PH-SEC-CN200718575-DCS01 National Union of Peoples' Lawyers Policy Reforms, Strategic Advocacy, and Legal Capacity-Building National Union of Peoples' Lawyers Defending Civic Space Through Policy Reforms, Strategic Advocacy, and Legal Capacity-Building Activity and Deliverables Report: March–May 2026 The project Defending Civic Space Through Policy Reforms, Strategic Advocacy, and Legal Capacity-Building commenced in March 2026 with the formation of the project team. In coordination with the Secretariat, the project team discussed the implementation strategy and developed a detailed timetable to guide project activities. From March to May 2026, the project successfully implemented the following activities: Reissue of The Playbook of Repression: Civil Society Report on the Misuse and Abuse of Combating the Financing of Terrorism Measures in the Philippines In April 2026, the National Union of People's Lawyers (NUPL) reissued its landmark study, The Playbook of Repression, in response to the growing recognition among civil society organizations of the severe consequences arising from the implementation of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) recommendations alongside the Anti-Terrorism Law (ATL) and the Terrorist Financing Prevention and Suppression Act (TFPSA). Originally released in 2025, the study exposes the dangerous convergence of FATF standards and Philippine anti-terrorism laws, which have been used to target activists, development workers, and other dissenting voices. Its findings have resonated with a broad range of stakeholders in both domestic and international communities, including churches, civil society organizations, United Nations mechanisms, and members of the diplomatic corps. The report has helped frame the shrinking of civic space in the Philippines as part of a broader global human rights concern. The 500 copies of the reprinted edition continue to serve as an essential resource for organizations, advocates, and individuals working to defend democratic freedoms and civic space. Case Conferences on Batas Pambansa Blg. 880 (BP 880) Five key case conferences were conducted prior to the National Case Consultation held on May 23–24, 2026. In between these activities, the project team and Secretariat facilitated several follow-up consultations and planning sessions to refine the project’s analysis and research agenda. Case Conference: March 6, 2026 Convened shortly after the formation of the project team, the initial consultation launched a comprehensive review of Batas Pambansa Blg. 880 (BP 880). While the law has remained the primary statute governing public assemblies since 1985 and has withstood several legislative attempts at amendment or repeal, its application has been significantly shaped by subsequent Supreme Court decisions. As Atty. Ephraim Cortez observed, the law has “labored through legislative stagnation and judicial evolution, ” prompting the team to examine the extent to which judicial rulings have effectively modified its implementation. The group also revisited a pivotal 2014 NUPL legal memorandum, which argued that although the Supreme Court recognizes freedom of assembly as a fundamental constitutional right, local authorities have frequently relied on BP 880’s regulatory mechanisms to restrict public dissent. The Secretariat noted that the memorandum’s core arguments remain highly relevant today. As a result, it was agreed that the forthcoming policy paper would examine whether the restrictive features of BP 880 continue to affect the exercise of the right to peaceful assembly despite judicial reinterpretation. To support this analysis, the Secretariat directed the team to:  Organize regional case conferences using a standardized survey instrument to document lawyers’ experiences in handling significant BP 880 cases;  Conduct targeted consultations with lawyers directly involved in BP 880- related cases to gather first-hand accounts of the law’s impact on civil liberties and the exercise of assembly rights. A total of 20 participants attended the consultation, including the NUPL Secretary General and President. Case Conference: April 9–10, 2026 The second case conference was convened to review the judicial developments that have significantly influenced the implementation of BP 880. The project team presented to the Secretariat a synthesis of landmark Supreme Court rulings, with particular emphasis on Bayan v. Ermita (G.R. No. 169838, April 2006). Participants highlighted three major developments arising from the decision: 1. Permit Requirements in Areas Without Designated Freedom Parks Since many local government units (LGUs) failed to designate Freedom Parks pursuant to Section 15 of BP 880, the Court ruled that public parks and plazas in non-compliant localities may be treated as de facto Freedom Parks. In such areas, no permit is required for assemblies; organizers are only required to provide written notice for coordination purposes. The team noted that only a limited number of cities have enacted ordinances specifically designating Freedom Parks and that no centralized database currently exists documenting compliance nationwide. Participants also observed that Section 4 of BP 880 exempts assemblies held within government-owned university campuses from permit requirements. 