Update: Read the decision (written by Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna) here.

These two weeks are rather frustrating for the Arroyo administration. (Or is it?)

ABS-CBN News has just reported that the Supreme Court, in a 13-0 decision, has declared the calibrated preemptive response policy as null and void. INQ7 has reported that the SC has directed the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) to implement Section 15 of Batas Pambansa 880, which calls for local government to declare freedom parks.

The SC has given heads of cities and municipalities 30 days or else all parks will become freedom parks.

The score then stands at 2-1. (For Arroyo: one for National ID, 0.5 for EO464, and 0.5 for BP880. Against her: 0.5 for EO464, and 0.5 on CPR. I split the score on EO 464 and BP880/CPR.) Next for decision are the petitions against Proclamation 1017.

Expect Mike Arroyo to once again say “It has done its purpose”.

The SC should rule on 1017 soon; issuing its decision before May 1 is the best-case scenario. Why? Remember that Proclamation 1017 was issued last February 24, 2006, the 20th anniversary of EDSA1, on the pretext that there was an aborted coup. All rally permits were revoked, rallies were dispersed, some were arrested, a newspaper office was raided. And now, with the so-called Oplan 4G, another coup/destabilization effort is supposedly scheduled on May 1, in time for the usual Labor Day protest rallies. Arroyo will just issue a similar proclamation to suppress all these rallies if the 1017 issue remains unresolved by that time, since there is nothing to deter her from doing so.

It seems my claim that the SC will drag its feet on these cases were wrong. I even complained that this SC is beholden to Arroyo, given the Arroyo propensity to tell her detractors to sue her. I was wrong. The gameplan, really, was to give her space, so that the heat generated by her political woes would subside. They knew beforehand that what they were doing were illegal. They just need the time and space. And they got them.

The administration and its minions will now be hard pressed to identify freedom parks, and I presume they will choose small parks to designate. For example, Manila is a congested city, what are its options? Liwasang Bonifacio, Plaza Miranda, Plaza Lacson, Bonifacio Shrine in City Hall. Would Quezon City declare the People Power Monument as a Freedom Park? Will Pasig declare the EDSA Shrine as a freedom park? (Fat chance, the Catholic Church owns the land.) The decision lamented the fact that no freedom park exists except for Cebu’s Fuente Osmeña:

If this is so (referring to the non-compliance on Section 15), the degree of observance of B.P. No. 880’s mandate that every city and municipality set aside a freedom park within six months from its effectivity in 1985, or 20 years ago, would be pathetic and regrettable. The matter appears to have been taken for granted amidst the swell of freedom that rose from the peaceful revolution of 1986.

Also, BP 880 was declared in toto as constitutional. I think the only questionable part of that Marcos law is Section 6, which was abused by Lito Atienza. By not acting on the application, the law specifies that the application is deemed approved. The police interpreted it otherwise – City Hall not acting on an application is an outright denial of that application. The burden of proof that an application has been denied now lies on the authorities:

Furthermore, there is need to address the situation adverted to by petitioners where mayors do not act on applications for a permit and when the police demand a permit and the rallyists could not produce one, the rally is immediately dispersed. In such a situation, as a necessary consequence and part of maximum tolerance, rallyists who can show the police an application duly filed on a given date can, after two days from said date, rally in accordance with their application without the need to show a permit, the grant of the permit being then presumed under the law, and it will be the burden of the authorities to show that there has been a denial of the application, in which case the rally may be peacefully dispersed following the procedure of maximum tolerance prescribed by the law.

And there is also Section 12, calling for peaceful dispersal of rallies without permits. How can there be peaceful dispersal? What if the rallyists refuse to heed the calls of police to disperse? The police has no choice but to employ force; would you call that peaceful? And take note of the provision:

Sec. 12. Dispersal of public assembly without permit. – When the public assembly is held without a permit where a permit is required, the said public assembly may be peacefully dispersed. (Emphasis mine)

That provision speaks a lot. The government may or may not disperse rallies without permits. MAY. Not SHALL. On all instances, this government had chosen to disperse rallyist, according to law. It even used everything that was forbidden by the maximum tolerance provisions (Sections 3c, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13). The question now is this: assuming that a rally has no permit, and the police has to disperse it, do the provisions of Sections 9, 10, 11 and 13 still apply?