La Paz plaza is city's freedom park area
Iloilo City -- Prior to the Supreme Court's (SC) ruling that the Arroyo administration's Calibrated Preemptive Response (CPR) policy is unconstitutional, the city has already designated its own freedom park area.
Mayor Jerry Treñas said the Sangguniang Panlungsod has designated La Paz plaza as freedom park where anti-government protesters can hold their rallies.
Treñas said, areas such as Rotary Amphitheater in front of the provincial capitol and Plazoleta Gay where rallyists usually converge are actually not designated as freedom park areas. He said the city government merely tolerates activists holding rallies in said areas.
He said, technically rallyists who wants to occupy the Rotary Amphitheater should get permit from the city government. He said that it is up for the Iloilo provincial government to decide since they own the area covered by the Rotary Amphitheater.
The issues on the designated freedom park areas in the city cropped after the Supreme Court has declared CPR illegal but upheld the existing Batas Pambansa 880.
Section 15 of Batas Pambansa No. 880 directed all the local government units particularly the Department of Interiors and Local Government to establish or designate at least one suitable freedom park or plaza in every city and municipality of the country.
As these developed, the SC, in the same decision, goes even one step further in safeguarding liberty by giving local governments a deadline of 30 days within which to designate specific freedom parks as provided under B.P. No. 880.
If, after that period, no such parks are so identified in accordance with Section 15 of the law, all public parks and plazas of the municipality or city concerned shall in effect be deemed freedom parks; no prior permit of whatever kind shall be required to hold an assembly therein. The only requirement will be written notices to the police and the mayor's office to allow proper coordination and orderly activities.
After thirty (30) days from the finality of the SC decision, advance notices, no prior permit shall be required to exercise the right to peaceably assemble and petition in the public parks or plazas of a city or municipality that has not yet complied with Section 15 of the law.
On the other hand, the SC declares that B.P. No. 880 cannot be condemned as unconstitutional; it does not curtail or unduly restrict freedoms; it merely regulates the use of public places as to the time, place and manner of assemblies.
Far from being insidious, "maximum tolerance" is for the benefit of rallyists, not the government. The delegation to the mayors of the power to issue rally "permits" is valid because it is subject to the constitutionally-sound "clear and present danger" standard, the decision states.
With the SC's decision, Treñas said the rallyists should observe the "no permit, no rally policy." They should get a permit before they can hold a rally. "We have the right to deny any application for rally permit if it will cause public inconvenience."
Meanwhile, the chief executive has yet to receive any application for rally this coming Labor Day on May 1.