Primicias vs. Fugoso [L-18000.

Jan 27, 1948]

Doctrine:

Clear and Present Danger Test, Freedom of Assembly and Expression

FACTS:
This case is an action of mandamus instituted by petitioner Cipriano Primicias,
manager of theCoalesced Minority Parties, against respondent Manila City Mayor,
Valeriano Fugoso, to compel thelatter to issue a permit for the holding of a public
meeting at the Plaza Miranda on Nov 16, 1947. The
petitioner requested for a permit to hold a peaceful public meeting.
However, the respondent refused
to issue such permit because he found that there is a reasonable ground to believe,
basing upon
previous utterances and upon the fact that passions, specially on the part of the
losing groups, remainsbitter and high, that similar speeches will bedelivered
tending to undermine the faith and confidence of
the people in their government, and in the duly peace and a disruption of public
order.
Respondentbased his refusal to the Revised Ordinances of 1927 prohibiting as an
offense against public peace, andpenalizes as a misdemeanor, "any act, in any
public place, meeting, orprocession, tending to disturb thepeace or excite a riot; or
collect with other persons in a body or crowd for any unlawful purpose; ordisturb
or disquiet any congregation engaged in any lawful assembly." Included herein is
Sec. 1119, Freeuse of Public Place.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Mayor has the right to refuse to issue permit hence violating
freedom of assembly.
HELD:
The answer is negative. Supreme Court states that the freedom of speech, and to
peacefullyassemble and petition the government for redress of grievances, are
fundamental personal rights of thepeople recognized and guaranteed by the
constitution. However, these rights are not absolute. They can
be regulated under the states police power
that they should not be injurious to the equal enjoymentof others having equal
rights, nor to the rights of the community or society.The Court holds that there
can be 2 interpretations of Sec. 1119: 1) the Mayor of the City of Manila isvested
with unregulated discretion to grant or refuse, to grant permit for the holding of a
lawfulassembly or meeting, parade, or procession in the streets and other public
places of the City of Manila;and 2) The right of the Mayor is subject to reasonable
discretion to determine or specify the streets orpublic places to be used with the
view to prevent confusion by overlapping, to secure convenient use of the streets

and public places by others, and to provide adequate and proper policing to
minimize therisk of disorder.The court favored the second construction since the
first construction is tantamount to authorizing theMayor to prohibit the use of the
streets. Under our democratic system of government no such unlimitedpower may
be validly granted to any officer of the government, except perhaps in cases of
nationalemergency. It is to be noted that the permit to be issued is for the use of
public places and not for theassembly itself.The Court holds that the assembly is
lawful and thus cannot be struck down. Fear of serious injurycannot alone justify
suppression of free speech and assembly. It is the function of speech to free
menfrom the bondage of irrational fears. To justify suppression of free speech there
must be reasonableground to fear that serious evil will result if free speech is
practiced. There must be reasonable groundto believe that the danger apprehended
is imminent. There must be reasonable ground to believe thatthe evil to be
prevented is a serious one . The fact that speech is likely to result in some violence
or in