SUBJECT: TOPIC: Date Made: Digest Maker:

Crim Inciting to sedition 2-5-2016 Juvy

Brandon
CASE NAME: Primicias vs Fugoso
PONENTE: Feria, J. Case Date: January 27, 1948
Case Summary: (NADISCUSS NA TO UNDER PROHIBITION OF PEACABLE MEETINGS.
DINAGDAGAN KO NA LANG DIGEST NI BRANDON)
In November 1947, Mayor Valeriano Fugoso refused to grant Cipriano
Primacias request to hold a public meeting in Plaza Miranda as an
avenue to address their grievances. The respondent argued that
such assembly. At that time, the City of Manila has an existing ordinance
requiring a permit from t h e Mayor before holding any forms of public
assembly. The Mayor reasoned 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
a n d confidence of t h e people in t h e i r government, and in t h e d u l y
constituted authorities, which might threaten breaches of the peace
and a disruption of public order.

The Court ruled that the Mayor should grant the said permit. By statutory
construction, the said ordinance cited by the respondent only gives him
discretion on where the said meetings will be held.
Rule of Law:
Art. 131. Prohibition, interruption and dissolution of peaceful
meetings. The penalty of prision corre cciona l in its minimum period shall
be imposed upon any public oficer or employee who, without legal
ground, shall prohibit or interrupt the holding of a peaceful meeting, or shall
dissolve the same.

The same penalty shall be imposed upon a public oficer or employee

who shall hinder any person from joining any lawful association or from
attending any of its meetings.

The same penalty shall be imposed upon any public oficer or employee
who shall prohibit or hinder any person from a d d r e s s i n g , either alone or together
with o th e rs , any petition to the authorities for the correction of abuses
or redress of grievances.

City Ordinance: "SEC. 1119 Free for use of public The streets and
public places of the city shall be kept free and clear for the use of the
public, and the sidewalks and crossings for the pedestrians, and the
same shall only be used or occupied for other purposes as provided by
ordinance or regulation: Provided, that the holding of athletic
games, sports, or exercise during the celebration of national holidays
in any streets or public places of the city and on the patron saint day
of any district in question, may be permitted by means of a permit
issued by the Mayor, who shall determine the streets or public
BLOCK D 2019 1
places or portions thereof, where such athletic games, sports, or
exercises may be held: And provided, further, That the holding of any
parade or procession in any streets or public places is prohibited
unless a permit therefor is first secured from the Mayor who shall, on
every such occasion, determine or specify the streets or public places
for the formation, route, and dismissal of such parade or procession:
And provided, finally, That all applications to hold a parade or
procession shall be submitted to the Mayor not less than twenty-four
hours prior to the holding of such parade or procession."

Detailed Facts:
Cipriano Primacias, a campaign manager of the Coalesced Minority
Parties, requested to the Office of the City Mayor of Manila for a permit to
hold a public assembly in Plaza Miranda to redress their g r i e v a n c e s . However,
Mayor Fugoso refused to release such permit citing the ordinance
legislated by the City Council using provisions of the Revised
Administrative Code as a basis.

Respondent argued that the ordinance empowers his ofice to have

discretionary power on whether or not he will grant the said permit to
assemble. He cannot give the permit to Primacias on the grounds
that it has the tendency to undermine the confidence of the people to
its own government.

Petitioner filed a petition for mandamus arguing that the actions of

respondent is abridging their constitutional right to free speech and
peacefully assemble.

Issue:
(1)Whether or not the refusal of the mayor to grant the permit is valid due to the
possible utterance of seditious words or words which tend to disturb the public
peace? -No
(2) Whether or not the mayor be compelled to grant the requested
permit? Yes.
Holding:
(1)No, the danger apprehended was not imminent and the evil prevented was not a
serious one. Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech
and assembly. To justify suppression of free speech there must be reasonable
ground to fear that serious evil will result if free speech is practiced. Moreover,
even imminent danger cannot justify resort to prohibition of these functions
essential efective democracy, unless the evil apprehended is relatively serious.
Prohibition of free speech and assembly is a measure so stringent that it would be
inappropriate as the means for averting a relatively trivial harm to a society. The
fact that speech is likely to result in some violence or in destruction of property is
not enough to justify its suppression.
(2)The ordinance expressly confers the Mayor the discretion to
determine where the assemblies will be placed. The right to
freedom of speech should not be curtailed by the State unless
BLOCK D 2019 2
 there is a probability of serious injury against the State. There is no
justifying reason for the respondent to suppress the fundamental right
of persons to assemble and redress their grievances.
Ruling:
Petition is granted. The Court compels respondent to issue the said
permit to the petitioner

BLOCK D 2019 3