2. Shift from Permit-Based Regulation to Notification The Court clarified that authorities may not deny permits based on the content or message of a planned assembly. Where a mayor fails to act on a permit application within two working days, the permit is deemed granted. Any denial must satisfy the constitutional “clear and present danger” standard. Participants noted that this jurisprudence has effectively shifted the process from seeking governmental permission to providing advance notice of an intended assembly. 3. Maximum Tolerance and the Invalidation of the Calibrated Preemptive Response Policy The Court declared the Calibrated Preemptive Response (CPR) policy unconstitutional and emphasized the obligation of law enforcement authorities to exercise maximum tolerance in managing public assemblies. Dispersal is permitted only where actual violence occurs or is imminent and only after the issuance of proper warnings. The Court further held that isolated acts of disorder do not justify the dispersal of an entire assembly. Participants also reviewed earlier jurisprudence, including Reyes v. Bagatsing (1983) and Primicias v. Fugoso (1948), which affirmed that public spaces are held in trust for public assembly and that the clear and present danger test remains the governing standard for restricting the exercise of assembly rights. Based on these findings, participants agreed that subsequent case conferences would focus on evaluating the current implementation of BP 880 through selected case studies. Case Conference: April 27, 2026 The project organized a case conference attended by lawyers from the NUPL National Office, NUPL–National Capital Region (NCR), Sentro para sa Tunay na Repormang Agraryo (SENTRO), Pro-Labor Legal Assistance Center (PLACE), and the Public Interest Law Center (PILC). The discussion examined BP 880 through the lens of the September 21, 2025 Anti- Corruption Rally, during which thousands of protesters gathered at Luneta Park to protest alleged corruption in government flood control projects. Violent confrontations and dispersals subsequently occurred in several parts of Metro Manila. Participants reviewed reports indicating that the dispersal resulted in the death of a bystander, Eric Saber, and the arrest of more than 216 individuals, including 91 minors, many of whom were reportedly not involved in the disturbances. The consultation also examined allegations that inquest proceedings exceeded the constitutional detention period and that several charges were later dismissed. Documentation presented by NUPL further alleged incidents of physical abuse, denial of basic necessities, and restrictions on family access while individuals were in custody. One detainee reportedly required surgery following injuries sustained during detention. The conference also reviewed the subsequent filing of sedition, rebellion, and cybercrime complaints against 97 individuals, including activist leaders who were reportedly not present during the incident. Participants discussed concerns regarding the use of criminal charges in relation to the exercise of freedom of assembly and expression, including contempt proceedings initiated against a youth leader who invoked the right against self-incrimination. Participants unanimously assessed the incident as raising serious concerns regarding compliance with constitutional and international standards on freedom of assembly. They identified alleged failures to observe the principle of maximum tolerance, the use of disproportionate force, unlawful arrests, and procedural irregularities. Participants further concluded that the case illustrated broader concerns regarding the potential criminalization of peaceful assembly and highlighted the need for reforms to strengthen protections for the exercise of assembly rights. Case Conference: May 8, 2026 On May 8, 2026, NUPL members from Cebu and Iloilo met with three members of the Secretariat to analyze pre-consultation findings on the state of freedom of assembly under the Marcos Jr. administration. The discussion highlighted recurring concerns regarding restrictions on assembly rights through both legal and law enforcement mechanisms. Prior to the joint consultation, the Cebu and Iloilo chapters conducted separate regional case conferences. Panay Atty. Angelo Karlo Guillen presented findings from consultations conducted with civil society organizations in Iloilo, Aklan, and Capiz. Participants documented experiences over the previous three years involving alleged red-tagging, militarization, arbitrary detention, and restrictions on the exercise of assembly rights. The discussion focused on four cases involving the violent dispersal of assemblies, namely the cases of Forro, Cerdanio, Aguilar, and Vergara, spanning more than three years under the administration of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. Participants argued that BP 880 functions not only as a regulatory framework but is also used in ways that contribute to the criminalization of dissent. They observed that safeguards embodied in the law—including the clear and present danger standard, protections for participants in peaceful assemblies, minimum distance