Prohibition and Dissolution of Peaceful Meetings
Category: Book 2- Crimes and Penalties
ART.131- Revised Penal Code. Prohibition and Dissolution of Peaceful Meetings
I. Concept: This is a crime against the Right of Peaceful Meetings. The crime is committed by a public officer or employee who commits any of the acts specified below.
II. First Act: Prohibiting or interrupting, without legal grounds, the holding of a peaceful meeting, or by dissolving the same.
A. Grounds for prohibiting, interrupting or dissolving a meeting:
1. Lack of a required permit where the meeting is to be held in a public place where peace and order will be affected, or when others are prevented from using the place. Example: meeting in a street, or bridge or sidewalk
2. The requirement of a permit is only for purposes of regulation but not as an exercise of prohibitory powers. Thus, the refusal to issue a permit without any valid ground constitutes prohibition of a peaceful meeting.
3. When the meeting constitutes a trespass to private property
4, When the meeting is not peaceful as when it becomes chaotic or the participants are enjoined to do acts of destruction of property or acts of violence , or when the meeting becomes seditious
B. The accused officer must not be a participant in the meeting otherwise his act may either be unjust vexation or tumultuous disturbance.
C. Dissolution is usually in the form of dispersal or by the arrest of the leaders or the speakers
III. Second Act: Hindering any person from joining any peaceful meeting, such as by threatening to arrest them, unless the meeting is that of criminal associations. Example: joining the meeting of the CPP is not prohibited, but that of the NPA is prohibited..
IV. Third Act: Prohibiting or hindering another from addressing a Petition to the authorities for redress of grievances. Provided the address is done in an orderly manner and there is no damage to public peace or order.
NOTE: The Provisions of Article 131 should be read in conjunction with B.P. 880 otherwise known as the Public Assembly Act of 1985.
Related Philippine Law Resources:
Newer Philippine Law Resources:
Additional Law Reading:
Prohibition and Dissolution of Peaceful Meetings
Category: Book 2- Crimes and Penalties
ART.131- Revised Penal Code. Prohibition and Dissolution of Peaceful Meetings
I. Concept: This is a crime against the Right of Peaceful Meetings. The crime is committed by a public officer or employee who commits any of the acts specified below.
II. First Act: Prohibiting or interrupting, without legal grounds, the holding of a peaceful meeting, or by dissolving the same.
A. Grounds for prohibiting, interrupting or dissolving a meeting:
1. Lack of a required permit where the meeting is to be held in a public place where peace and order will be affected, or when others are prevented from using the place. Example: meeting in a street, or bridge or sidewalk
2. The requirement of a permit is only for purposes of regulation but not as an exercise of prohibitory powers. Thus, the refusal to issue a permit without any valid ground constitutes prohibition of a peaceful meeting.
3. When the meeting constitutes a trespass to private property
4, When the meeting is not peaceful as when it becomes chaotic or the participants are enjoined to do acts of destruction of property or acts of violence , or when the meeting becomes seditious
B. The accused officer must not be a participant in the meeting otherwise his act may either be unjust vexation or tumultuous disturbance.
C. Dissolution is usually in the form of dispersal or by the arrest of the leaders or the speakers
III. Second Act: Hindering any person from joining any peaceful meeting, such as by threatening to arrest them, unless the meeting is that of criminal associations. Example: joining the meeting of the CPP is not prohibited, but that of the NPA is prohibited..
IV. Third Act: Prohibiting or hindering another from addressing a Petition to the authorities for redress of grievances. Provided the address is done in an orderly manner and there is no damage to public peace or order.
NOTE: The Provisions of Article 131 should be read in conjunction with B.P. 880 otherwise known as the Public Assembly Act of 1985.
Related Philippine Law Resources:
Newer Philippine Law Resources:
Additional Law Reading:
BATASnatin The Firm
Latest @ Forums
-
-
- Shema Corporation legal ba?
- In General Discussion
- 6 days, 17 hours ago
-
-
-
- foreclosed property, i need guides please help me
- In I Need A Lawyer!
- 2 weeks, 3 days ago
-
-
-
- i cant access even the demo
- In Law MCQuizzer
- 2 weeks, 3 days ago
-
Popular
- 1
- 2
- 3
SUGGESTED ANSWERS …
ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS IN POLITICAL LAW ARRANGED BY TOPIC (1990 – 2006) Edited and Arranged by:Silliman University College of Law Batch 2005Updated by:DondeeD’ BAR-Retake 2007 From the ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS by the UP LAW COMPLEX & PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHO...
Read moreOral Defamation l S…
Kinds and Definition of Slander or Oral Defamation Definition: Speaking of base and defamatory words which tend to prejudice another in his reputation, office, trade, business or means of livelihood Two kinds of oral or verbal defamation: (1) Grave Slander (2) Simple Slander A. Factor...
Read moreArticle I – THE NAT…
Article I – THE NATIONAL TERRITORYThe national territory of the Philippines comprises:1) the Philippine archipelago;2) all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdictionPHILIPPINE ARCHIPELAGO – that body of water studded with islands which is delineated in the Treaty of...
Read moreRandom
- 1
- 2
- 3
TRIAL, RECONSIDER…
DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN NEW TRIAL, RECONSIDERATION, AND MOTION TO REOPEN TRIAL NEW TRIALProper only after rendition or promulgation of judgment but has not been final Fraud, accident, mistake and excusable negligence; newly-discovered evidence are th...
Read moreWHAT IS THE PROPER …
WHAT IS THE PROPER ACTION OF THE COURT WHEN THE ACCUSED RAISES THE DEFENSE OF PRESCRIPTION?> The proper action for the court is to exercise its jurisdiction and to decide the case upon the merits, holding the action to have prescribed a...
Read moreCORTES vs. YU-TIBO-…
CORTES vs. YU-TIBO- Negative EasementA Notarial prohibition is required to start the running of prescription in a negative easement.FACTS:Easement disputed here is the easement of light and view. Plaintiff’s wife has certain windows on her property w...
Read moreFeatured
- 1
- 2
- 3
Right to Strike
SSSEA v. CA – right to strike – At present, in the absence of any legislation in government employees the right to strike, recognizing their right to do so, or regulating the exercise of such right, they are prohibited form striking by express prohi...
Read morePeople vs. Tolentin…
G.R. No. 176385, February 26, 2008 FACTS: On 13 February 1998, three separate informations of Murder and two counts of Frustrated Murder were filed before the RTC against appellants, together with accused Jimmy Trinidad and Arnel Trinidad. The murd...
Read morePerfection Of A Con…
In Oesmer, Jr., et al. v. Paraiso Dev. Corp., G.R. No. 157493, February 5, 2007, a contract to sell was entered into by the owners of a real property. They affixed their signatures but contested its validity later contending that their co-owner had n...
Read more