Righting Wrongs: Criminal Law Provisions in the Philippines related to National Security and their Impact on Human Rights Defenders cause.175 This denial was upheld by the trial court.176 As the UN Special Rapporteur noted, prohibition should be a measure of last resort and that “the free flow of traffic should not automatically take precedence over freedom of peaceful assembly”. Authorities should take measures to facilitate the exercise of the right, such as rerouting vehicular and/or pedestrian traffic.177 The ICJ was also informed that on several occasions, law enforcement officers dispersed assemblies and indiscriminately charged participants under B.P. 880, then failed to show up in court to press the charges. It has also been reported to the ICJ that prosecutors pursue charges against protestors, even when law enforcement officers show no interest in appearing for the trial. Furthermore, to date, no mayors or officers acting in behalf of these mayors have been prosecuted under Sections 13(b) and 13(d) of B.P. 880 for arbitrarily denying permits or obstructing peaceful assemblies. The consistent disregard by local government officials, law enforcement, and prosecutors of B.P. 880’s protective provisions and the Supreme Court rulings in Bayan et. al v. Ermita et. al. and Integrated Bar Association v. Atienza currently interferes with individuals’ enjoyment of their right to freedom of assembly in the Philippines, and seriously impedes the ability of persons to advocate for the promotion and protection of human rights. The only oversight of decisions of mayors on applications for permits under B.P. 880, which is judicial review, is failing. Judicial appeals can be costly and time consuming,178 and the continued failure of judges to correct local governments’ improper application of the law demonstrate that courts are not applying B.P. 880 in accordance with its provisions or in a manner that is consistent with respect for freedom of peaceful assembly as guaranteed under the ICCPR. The UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association has cautioned against interpreting restrictions arbitrarily, and advised that officials in charge of issuing authorizations should be subject to regular oversight.179 C. Recommendations 1. The Government of the Philippines must revise Article 146 of the RPC and B.P. 880, as neither is compatible with international human rights law. In crafting a new law that would constitute a lawful restriction on the right to peaceably assemble, the Government should ensure that the presumption of the new law is in favor of holding peaceful assemblies and such presumption should be established in a clear and explicit manner. 180 There should be no requirement of prior authorization to assemble, but at most a notification procedure, ideally only for large meetings that may interfere with pedestrian or vehicular traffic, so as to allow for rerouting of cars and pedestrians.181 The law must not subject participants or organizers of public protests to criminal or administrative liability, solely for failing to notify authorities of the meeting. The law and its implementation must also be revised to ensure that organizers and participants are not held responsible or liable for the violent conduct of others in the course of an assembly.182 175 Tetch Torres-Tupas, “Bayan presses bid to hold rally near Batasan complex”, Inquirer.net, 18 July 2013. http://www.inquirer.net/ sona-2013/article?nav_pid=447733 (Accessed August 2014). 176 Dennis Carcamo, “Bayan to push through with rally on SONA day”, Philstar.com, 19 July 2013. http://www.philstar.com/ nation/2013/07/19/988621/bayan-push-through-rally-sona-day (Accessed August 2014). 177 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, UN Doc. A/HRC/20/27 (2012) at paras. 39 and 41. 178 The Supreme Court’s decision in Integrated Bar Association v. Atienza was issued on 24 February 2010, over three and a half years after the IBP submitted its application and planned to hold its rally. Integrated Bar Association v. Atienza, G.R. No. 175241, 24 February 2010. 179 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, UN Doc. A/HRC/20/27 (2012) at paras. 20, 44. 180 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of assembly and association, UN Doc. A/HRC/20/27 (2012) at para. 88. 181 Ibid. at paras. 28, 90. 182 Ibid. at paras. 29, 84(c), 93. 27