requirements between police and demonstrators, non-interference provisions, and the requirement that dispersals be conducted peacefully—are often not observed in practice. Participants further noted what they viewed as selective enforcement of the law, particularly against critics and members of progressive organizations, while similar scrutiny is allegedly absent in pro-government events, election activities, and corporate gatherings. The group concluded that strategic litigation may be necessary to challenge the constitutionality of certain penal provisions of BP 880. Cebu A regional case conference was conducted in Cebu, where participants discussed five representative cases involving the exercise of peaceful assembly rights in Metro Cebu. Atty. Christina Lora presented the cases of People v. Villarino, Gumanao et al., Galon, Paglinawan, and Bon Gibalay. While two of the cases resulted in acquittals, three remain pending before the courts. A significant finding was that more than half of the arrests involved law enforcement personnel operating in plain clothes, which participants considered highly irregular and indicative of procedural concerns. Similar to the Iloilo consultation, participants identified recurring allegations of violations of the rights to peaceful assembly and expression. The group adopted the following strategic recommendations: 1. Abolish the Permit System– Eliminate permit requirements for public assemblies and designate public spaces as freedom parks where assemblies may be conducted without prior authorization. 2. Repeal BP 880– Replace BP 880 with legislation that more clearly protects the constitutional rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly and addresses concerns regarding the law's implementation. Case Conference: May 16, 2026 Atty. Kristina Conti convened the NCR chapter's case conference that analyzed patterns observed across several handled cases involving freedom of assembly. Discussions focused on the continuing tension between BP 880 and the constitutional protection afforded to peaceful assembly. Participants highlighted the tendency of authorities to implement a "no permit, no rally" approach despite Section 6(a) of BP 880, which provides that applications not acted upon within the prescribed period are deemed approved. According to participants, this practice often compels organizers to negotiate with local authorities rather than pursue legal remedies. The group also examined Philippine National Police operational guidelines and the "use-of-force continuum, " emphasizing that any use of force during public assemblies must remain necessary and proportionate. Participants recommended the preparation of a comprehensive review of past enforcement practices. Particular attention was given to the targeting of rally organizers and leaders. Participants noted that legal challenges to permit denials are often dismissed as moot and academic after the assembly has taken place, limiting opportunities for judicial review. Broad and discretionary grounds for denying permits, such as "public convenience, " were also identified as barriers to the exercise of assembly rights. To address these concerns, participants proposed a New Public Assembly Act featuring stronger accountability mechanisms, enhanced protections for media practitioners and medical responders, and formal recognition of legal observers, including representatives from the Commission on Human Rights (CHR). The conference also discussed several emerging legal issues:  Jurisdiction and Property Rights: Assemblies conducted in private or quasi-private spaces, such as Bonifacio Global City (BGC) or areas surrounding foreign embassies, face additional regulatory requirements and enforcement challenges.  Foreign Participation: Participants discussed legal issues surrounding the participation of foreign nationals in assemblies, including immigration-related restrictions and unresolved questions concerning dual citizens.  Procedural Rights: Discussions included the possibility of expunging records following probation and the limitations imposed by the Bar Salubong rule regarding assemblies near examination venues.  Freedom Parks: Participants emphasized the need to ensure the proper designation and recognition of freedom parks to facilitate assemblies without permit requirements. As a follow-up, the team agreed to review documentation relating to pandemic-era protest cases, including the San Roque 21 case, and to continue advocating for the passage of the Human Rights Defenders Bill. A total of 14 participants attended the consultation. National Case Conference on Freedom of Assembly May 24, 2026 | Brentwood Suites, Quezon City The National Union of Peoples' Lawyers (NUPL) conducted its National Case Conference on Freedom of Assembly on May 24, 2026, bringing together lawyers from Cagayan Valley, Southern Tagalog, the National Capital Region, Panay, Negros, and Mindanao who have experience handling cases involving freedom of assembly. The conference provided a venue for participants to exchange practical lessons and legal insights through breakout sessions and guided discussions centered on recurring legal issues arising from assembly-related cases. Following a brief historical