JBL Reyes v.

Bagatsing

Facts: Retired Justice JBL Reyes in behalf of the members of the Anti-Bases Coalition sought a permit to
rally from Luneta Park until the front gate of the US embassy which is less than two blocks apart. It was
stated that after the delivery of two brief speeches, a petition based on the resolution adopted on the
last day by the International Conference for General Disarmament, World Peace and the Removal of All
Foreign Military Bases held in Manila, would be presented to a representative of the Embassy or any of
its personnel who may be there so that it may be delivered to the United States Ambassador. The march
would be attended by the local and foreign participants of such conference. There was 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." The permit has been
denied by then Manila mayor Ramon Bagatsing. The mayor claimed that there have been intelligence
reports that indicated that the rally would be infiltrated by lawless elements. He also issued City
Ordinance No. 7295 to prohibit the staging of rallies within the 500 feet radius of the US embassy.
Bagatsing pointed out that it was his intention to provide protection to the US embassy from such
lawless elements in pursuant to Art. 22 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. And that
under our constitution we “adhere to generally accepted principles of international law”.
Issue: WON a treaty may supersede provisions of the Constitution.
WON the rallyists should be granted the permit.
Held: I. No. Indeed, the receiving state is tasked for the protection of foreign diplomats from any lawless
element. And indeed the Vienna Convention is a restatement of the generally accepted principles of
international law. But the same cannot be invoked as defense to the primacy of the
Philippine Constitution which upholds and guarantees the rights to free speech and peaceable assembly.
At the same time, the City Ordinance issued by respondent mayor cannot be invoked if the application
thereof would collide with a constitutionally guaranteed rights.
II. Yes. The denial of their rally does not pass the clear and present danger test. The mere assertion that
subversives may infiltrate the ranks of the demonstrators does not suffice. In this case, no less than the
police chief assured that they have taken all the necessary steps to ensure a peaceful rally. Further, the
ordinance cannot be applied yet because there was no showing that indeed the rallyists are within the
500 feet radius (besides, there’s also the question of whether or not the mayor can prohibit such rally –
but, as noted by the SC, that has not been raised an an issue in this case).
Neither can there be any valid objection to the use of the streets, to the gates of the US Embassy, hardly
two block-away at the Roxas Boulevard. Primicias v. Fugoso has resolved any lurking doubt on the
matter. In holding that the then Mayor Fugoso of the City of Manila should grant a permit for a public
meeting at Plaza Miranda in Quiapo.