GR 175241; (February, 2010) (Digest)
G.R. No. 175241; February 24, 2010
Integrated Bar of the Philippines represented by its National President, Jose Anselmo I. Cadiz, H. HARRY L. ROQUE, and JOEL RUIZ BUTUYAN, Petitioners, vs. HONORABLE MANILA MAYOR JOSE “LITO” ATIENZA, Respondent.
FACTS
On June 15, 2006, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), through its National President Jose Anselmo Cadiz, filed a letter application with the Office of the City Mayor of Manila for a permit to rally at the foot of Mendiola Bridge on June 22, 2006. Respondent Mayor Jose “Lito” Atienza issued a permit dated June 16, 2006, allowing the rally on the given date but indicating Plaza Miranda as the venue instead of Mendiola Bridge. The IBP received this permit on June 19, 2006. Aggrieved, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals on June 21, 2006. The rally pushed through on June 22, 2006, at Mendiola Bridge after Cadiz discussed with police officials. Subsequently, the Manila Police District instituted a criminal action against Cadiz for violating the Public Assembly Act. The Court of Appeals, in its assailed Decision and Resolution, found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of Mayor Atienza in modifying the permit. Petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the modification of the venue in IBP’s rally permit does not constitute grave abuse of discretion.
RULING
The Supreme Court REVERSED the assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that respondent Mayor Atienza committed grave abuse of discretion in modifying the rally permit by altering the venue from Mendiola Bridge to Plaza Miranda. The Court ruled that under Section 6 of the Public Assembly Act (Batas Pambansa Blg. 880), if the mayor perceives an imminent and grave danger of a substantive evil warranting the denial or modification of the permit, he must immediately inform the applicant who must be heard on the matter. Respondent failed to indicate how he arrived at the modification using the clear and present danger test, which is an indispensable condition for such action. The outright modification without hearing the IBP and without indicating the basis for the perceived danger constituted a grave abuse of discretion. The Court further held that the case, though moot due to the passing of the rally date, was capable of repetition yet evading review, thus warranting a resolution on the merits.