No-Permit, No-Rally Policy: The Policy’s Implication on the Basic Constitutional Right to Peacebly Assemble in its Implementation in the City of Manila

Abstract

The “no-permit, no-rally” policy in the Philippines strictly implemented under the Arroyo administration resulted to public clamor that it violates the peoples’ constitutional right to peaceably assemble and express legitimate redress of grievances to its government. The Public Assembly Act of 1985, which is legislation from the Marcos era, supports this policy. The conception of this research, “No-Permit, No-Rally” Policy: The Policy’s Implication on the Basic Constitutional Right to Peaceably Assemble in its Implementation in the City of Manila”, is brought about by the violent dispersals of protesters causing a number of injuries and the violation of the right to assemble and freedom of expression in the form of rallies and demonstrations. The theoretical framework employed in this study is the Liberty Theory Framework that centralized the purpose of the right for peaceful public assemblies and freedom of expression to the self-realization of an individual and the individual’s involvement or participation in social change. The theory censures the use of mandatory permits arguing that it waives the inherent and duly protected constitutional rights of individuals to peaceably assemble and to freely express themselves. It continues to argue that the permit system does not respect the individual’s own decision-making capabilities when one joins a protest. It denounces the imposition of routinized activities by the status quo, disrespecting the spontaneous characteristic of public protests and expression. The theory also asserts that the permit system inhibits the individual or a group from affecting a peaceful means of social change since in most cases; the permit system is being used to prohibit the protesters in conducting their demonstrations, which is clearly beyond its regulatory function. The study was conducted using qualitative methodologies. An interview with key informants such as representatives or officials of non-government offices and/or massbased groups as well as law enforcers was carried out. Although the local city hall of Manila refused a formal interview, the researcher managed to get informal statements from one of the LGU employee. These interviews helped the researcher formulate initial generalizations and conclusions. Research instruments used were library materials, World Wide Web research and interviews. The information gathered from the interviews and researches showed that the implementation of the permit system in the city of Manila is a justification to prohibit the rallyists and protesters from conducting any demonstrations and mobilizations in public. There were experiences shared by organizations such as KARAPATAN and BAYAN Muna that applications of permits were revoked without proper explanation, not even applying the “clear and present danger”. Moreover, politics played a big role since the curtailment of the mass protests implies the fear of the government protests which could escalate to a call for the ouster of the President herself, a meta-legal process as exemplified in EDSA I and II. The implementation of the permit system became a prohibitive means that goes beyond its regulatory function. Thus, resulting to the curtailment of the legitimate expression of the people and a violation of their duly constituted right to peaceably assemble.