Reyes vs Bagatsing

(L-65366, 09 November 1983)

Art. 3 Sec. 4 (Bill of Rights)
No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of
expression, or of the press, or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble and petition the government for
redness of grievances.

Facts:
- Reyes sought a permit from the City of Manila to
hold a peaceful march and rally on October 26,
1983 from 2pm to 5pm, starting from the Luneta
to the gates of the USA embassy.
- Once there (embassy), in an open space of
public property, there would be a short program
to be held.
- The march would be attended by the local and
foreign participants of such conference. Followed
by the handing over of a petition based on the
resolution adopted at the closing session of the
Anti-Bases Coalition.
- There as likewise an assurance in the petition
that in the exercise of the constitutional rights to
free speech and assembly , all the necessary
steps would be taken by it to ensure a peaceful
march and rally.
- However, the request was DENIED. Reference
was made to persistent intelligence reports
affirming the plans of subversive elements to
infiltrate or disrupt any assembly or
congregations where a large number of people is
expected to attend.
- Respondent suggested that a permit may be
issued if it is to be held at the Rizal Coliseum or
any other enclosed area where the safety of the
participants themselves and the general public
may be ensured.
- An oral argument was heard and the mandatory
injunction was granted on the ground that there
was no showing of the existence of a clear and
present danger of a substantive evil that could
justify the denial of a permit.
- However, Justice Aquino dissented that the rally
id violative of Ordinance No. 7295 of the City of
Manila prohibiting the holding of rallies within a
radius of 500 feet from any foreign mission or
chancery and for other purposes.

Issue:
Whether or not FREEDOM of EXPRESSION and the RIGHT
to peaceably ASSEMBLE violated.

Held: YES.
- The invocation of the right to freedom of
peaceably assembly carries with it the implication
that the right to free speech has likewise been
disregarded. It is settled law that as to public
places, especially so as to parks and streets,
there is freedom of access. Nor is their use
dependent on who is the applicant for the permit,
whether an individual or a group. There can be
no legal objection, absent the existence of a clear
and present danger of a substantive evil, on the
choice of Luneta as the place where the peace
rally would start. Time immemorial Luneta has
been used for purposes purposes of assembly,
communicating thoughts between citizens, and
discussing public questions.
- Such use of the public places has from ancient
times, been a part of the privileges, immunities,
rights, and liberties of citizens.
- With regard to the ordinance, there was NO
showing that there was violation and even if it
could be shown that such a condition is satisfied
it does not follow that respondent could legally
act the way he did. The validity of his denial of
the permit sought could still be challenged.
- A summary of the application for permit for rally.
The applicants for a permit to hold an assembly
should inform the licensing authority of the date,
the public place where and the time when it will
take place. If it were a private place, only the
consent of the owner or the one entitled to its
legal possession is required. Such application
should be filed well ahead in time to enable the
public official concerned to appraise whether
there may be valid objections to the grant of the
permit or to its grant but at another public place.
It is an indispensable condition to such refusal or
modification that the clear and present dangers
test be the standard for the decision reached.
Notice is give to applicants for the denial.































SSSEA (Social Security System Employees Association)
vs. COURT OF APPEALS, SSS
G.R. No. 85279, 28 July 1989

Art. 3, Sec. 8 (Bill of Rights)
The right of the people, including those employed in the
public and private sectors, to form unions, associations, or
societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be
abridged.

While the Constitution and the Labor Code are silent as to
whether govt employees may strike, they are prohibited
from striking by express provision of Memorandum Circular
No. 6 series of 1997 of the CSC and as implied in E.O. 180.

Facts:
- June 11, 1987 the SS filed with the RTC of QC
a complaint for damages with a prayer for a writ
of preliminary injunction against petitioners,
alleging that on June 09, 1987, the officers and
members of SSSEA staged an illegal strike and
barricaded the entrances to the SSS bldg.,
preventing non-striking employees from reporting
for work and SSS members from transacting
business with the SSS; that the strike was
reported to the Public Sector Labor Mgmt
Council, which ordered the strikers to return to
work; that the strikers refused to return to work;
and that the SSS suffered damages as a result of
the strike.
- The complaint prayed that a writ of preliminary
injunction be issued to enjoin the strike and that
the strikers be ordered to return to work; that the
defendants (petitioners herein) be ordered to pay
damages; and that the strike be declared illegal.
- It appears that the SSSEA went on strike after
the SSS failed to act on the unions demands,
which included:
o Implementation of the provisions of
the old SSS-SSSEA CBA on check-off
of union dues;
o Payment of accrued overtime pay,
night differential pay and holiday pay;
o Conversion of temporary or
contractual employees with six
months or more of service into regular
and permanent employees and their
entitlement to the same salaries,
allowances and benefits given to other
regular employees of the SSS;
o Payment of the childrens allowance of
P30.00, and after the SSS deducted
certain amounts from the salaries of
the employees and allegedly
committed acts discrimination and
unfair labor practices.

Issue:
Whether or not employees of the SSS have the right to
strike.

Held:
NO.
- The 1987 Constitution, in the Art. on Social
Justice and Human Rights, provides that the
State shall guarantee the rights of all workers to
self-organization, CBA and negotiations, and
peaceful concerted activities, including the right
to strike in accordance with law, (Art 13, Sec.
31). Parenthetically, the Bill of Rights also
provides that the right of the people, including
those employed in the public or private sectors,
to form unions, associations, or societies for
purposes not contrary to law shall not abridged,
(Art. 3, Sec. 8).
- Thus, while there is no question that the
Constitution recognizes the right of govt
employees to organize, it is silent as to whether
such recognition also includes the right to strike.
The right to form an organization does not carry
with it the right to hold a strike.
- Considering that under the 1987 Constitution,
the civil service embraces all branches,
subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of
the Govt, including GOCCs with original
charters, [Art.9B, Sec.2(l)].
- E.O No. 180 where the employees in the civil
service are denominated as govt employees
and that the SSS is one such govt-controlled
corporation with an original charter, having been
created under RA 1161, it employees are part of
the civil service and are covered by the Civil
Service Commissions memorandum prohibiting
strikes. This being the case, the strike staged by
the employees of the SSS was illegal.
- Petitioners Petition/Application for Preliminary
and Mandatory Injunction dated 13 December
1988 is DENIED.