G.R. No. 36453 ; September 28, 1932
CRISANTO EVANGELISTA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. TOMAS EARNSHAW, Mayor of the City of Manila, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

Crisanto Evangelista, as president of the Communist Party of the Philippines, requested a permit from Manila Mayor Tomas Earnshaw to hold a public meeting and parade. The mayor denied the request and revoked all existing permits for the party, prohibiting its meetings. The mayor justified this action based on an investigation concluding the party was an illegal association. The investigation cited the party’s constitution and by-laws, which advocated for the overthrow of American imperialism and the capitalist government through class struggle and revolution, aiming to establish a Soviet government under a dictatorship of the proletariat.

ISSUE

Whether the mayor acted within his authority in denying the permit and prohibiting the Communist Party’s meetings based on the party’s seditious and revolutionary objectives.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the mayor’s action. The right to peaceful assembly is not absolute. When the intention and effect of an assembly are seditious, constitutional guarantees must yield to state measures designed to maintain public peace, security, and the existence of the state. The state is not required to wait until a revolutionary danger becomes imminent before acting; it may suppress a threatened danger in its incipiency. The doctrines and aims of the Communist Party, as expressed in its own documents, posed a clear danger to public safety and the security of the state, justifying the denial of the permit.

AI Generated by Armztrong.