As explained by the PNP top brass, CPR is the means employed to carry out the "no permit, no rally" policy adopted by the government in the face of the continuing street demonstrations. The response may really be overkill because participation in the rallies continues to dwindle any way apparently due to apathy of the majority. Indeed there is even a danger that this apathy may turn into sympathy for lack of proper understanding of this "no permit, no rally" policy vis a vis the freedom of assembly.
Freedom of assembly simply means the right to mass and gather together for meetings, rallies, and parades in any private or public places like parks and streets. Under our present Constitution, freedom of assembly is equally fundamental as free speech and free press with the same guarantees and limitations. Hence the right to assemble is not subject to prior restraint. It may not be conditioned upon prior issuance of a permit or authorization from government authorities specifically assemblies held in a private place, in the campus of a government owned or operated educational institution or in a freedom park (BP 880, Public Assembly Act of 1985). It is only when the assembly is to be held in a public place is a permit required. In such cases the permit is for the use of the public place, not for the assembly itself. The power of local officials in this regard is merely one of regulation, not prohibition. Thus, a law or ordinance which requires permits from local officials for the use of public places or streets is constitutional as long as the local officials are not given absolute discretion to refuse or grant them. If there are no standards set as to which assemblies to allow and which to prohibit, then it is unconstitutional (Primicias vs. Fugoso 80 Phil. 71)
The standards set for public officials is the "clear and present danger" rule which means that if there is a "grave and imminent danger of a serious evil to public safety, public morals, public health or any other legitimate public interest, the exercise of this freedom will be curtailed. The public official is therefore required, upon application for a permit, to appraise whether there is such clear and present danger of the substantive evil, and must show by "objective and convincing, not subjective or conjectural proof why the permit should be refused or should be granted at another place. For instance, the refusal to grant a permit to hold a peaceful march rally from the Luneta to the US Embassy solely on the basis of a persistent intelligence reports about subversive elements infiltrating or disrupting the assembly is in violation of this freedom (Reyes vs. Bagatsing 125 SCRA 553).
Furthermore, action on the application shall be communicated within 24 hours to the applicant, who may appeal the same to the appropriate court. The court in turn must decide also within 24 hours (BP 880).
The Constitution itself uses the word "peaceably" in defining this right. This does not mean however complete absence of disorders. As held in Reyes supra, "the Constitution frowns on disorder or tumult attending a rally or assembly. Resort to force is ruled out and outbreaks of violence to be avoided although utmost calm is not required because on such occasions feeling is always wrought to a high pitch of excitement depending on the gravity of the grievance. So it is rather to be expected that disorder will more or less mark the assembly". BP 880 therefore permits law enforcement agencies to detail a contingent under a responsible officer at least 100 meters away from the assembly in case it becomes necessary to maintain order.
The formula for a peaceful rally has long been laid down. Before the street protesters can validly raise a howl and decry human rights violation, they must stick to this formula. Otherwise, law enforcers will be justified in their use of the CPR. The street protesters own CPR (convening a peaceful rally) does not need the law enforcers’ CPR (calibrated preemptive response).