overview of BP 880, Atty. Katherine A. Panguban presented NUPL's long-standing analysis of the law and its implementation. The presentation served as the foundation for three thematic breakout sessions:  Group A: Permit Requirements and Prior Restraint  Group B: Dispersal, Use of Force, and Maximum Tolerance  Group C: Non-Traditional Forms of Public Assembly Each group designated a rapporteur who later presented the principal findings of their discussions. Atty. Mark Joseph Tagala, rapporteur for Group A, reported several conclusions concerning permit requirements and prior restraint. Participants agreed that traffic concerns alone should not justify permit denials; that applicants should be afforded an opportunity to be heard before permit applications are denied or modified; that courts should continue to rule on the legality of permit denials even after a protest has taken place; and that applications not acted upon within the prescribed period should be deemed approved. Atty. Romina Marcaida presented the findings of Group B on dispersal, force, and maximum tolerance. Participants observed that concepts such as "maximum tolerance" and "imminent danger" remain susceptible to inconsistent interpretation and application. They further noted recurring concerns regarding compliance with domestic and international standards governing the use of force during protest dispersals. The group emphasized that peaceful assemblies should be presumed constitutionally protected and recommended mandatory investigations in cases involving deaths or serious injuries arising from arrests and dispersals. Participants also called for a unified rights-based framework governing body-worn cameras and expressed concern regarding the deployment of military personnel in composite task forces. Atty. Mark Vincent Lim reported on Group C's discussions concerning non-traditional forms of public assembly. Participants argued that constitutional protections should extend to other forms of collective action, including collective pleas for relief, occupations of government housing units, and community barricades established to oppose mining operations. The group also noted concerns regarding the filing of multiple criminal charges in cases involving non-conventional forms of collective dissent. The conference consolidated these findings into a set of Conference Points intended to guide NUPL's future litigation, legislative engagement, and public advocacy concerning freedom of assembly. During the plenary session and open forum, participants exchanged additional practical insights derived from quick-reaction team deployments and case handling experiences. Topics included the unlawful seizure of property during arrests and dispersals, reforms to permit procedures, restrictions on the presence of armed officers during assemblies, the transition from a permit-based to a notice-based regime, and the designation of freedom parks. A total of 31 participants attended the National Case Conference. Defending Civic Space Through Policy Reforms, Strategic Advocacy, and Legal Capacity-Building Activity and Deliverables Report: March–May 2026 The project Defending Civic Space Through Policy Reforms, Strategic Advocacy, and Legal Capacity-Building commenced in March 2026 with the formation of the project team. In coordination with the Secretariat, the project team discussed the implementation strategy and developed a detailed timetable to guide project activities. From March to May 2026, the project successfully implemented the following activities: Reissue of The Playbook of Repression: Civil Society Report on the Misuse and Abuse of Combating the Financing of Terrorism Measures in the Philippines In April 2026, the National Union of People's Lawyers (NUPL) reissued its landmark study, The Playbook of Repression, in response to the growing recognition among civil society organizations of the severe consequences arising from the implementation of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) recommendations alongside the Anti-Terrorism Law (ATL) and the Terrorist Financing Prevention and Suppression Act (TFPSA). Originally released in 2025, the study exposes the dangerous convergence of FATF standards and Philippine anti-terrorism laws, which have been used to target activists, development workers, and other dissenting voices. Its findings have resonated with a broad range of stakeholders in both domestic and international communities, including churches, civil society organizations, United Nations mechanisms, and members of the diplomatic corps. The report has helped frame the shrinking of civic space in the Philippines as part of a broader global human rights concern. The 500 copies of the reprinted edition continue to serve as an essential resource for organizations, advocates, and individuals working to defend democratic freedoms and civic space. Case Conferences on Batas Pambansa Blg. 880 (BP 880) Five key case conferences were conducted prior to the National Case Consultation held on May 23–24, 2026. In between these activities, the project team and Secretariat facilitated several follow-up consultations and planning sessions to refine the project’s analysis and research agenda. Case Conference: March 6, 2026 