Freedom of speech and the right to peaceably assemble are among the freedoms most cherished by the 1987 Constitution. Article III, Section 4 is unambiguous: no law shall abridge the freedom of speech, expression, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances. That protection is for every Filipino, regardless of political color, religious affiliation, or social status. Whether the protesters are workers, students, or members of a religious congregation, peaceful protest is a legitimate act of democratic participation.
The rallies along EDSA have long stood as a clear example of that progressive right – masses of people being mobilized to make their voices heard by the government and the public alike. Gatherings of this kind remind us that democracy is best when citizens can disagree openly, without fear of sanctions or reprisals.
I myself have participated in many such actions, including the February 1986 People Power revolution and as recently as the anti-corruption rallies last February 2026.
I have also taught over the years that as a general rule, we do not need a permit to exercise our freedom of speech and expression, and freedom of assembly.
But I also teach that constitutional rights are not absolute, and freedom is not a license to ignore everyone. Only a clear and present danger, which holds that the government can restrict speech or equal rights, when it poses a clear and immediate danger of causing serious harm that the government has the authority to prevent. The danger must be clear (perceived, not speculative) and present (imminent, not remote).
The government has its own responsibilities, which include protecting public safety, maintaining order, and protecting the rights of those who are not part of the collective but are affected by it just the same. That is why the Public Assembly Act of 1985 requires permits for public meetings in public places, and gives the authorities the authority to control the time, place and manner in which they are held. The aim of these laws is not to stop protests but to keep peace and control for the protesters and for the public who did not sign up to be disturbed.
What happened on June 30
On Tuesday, June 30, organizers of the INC rally held a surprise rally without a permit in support of Senator Rodante Marcoleta, who is now facing plunder charges before the Sandiganbayan on the recommendation of the Ombudsman. For hours, EDSA and other highways came to a standstill. Workers arrived late or missed their shift altogether. Students could not make it to class. Patients were delayed in accessing medical care. The travelers lost hours; delivery buyers lost revenue; small businesses lost sales.
None of these people had anything to do with the reason he became champion, but they took the full cost of it.
That is the heart of the problem. The gathering of thousands on a major artery like EDSA does not exist in isolation. It conflicts with the rights of travelers, workers, and businesses who also have constitutional protections, including the freedom to move and go about their daily lives undisturbed. When the meeting goes on without permission the law requires, not only the waste of paper. It violates procedures intended to allow authorities to prepare for traffic, safety, and emergency response, and to protect the rights of participants and non-participants alike.
Meeting to defend the robbery case
Beyond the question of consent there is a more fundamental question: what was this meeting really about?
The right to peaceful assembly exists so that citizens can petition the government to address grievances: to speak out against policies, injustices, or abuses that affect the public. The June 30 rally was organized for a narrower and more troubling purpose: to rally public support behind an official who is about to face a charge of extortion, one of the most serious crimes a public servant can be charged with. That is not a complaint against the government; it is an attempt to cover a personal legal problem in the garb of constitutional freedom.
When the machinery of mass assembly is deployed not to hold the authorities accountable, but to shield the individual from accountability, the assembly’s claim to moral and constitutional legitimacy is greatly weakened. Freedom of assembly protects the right to be heard – it was not intended to function as a crowd-sourced defense strategy for a pending criminal trial.
This distinction is important because it changes who bears the burden of disruption and why. The public who lost work hours, missed medical appointments, and lost income on June 30 did not do so in the service of a greater public good; it did so, in fact, to increase pressure on behalf of one senator’s personal war. Such inequality, of widespread public sacrifice for narrow private interests, is difficult to justify even under the most generous reading of the right of assembly.
It is also worth saying that there is nothing wrong in the case of looting itself. The Ombudsman does not open charges of this magnitude lightly; the finding of probable cause follows a preliminary investigation where the accused is given a chance to answer the allegations before any case is raised.
The Sandiganbayan exists precisely because the Constitution and our laws recognize that public officials accused of corruption and corruption deserve a special court, capable of hearing evidence, not to be tried by protest, and not to be tried at the mercy of the public. Senator Marcoleta, like any suspect, maintains the presumption of innocence and every right to defend himself fully before the court. But the proper place for that defense is the courtroom, not EDSA. Using mass mobilization to question the integrity of the charge, or to pressure institutions to support it, does not defend the senator’s rights; it replaces political theater with due process, and it asks the public to pay the price.
If there is one lesson of June 30 worth driving home, it is this: no organization, no matter its size, its numbers, or its influence, is above the laws governing public assembly. The equal application of the law is what keeps public confidence in democratic institutions. Every time the need for consent is ignored without consequence, it creates the perception that some groups play by different rules than everyone else.
Integrity cuts both ways, though. Absence of consent does not automatically make a meeting illegal or unconstitutional. Our rule of law requires a case-by-case look – whether public safety was threatened, whether the authorities responded appropriately, and whether the rights of all parties, including protesters, were respected in the process.
Freedom and responsibility
The Constitution does not give a person unlimited freedom to act without regard to the law. Permit requirements, traffic management, and public safety measures are in place so that the exercise of one group’s rights does not trample on those of the community. These are not tools of oppression; it is the conditions under which freedom and the good of all are together.
When that balance is ignored, the legitimate exercise of a constitutional right prevents its abuse. Freedom of speech and peaceful assembly was never intended to serve as a shield against legal obligations or a pretext for imposing avoidable burdens on the public.
The true test of democracy is not just whether it tolerates protests; it is whether it can protect civil liberties and the common good at the same time, and make everyone, without exception, responsible for the rule of law. – Rappler.com
