EDITORIAL - Return to maximum tolerance

Let’s consider the key points in the Supreme Court ruling yesterday. The administration’s ill-advised "calibrated preemptive response" to street protests was declared unconstitutional. Maximum tolerance must be observed, the high court told the administration. This should teach the administration another lesson against overreacting to political dissent.

At the same time, however, the tribunal upheld the validity of Batas Pambansa 880, the Public Assembly Act that was passed by Ferdinand Marcos’ rubber-stamp national assembly in 1985, which requires a permit for all street rallies except in places to be designated as "freedom parks" by local government units. The Supreme Court ordered all LGUs to designate such parks within 30 days after its ruling becomes final. LGUs that fail to comply will find all their parks automatically classified as freedom parks.

Rally permits can be rejected with proper cause. This includes "clear and present danger to public order, public safety, public convenience, public morals or public health." A rally permit application that is not acted upon by a local government within two days is deemed approved.

Properly implemented, the ruling should discourage this administration from its disturbing tilt toward intolerance of political dissent. Announcing the replacement of the long-standing policy of maximum tolerance with CPR was like waving a red flag at a bull; of course it merely encouraged more street protests. The SC ruling, however, should also discourage groups whose idea of problem-solving is taking to the streets from disrupting public life.

Will the affected sectors get the message? The country’s track record leaves little room for hope. LGUs have long been nagged by various quarters to designate freedom parks. Local officials, however, prefer anarchy in the streets to the minor bureaucratic task of identifying freedom parks. Members of leftist groups, who are mainstays in almost every event that requires a mass gathering, consider themselves above the law, especially one passed during the Marcos era. The administration itself will probably cook up another scary phrase to replace "calibrated preemptive response," deluding itself into believing that dissent can be suppressed in this country.

The Supreme Court has issued its long-awaited decision, and everyone is making noises about abiding by the ruling. The sincerity of the affected sectors will be tested in the coming weeks.