Convened shortly after the formation of the project team, the initial consultation launched a comprehensive review of Batas Pambansa Blg. 880 (BP 880). While the law has remained the primary statute governing public assemblies since 1985 and has withstood several legislative attempts at amendment or repeal, its application has been significantly shaped by subsequent Supreme Court decisions. As Atty. Ephraim Cortez observed, the law has “labored through legislative stagnation and judicial evolution, ” prompting the team to examine the extent to which judicial rulings have effectively modified its implementation. The group also revisited a pivotal 2014 NUPL legal memorandum, which argued that although the Supreme Court recognizes freedom of assembly as a fundamental constitutional right, local authorities have frequently relied on BP 880’s regulatory mechanisms to restrict public dissent. The Secretariat noted that the memorandum’s core arguments remain highly relevant today. As a result, it was agreed that the forthcoming policy paper would examine whether the restrictive features of BP 880 continue to affect the exercise of the right to peaceful assembly despite judicial reinterpretation. To support this analysis, the Secretariat directed the team to:  Organize regional case conferences using a standardized survey instrument to document lawyers’ experiences in handling significant BP 880 cases;  Conduct targeted consultations with lawyers directly involved in BP 880- related cases to gather first-hand accounts of the law’s impact on civil liberties and the exercise of assembly rights. A total of 20 participants attended the consultation, including the NUPL Secretary General and President. Case Conference: April 9–10, 2026 The second case conference was convened to review the judicial developments that have significantly influenced the implementation of BP 880. The project team presented to the Secretariat a synthesis of landmark Supreme Court rulings, with particular emphasis on Bayan v. Ermita (G.R. No. 169838, April 2006). Participants highlighted three major developments arising from the decision: 1. Permit Requirements in Areas Without Designated Freedom Parks Since many local government units (LGUs) failed to designate Freedom Parks pursuant to Section 15 of BP 880, the Court ruled that public parks and plazas in non-compliant localities may be treated as de facto Freedom Parks. In such areas, no permit is required for assemblies; organizers are only required to provide written notice for coordination purposes. The team noted that only a limited number of cities have enacted ordinances specifically designating Freedom Parks and that no centralized database currently exists documenting compliance nationwide. Participants also observed that Section 4 of BP 880 exempts assemblies held within government-owned university campuses from permit requirements. 2. Shift from Permit-Based Regulation to Notification The Court clarified that authorities may not deny permits based on the content or message of a planned assembly. Where a mayor fails to act on a permit application within two working days, the permit is deemed granted. Any denial must satisfy the constitutional “clear and present danger” standard. Participants noted that this jurisprudence has effectively shifted the process from seeking governmental permission to providing advance notice of an intended assembly. 3. Maximum Tolerance and the Invalidation of the Calibrated Preemptive Response Policy The Court declared the Calibrated Preemptive Response (CPR) policy unconstitutional and emphasized the obligation of law enforcement authorities to exercise maximum tolerance in managing public assemblies. Dispersal is permitted only where actual violence occurs or is imminent and only after the issuance of proper warnings. The Court further held that isolated acts of disorder do not justify the dispersal of an entire assembly. Participants also reviewed earlier jurisprudence, including Reyes v. Bagatsing (1983) and Primicias v. Fugoso (1948), which affirmed that public spaces are held in trust for public assembly and that the clear and present danger test remains the governing standard for restricting the exercise of assembly rights. Based on these findings, participants agreed that subsequent case conferences would focus on evaluating the current implementation of BP 880 through selected case studies. Case Conference: April 27, 2026 The project organized a case conference attended by lawyers from the NUPL National Office, NUPL–National Capital Region (NCR), Sentro para sa Tunay na Repormang Agraryo (SENTRO), Pro-Labor Legal Assistance Center (PLACE), and the Public Interest Law Center (PILC). The discussion examined BP 880 through the lens of the September 21, 2025 Anti- Corruption Rally, during which thousands of protesters gathered at Luneta Park to protest alleged corruption in government flood control projects. Violent confrontations and dispersals subsequently occurred in several parts of Metro Manila. Participants reviewed reports indicating that the dispersal resulted in the death of a bystander, Eric Saber, and the arrest of more than 216 individuals, including 91 minors, many of whom were reportedly not involved