Monday, September 29, 2008 Bautista: Arnedo Park and free speech By Jun Bautista Straight Views
GOVERNOR Ed Panlilio and the Provincial Board (PB) never seem to run out of things with which to disagree.
They have needlessly engaged in continuous -- pardon the term -- spitting contest to the detriment of political stability and unhampered public service in the province.
The latest of course are the contentious positions both parties have taken as to whether or not Arnedo Park is a freedom park. But what interests me more in this issue is its implications on the exercise of the right to freedom of speech, expression and assembly.
While the PB insists that Arnedo Park is a freedom park, as in fact it passed a resolution making such designation, Governor Panlilio has taken the opposite stance and even explicitly made clear to the City of San Fernando that it can no longer issue permits for the conduct of free speech activities in Arnedo Park since it lies within the jurisdiction of the provincial Capitol over which the Provincial Government exercises exclusive control.
This ongoing debate should have been settled already by Bayan, et al. v. Ermita, et al., G.R. Nos. 169838 and its companion cases of Del Prado, et al. v. Ermita, et al., G.R. No. 169848, and KMU, et al. v. Executive Secretary, et al., G.R. No. 169881 (April 25, 2006).
In these consolidated cases, the Supreme Court (SC) was once again called upon to rule on the validity of the Public Assembly Act of 1985 (B.P. 880).
The petitioners, who staged rallies in various parts of the City of Manila, were dispersed by the police for not securing permits as required by B.P. 880 and by reason thereof petitioners questioned the validity of the law before the Supreme Court.
The SC upheld the validity of B.P. 880, reiterating its decisions in previous cases similarly assailing the law, by ruling that the law is a valid time, place, and manner restriction on free speech. This means the regulation is not directed to speech itself but to the conduct associated with it, such as the time, place and manner of the speech.
One of the important rulings of the High Court in these cases is that a law seeking to regulate speech-related activities, such as B.P. 880, must leave open alternative channels of communication. This rule has great significance in the ongoing debate about Arnedo Park.
According to the High Court B.P. 880 provides alternative channels of communication in the event an application for a rally permit is denied by the authorities: the availability of freedom parks where public assemblies and rallies may be held without the need for a permit.
B.P. 880 requires every city and municipality to designate such freedom parks within six months after the effectivity of the law, which was in 1985 or more than two decades ago. However, the SC sadly noted that only a handful of local government units have complied with this requirement.
As a result of this finding, the SC, in the words of Justice Azcuna who penned the decision in the cited cases, went "one step further in safeguarding liberty by giving local governments a deadline of 30 days within which to designate specific freedom parks as provided under B.P. No. 880.
If, after that period, no such parks are so identified in accordance with Section 15 of the law, all public parks and plazas of the municipality or city concerned shall in effect be deemed freedom parks; no prior permit of whatever kind shall be required to hold an assembly therein.
The only requirement will be written notices to the police and the mayor's office to allow proper coordination and orderly activities."
The clear import of this ruling is that any city or municipality that did not designate a freedom park pursuant to B.P. 880, either within six months from the effectivity of the law or within 30 days from the finality of the decision in Bayan v. Ermita, which should be sometime in the latter part of May 2006, cannot require permits for the conduct of any public assembly or rally, since all public parks or plazas of the such city or municipality became freedom parks.
This is so because in the absence of a designated freedom park within a city or municipality B.P. 880 cannot be enforced in so far as it requires permits for the conduct of rallies or public assemblies.
In the absence of a freedom park, denial of an application for a permit to conduct speech-related activities in a particular venue will result in the complete emasculation of the freedom of speech, expression and assembly -- in the absence of a clear and present danger -- since it leaves the applicant with no alternative venue where he can exercise these rights.
That being said, if the City of San Fernando has not designated any freedom park either within six months after B.P. 880 became effective or 30 days after the finality of Bayan v. Ermita, all public parks and plazas within the city -- including Arnedo Park -- became freedom parks for which no permit is required in the exercise of speech-related activities, such as the rally undertaken and continuously sought to be undertaken by the Balas Boys.
If in fact Arnedo Park has been designated by the City of San Fernando as a freedom park there is all the more reason not to require permits for public assemblies or rallies at the park.
Apparently this is not the case since Mayor Rodriguez appears unaware of any such designation for having issued a rally permit to the Balas Boys.
The seeming obstacle now is whether or not Governor Panlilio is within his right to control access to Arnedo Park. The plain answer is he is not. Although Arnedo Park may be situated on the premises of the provincial Capitol, this did not make the property exempt from the application of B.P. 880 and the ruling of the SC.
