Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1 Primacias V Fugos

    Uploaded by

    Zepht Badilla
    28 views1 page
    The petitioner, a campaign manager, filed a petition against the Mayor of Manila for refusing to issue a permit to hold a public meeting in Plaza Miranda to address grievances with the government. The Mayor refused on grounds that similar speeches in the past undermined faith in government and threatened public order. The Court found that the ordinance gave the Mayor unregulated discretion to prohibit use of public spaces, which is not allowed under democratic systems. For suppression of free speech and assembly to be justified, there must be reasonable grounds to fear serious and imminent evil will result, not just potential for some violence or property destruction. The Mayor's defense was untenable as fear alone cannot justify limiting free expression.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    1 Primacias v fugos

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The petitioner, a campaign manager, filed a petition against the Mayor of Manila for refusing to issue a permit to hold a public meeting in Plaza Miranda to address grievances with the government. The Mayor refused on grounds that similar speeches in the past undermined faith in government and threatened public order. The Court found that the ordinance gave the Mayor unregulated discretion to prohibit use of public spaces, which is not allowed under democratic systems. For suppression of free speech and assembly to be justified, there must be reasonable grounds to fear serious and imminent evil will result, not just potential for some violence or property destruction. The Mayor's defense was untenable as fear alone cannot justify limiting free expression.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    28 views1 page

    1 Primacias V Fugos

    Uploaded by

    Zepht Badilla
    The petitioner, a campaign manager, filed a petition against the Mayor of Manila for refusing to issue a permit to hold a public meeting in Plaza Miranda to address grievances with the government. The Mayor refused on grounds that similar speeches in the past undermined faith in government and threatened public order. The Court found that the ordinance gave the Mayor unregulated discretion to prohibit use of public spaces, which is not allowed under democratic systems. For suppression of free speech and assembly to be justified, there must be reasonable grounds to fear serious and imminent evil will result, not just potential for some violence or property destruction. The Mayor's defense was untenable as fear alone cannot justify limiting free expression.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Sec.

    4 Assembly and petition

    Primicias vs. Fugoso


    Facts: Petitioner petitioner Cipriano Primicias, a campaign manager of the Coalesced Minority
    Parties against Valeriano Fugoso, Mayor of the City of Manila. An action was instituted by the
    petitioner for the refusal of the respondent to issue a permit to them to hold a public meeting in
    Plaza Miranda for redress of grievances to the government. The reason alleged by the respondent in
    his defense for refusing the permit is, "that there is a reasonable ground to believe, basing upon
    previous utterances and upon the fact that passions, especially on the part of the losing groups,
    remains bitter and high, that similar speeches will be delivered tending to undermine the faith and
    confidence of the people in their government, and in the duly constituted authorities, which might
    threaten breaches of the peace and a disruption of public order." Giving emphasis as well to the
    delegated police power to local government. Stating as well Revised Ordinances of 1927 prohibiting
    as an offense against public peace, and penalizes as a misdemeanour, "any act, in any public place,
    meeting, or procession, tending to disturb the peace or excite a riot; or collect with other persons in
    a body or crowd for any unlawful purpose; or disturb or disquiet any congregation engaged in any
    lawful assembly." Included herein is also is the use Free use of Public Place. Due to the urgency of
    the case, the Court, issued a writ of mandamus, as prayed for in the petition.

    Issue: Whether or Not the freedom of speech was violated.

    Held: Yes. Dealing with the ordinance, specifically, Sec. 1119, said section provides for two
    constructions: (1) the Mayor of the City of Manila is vested with unregulated discretion to grant or
    refuse, to grant permit for the holding of a lawful assembly or meeting, parade, or procession in the
    streets and other public places of the City of Manila; (2) The right of the Mayor is subject to
    reasonable discretion to determine or specify the streets or public 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 the risk of disorder. The court
    favoured the second construction. First construction tantamount to authorizing the Mayor to
    prohibit the use of the streets. Under our democratic system of government, no such unlimited
    power may be validly granted to any officer of the government, except perhaps in cases of national
    emergency.

    The Mayor’s first defense is untenable. Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free
    speech and assembly. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears.
    To justify suppression of free speech there must be reasonable ground to fear that serious evil will
    result if free speech is practiced. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the danger
    apprehended is imminent. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the evil to be prevented
    is a serious one. The fact that speech is likely to result in some violence or in destruction of property
    is not enough to justify its suppression. There must be the probability of serious injury to the state.

    You might also like