in the disturbances. The consultation also examined allegations that inquest proceedings exceeded the constitutional detention period and that several charges were later dismissed. Documentation presented by NUPL further alleged incidents of physical abuse, denial of basic necessities, and restrictions on family access while individuals were in custody. One detainee reportedly required surgery following injuries sustained during detention. The conference also reviewed the subsequent filing of sedition, rebellion, and cybercrime complaints against 97 individuals, including activist leaders who were reportedly not present during the incident. Participants discussed concerns regarding the use of criminal charges in relation to the exercise of freedom of assembly and expression, including contempt proceedings initiated against a youth leader who invoked the right against self-incrimination. Participants unanimously assessed the incident as raising serious concerns regarding compliance with constitutional and international standards on freedom of assembly. They identified alleged failures to observe the principle of maximum tolerance, the use of disproportionate force, unlawful arrests, and procedural irregularities. Participants further concluded that the case illustrated broader concerns regarding the potential criminalization of peaceful assembly and highlighted the need for reforms to strengthen protections for the exercise of assembly rights. Case Conference: May 8, 2026 On May 8, 2026, NUPL members from Cebu and Iloilo met with three members of the Secretariat to analyze pre-consultation findings on the state of freedom of assembly under the Marcos Jr. administration. The discussion highlighted recurring concerns regarding restrictions on assembly rights through both legal and law enforcement mechanisms. Prior to the joint consultation, the Cebu and Iloilo chapters conducted separate regional case conferences. Panay Atty. Angelo Karlo Guillen presented findings from consultations conducted with civil society organizations in Iloilo, Aklan, and Capiz. Participants documented experiences over the previous three years involving alleged red-tagging, militarization, arbitrary detention, and restrictions on the exercise of assembly rights. The discussion focused on four cases involving the violent dispersal of assemblies, namely the cases of Forro, Cerdanio, Aguilar, and Vergara, spanning more than three years under the administration of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. Participants argued that BP 880 functions not only as a regulatory framework but is also used in ways that contribute to the criminalization of dissent. They observed that safeguards embodied in the law—including the clear and present danger standard, protections for participants in peaceful assemblies, minimum distance requirements between police and demonstrators, non-interference provisions, and the requirement that dispersals be conducted peacefully—are often not observed in practice. Participants further noted what they viewed as selective enforcement of the law, particularly against critics and members of progressive organizations, while similar scrutiny is allegedly absent in pro-government events, election activities, and corporate gatherings. The group concluded that strategic litigation may be necessary to challenge the constitutionality of certain penal provisions of BP 880. Cebu A regional case conference was conducted in Cebu, where participants discussed five representative cases involving the exercise of peaceful assembly rights in Metro Cebu. Atty. Christina Lora presented the cases of People v. Villarino, Gumanao et al., Galon, Paglinawan, and Bon Gibalay. While two of the cases resulted in acquittals, three remain pending before the courts. A significant finding was that more than half of the arrests involved law enforcement personnel operating in plain clothes, which participants considered highly irregular and indicative of procedural concerns. Similar to the Iloilo consultation, participants identified recurring allegations of violations of the rights to peaceful assembly and expression. The group adopted the following strategic recommendations: 1. Abolish the Permit System– Eliminate permit requirements for public assemblies and designate public spaces as freedom parks where assemblies may be conducted without prior authorization. 2. Repeal BP 880– Replace BP 880 with legislation that more clearly protects the constitutional rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly and addresses concerns regarding the law's implementation. Case Conference: May 16, 2026 Atty. Kristina Conti convened the NCR chapter's case conference that analyzed patterns observed across several handled cases involving freedom of assembly. Discussions focused on the continuing tension between BP 880 and the constitutional protection afforded to peaceful assembly. Participants highlighted the tendency of authorities to implement a "no permit, no rally" approach despite Section 6(a) of BP 880, which provides that applications not acted upon within the prescribed period are deemed approved. According to participants, this practice often compels organizers to negotiate with local authorities rather