistance allowed only when needed and that no dispersal will be conducted.

HB 4802, meanwhile, provides that a notice of public assembly to the local government unit (LGU) concerned replaces the current requirement of securing a permit. The bill also provides that the assembly shall not be dispersed unless there is evident danger to public safety.
Yet for all the criticisms raised against BP 880, Senator Aquilino Pimentel Jr. said the law upholds demonstrators’ rights. “The reason is that Batas Pambansa Blg. 880 is a clear expression of the policy that the State has adopted at the height of martial rule — and I would like to emphasize that — at the height of martial rule,” Pimentel said in a privilege speech he delivered in February this year.Following are excerpts of Pimentel’s speech (Police Cannot Trash the Right of the People to Peaceful Assembly) that shed light on the real intent of the law and how it got passed:

I quote now from the “Statement of Policy” of Batas Pambansa Blg. 880:

The constitutional right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances is essential and vital to the strength and stability of the State. To this end, the State shall ensure the free exercise of such right without prejudice ….

Now, note the conditions here —

… without prejudice to the rights of others to life, liberty and equal protection of the law.

I was an Opposition member of the Batasan when the Act was passed. It was the Opposition which pushed for the approval of this Act. And I would like to put on record that our colleague, Senator Enrile, was also there. Believe it or not, the law was passed even as there were only 50 of us in the Opposition as against 150 members of the KBL. The law was passed unanimously, recognizing the right of the people to peaceably assemble unless, — let me repeat — they violate the right of life, liberty and equal protection of the law of the others.

The Opposition — our group then — did so because under the atmosphere of martial rule then obtaining in the country, processions, rallies, parades, demonstrations, public meetings, and assemblages were proscribed. They were prohibited. Sad to say, it appears today, without benefit of martial law, that processions, rallies, parades, demonstrations, public meetings and assemblages are also prohibited by the present administration. Which leads me to wonder if the occupant of Malacañang today is really the daughter of the late Pres. Diosdado Macapagal.

I think that she is m&G the reincarnation of Homer’s Medusa. In the Iliad of Homer, there was a character called Medusa whose hair was serpents representing the evil thoughts flowing from the mind of that sorceress.

In any event, it was illegal under martial rule for people to publicly express their grievances against the government. Martial rule noon, ngayon walang martial law. Bakit hindi pinapayagan ang mga tao na magsalita o mag-demonstrate? During martial law, the people were merely expected to whisper their discontent against the government.

And so when we got the KBL members of the Batasan to support the proposal that the right of the people to hold processions, rallies, parades, demonstrations and public meetings peacefully be recognized as a policy of the State, we were ecstatic.

Let me put on record that at that time, the father of Ralph Recto, Raffy Recto, was a member of that Batasan group of the Opposition. We were ecstatic because it was a victory that was thought at the time impossible to achieve. Under Batas Pambansa Blg. 880, it is now a part of state policy that all peaceful assemblies of people for the redress of their grievances were legal and could not, therefore, be stopped, dispersed or disbanded.

Let me state for the record that Batas Pambansa Blg. 880 up to now has not been repealed or modified. For the record, big names of the Opposition in the Batasan coauthored Batas Pambansa Blg. 880. Among them were Cecilia Muñoz Palma, Marcelo Fernan, Augusto Sanchez, Neptali Gonzales, Jaime Ferrer and Edmundo Cea.

Among those who are still alive are Antonio Cuenco, who is now a congressman, Arthur Defensor, also a congressman, Luis Villafuerte, a congressman also, and more important, Alberto Romulo, now Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs, and Hjalmar Quintana. And perhaps even more relevant to our discussion, Joselito Atienza, now mayor of Manila, was coauthor of Batas Pambansa Blg. 880.

From the KBL side, the following notable members supported the hill: Juan Ponce Enrile, now a senator, Antonio Diaz, now a congressman, Estelito Mendoza, then chairman of the Committee on Good Government, Justice and Human Rights, Renato Cayetano, who became a member of this Chamber and the father of Pia, and Alejandro Almendras, a former senator.

In this regard, we beg to point out that under the law:

• A permit is not indispensable for a peaceful activity to take place.
• A permit is not necessary to make the activity legal.
• A permit is necessary only to provide order to the activity and security to the participants of that activity.

In fact, if the authority issuing the permit does not act on the application for a permit after two working days, the application is deemed approved. You see, if the permit were deemed to be an indispensable part of the right of the people to peaceably assemble, then the applicant can file an application for permit and if the mayor sits on the permit for so long, the right can be nugatory. And it is for that reason that I say that such a permit is not necessary.

Download the full text of BP 880 here.