Freedom of Assembly And Yesterday's Blitzkrieg Mass Actions

The INC mass actions last June 30 and yesterday, July1 are sought to be justified by invoking the freedom of assembly. Up front, we hasten to remind the proponents that the June 30 rally was without any permit and the one conducted yesterday was marred with a number of violations of the conditions imposed by the Quezon City government.

It is conceded that Freedom of Assembly is a constitutionally-protected right, which is explicitly protected under Article III (Bill of Rights). However, it should not be overlooked that all rights have limitations and all freedoms have certain boundaries. For one, the exercise of the freedom of assembly is subject to the statutory regulations specified under the Public Assembly Act of 1985, otherwise known as Batas Pambansa Blg 880.

Under this law, which is still valid and binding today, any individual who or group which seeks to undertake a rally or mass action is obliged to obtain an official permit from the LGU where the action is going to be undertaken at the very least, five days prior to conducting the same. That LGU is duty-bound to act on such an application for permit within two days from receipt of the application.

In accordance with said law, and based on the standard operating procedures of the Philippine National Police and the Metro Manila Development Authority, the standing policy is "No Permit, No Rally." The mass action on June 30 was without any permit. The government exercised utmost tolerance but certain elements of the rallyists reportedly violated traffic rules and even allegedly inflicted physical injuries on a female member of the PNP. These actions are no longer protected under the Bill of Rights.

All Filipinos, regardless of religion, gender, age or political affiliation are duty-bound to respect the rule of law even assuming that their cause is legitimate. The end does not justify the means. No one individual or religious group has the right to violate the rights of other people who just want to use the public thoroughfare in order to pursue their obligations to work and occupation. No one is allowed to hurt a police officer who is just performing his or her official functions.

The freedom of assembly does not include violating traffic rules and committing physical injuries. Even if the religious group is widely known to be very influential and has often openly endorsed candidates in national and local elections, there is no justification to perform acts that are explicitly proscribed under the Philippine laws and regulations.

Section 2 of BP 880 explicitly provides: "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 to the rights of others to life, liberty and equal protection of the law." Respect for the right of others was not exactly upheld by the above-said mass actions.

I had a meeting with a client in Mandaluyong City and my right to a peaceful pursuit of my right was violated when I was prevented from arriving at the designated time because of the obstruction along the way. Like myself, there were hundreds of thousands of commuters who were also delayed, impeded, obstructed and adversely affected. Is my right to pursue my business and livelihood anything less than the right of those people? Am I supposed to sacrifice so that their freedom of assembly could be exercised?

I remember a Latin maxim I learned in law school: "Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas" So use your right in a manner that does not violate the right of others. Your right to swing your arms ends where my nose begins.