February 17, 2006
CELEBRATION OF 1986 EDSA PEOPLE POWER REVOLT
A SHAM DUE TO ARROYOS CPR
Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr. (PDP-Laban) today
said the celebration of the 20th anniversary of the 1986 EDSA People
Power Revolt will be a sham for as long as the peoples inherent and
constitutionally-guaranteed right to peaceful assembly continues to
be curtailed by a government which, ironically, owed its existence
to people power.
Pimentel said the Arroyo administrations policy of breaking up
peaceful rallies and marches, aimed at seeking redress for their
legitimate grievances, shows its hypocrisy and disrespect for the
rule of law and human rights of the Filipinos.
He expressed disenchantment over the action of law enforcers,
invoking the infamous calibrated preemptive response policy (CPR),
in violently dispersing protest rallies over the last few days, such
as the one staged by the Akbayan party-list group near Mendiola
bridge and another by the Alliance of Health Workers in front of the
Department of Budget and Management main office in San Miguel,
He said this is a flagrant violation of Batas Pambansa 880, enacted
into law in 1984, which implements the constitutional mandate that
the State shall ensure the free exercise of the peoples right to
peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of
grievances without prejudice to the right of others to life,
liberty and equal protection of the law.
Under Batas Pambansa 880, it is now part of State policy that all
peaceful assemblies of people for the redress of their grievances
are legal and could not, therefore, be stopped, dispersed, dispensed
with or disbanded, the minority leader said.
Pimentel, an assemblyman of the Batasang Pambansa which approved BP
880, said this law provides that:
1. A permit is not indispensable
for a peaceful activity to take place.
2. A permit is not necessary to make the activity legal.
3. A permit is necessary only to provide order to the activity
and security of its participants.
In fact, the lone senator from Mindanao said that if the authority
for issuing the rally permit does not act on the application for a
permit after two working days, the application is deemed approved.
Also, Pimentel said the policemen or civil disturbance control
troops, are required under BP 880 to stay away (by 100 meters) from
the demonstrators to protect them from infiltrators and to avoid
provocations that may spark violence.
Pimentel bewailed that law enforcement authorities, presumably
acting upon order of Malacañang
, did not have any qualm in
dispersing even a religious procession held in the university belt
in Manila on Oct. 24, 2005, that was led by three Catholic bishops
and prominent opposition leaders like former Vice President Teofisto
Guingona, Jr. and Sen. Jamby Madrigal.
Crowd dispersal policemen broke up the procession after the
participants left the San Sebastian Church and were about to proceed
to San Beda Church, despite the fact that the activity was legal,
being covered by a special permit issued by the City of Manilas
Despite the fact that the participants in the procession were the
aggrieved parties, Pimentel said ironically the Manila Western
Police District charged that the respondents violated section 13 of
BP 880 by holding a public assembly without a permit because they
went beyond the area indicated in their special permit.
For people originally engaged in a peaceful procession in a
particular place to proceed to any other area also in a peaceful
manner cannot be deemed to have committed a crime, Pimentel said.
He said the procession participants would have violated the law if
they acted with aggression, violence or intimidation against anyone
in the course of their procession.
But not even the complaining police officers said so. It must
therefore, be taken as true that as far as the police are concerned,
the respondents did not act with aggression, violence or even
intimidation towards anyone in the course of their peaceful
activity, Pimentel said.
The M-WPD also charged the participants with violation of section
1119 the Revised Ordinances of the City of Manila by allegedly
causing obstruction of the public streets of Manila to the prejudice
of the public.
Pimentel said a reading of section 1119 of the said city ordinance
shows that it is intended to govern the use of public streets and
other public places for activities that are not a religious
Although such activities are placed within the jurisdiction of the
local governments, Pimentel said still BP 880 mandates that the
declaration of national policy as provided in section 2 of the Act
shall always prevail.
It stands to reason, then, that no ordinance of any local
government could curtail, amend, repeal, modify, reduce, rescind or
restrict any right that Batas Pambansa No. 880 confers upon our
citizens. That position is not only directed by reason. It is also
mandated by the rule of law. Otherwise, if local ordinances were to
supersede the requirements of national law or the Constitution,
there would be chaos in the land, Pimentel said.