REYES vs BAGATSING
125 SCRA 553
FACTS: This was a petition for mandamus with writ of preliminary injunction to review the decision of the City of Mayor of Manila Ramon Bagatsing, denying the application for permit to hold a rally from Luneta to the gates of the United States Embassy.
ISSUE: Whether the contention of mayor Bagatsing as to denying the application for permit to hold rally was in accordance to the Veinna Convention?
HELD: NO.The Constitution adopts the generally accepted principle of International law as part of the law of the land.Veinna Convention is a restatement of the generally accepted principles of international law.It should be a part of the law of the land.That being a case,If there were clear and present danger of any intrusion or damage or distribution of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity, there would be a justification for the denial of the permit insofar as the terminal point would be the Embassy.
Petition is GRANTED. The court found that there was no clear and present danger of a substantive evil to a legitimate public interest that would justify the denial of the exercise of the constitutional rights of free speech and peaceble assembly.
125 SCRA 553
FACTS: This was a petition for mandamus with writ of preliminary injunction to review the decision of the City of Mayor of Manila Ramon Bagatsing, denying the application for permit to hold a rally from Luneta to the gates of the United States Embassy.
ISSUE: Whether the contention of mayor Bagatsing as to denying the application for permit to hold rally was in accordance to the Veinna Convention?
HELD: NO.The Constitution adopts the generally accepted principle of International law as part of the law of the land.Veinna Convention is a restatement of the generally accepted principles of international law.It should be a part of the law of the land.That being a case,If there were clear and present danger of any intrusion or damage or distribution of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity, there would be a justification for the denial of the permit insofar as the terminal point would be the Embassy.
Petition is GRANTED. The court found that there was no clear and present danger of a substantive evil to a legitimate public interest that would justify the denial of the exercise of the constitutional rights of free speech and peaceble assembly.
No comments:
Post a Comment