than pursue legal remedies. The group also examined Philippine National Police operational guidelines and the "use-of-force continuum, " emphasizing that any use of force during public assemblies must remain necessary and proportionate. Participants recommended the preparation of a comprehensive review of past enforcement practices. Particular attention was given to the targeting of rally organizers and leaders. Participants noted that legal challenges to permit denials are often dismissed as moot and academic after the assembly has taken place, limiting opportunities for judicial review. Broad and discretionary grounds for denying permits, such as "public convenience, " were also identified as barriers to the exercise of assembly rights. To address these concerns, participants proposed a New Public Assembly Act featuring stronger accountability mechanisms, enhanced protections for media practitioners and medical responders, and formal recognition of legal observers, including representatives from the Commission on Human Rights (CHR). The conference also discussed several emerging legal issues:  Jurisdiction and Property Rights: Assemblies conducted in private or quasi-private spaces, such as Bonifacio Global City (BGC) or areas surrounding foreign embassies, face additional regulatory requirements and enforcement challenges.  Foreign Participation: Participants discussed legal issues surrounding the participation of foreign nationals in assemblies, including immigration-related restrictions and unresolved questions concerning dual citizens.  Procedural Rights: Discussions included the possibility of expunging records following probation and the limitations imposed by the Bar Salubong rule regarding assemblies near examination venues.  Freedom Parks: Participants emphasized the need to ensure the proper designation and recognition of freedom parks to facilitate assemblies without permit requirements. As a follow-up, the team agreed to review documentation relating to pandemic-era protest cases, including the San Roque 21 case, and to continue advocating for the passage of the Human Rights Defenders Bill. A total of 14 participants attended the consultation. National Case Conference on Freedom of Assembly May 24, 2026 | Brentwood Suites, Quezon City The National Union of Peoples' Lawyers (NUPL) conducted its National Case Conference on Freedom of Assembly on May 24, 2026, bringing together lawyers from Cagayan Valley, Southern Tagalog, the National Capital Region, Panay, Negros, and Mindanao who have experience handling cases involving freedom of assembly. The conference provided a venue for participants to exchange practical lessons and legal insights through breakout sessions and guided discussions centered on recurring legal issues arising from assembly-related cases. Following a brief historical overview of BP 880, Atty. Katherine A. Panguban presented NUPL's long-standing analysis of the law and its implementation. The presentation served as the foundation for three thematic breakout sessions:  Group A: Permit Requirements and Prior Restraint  Group B: Dispersal, Use of Force, and Maximum Tolerance  Group C: Non-Traditional Forms of Public Assembly Each group designated a rapporteur who later presented the principal findings of their discussions. Atty. Mark Joseph Tagala, rapporteur for Group A, reported several conclusions concerning permit requirements and prior restraint. Participants agreed that traffic concerns alone should not justify permit denials; that applicants should be afforded an opportunity to be heard before permit applications are denied or modified; that courts should continue to rule on the legality of permit denials even after a protest has taken place; and that applications not acted upon within the prescribed period should be deemed approved. Atty. Romina Marcaida presented the findings of Group B on dispersal, force, and maximum tolerance. Participants observed that concepts such as "maximum tolerance" and "imminent danger" remain susceptible to inconsistent interpretation and application. They further noted recurring concerns regarding compliance with domestic and international standards governing the use of force during protest dispersals. The group emphasized that peaceful assemblies should be presumed constitutionally protected and recommended mandatory investigations in cases involving deaths or serious injuries arising from arrests and dispersals. Participants also called for a unified rights-based framework governing body-worn cameras and expressed concern regarding the deployment of military personnel in composite task forces. Atty. Mark Vincent Lim reported on Group C's discussions concerning non-traditional forms of public assembly. Participants argued that constitutional protections should extend to other forms of collective action, including collective pleas for relief, occupations of government housing units, and community barricades established to oppose mining operations. The group also noted concerns regarding the filing of multiple criminal charges in cases involving non-conventional forms of collective dissent. The conference consolidated these findings into a set of Conference Points intended to guide NUPL's future litigation, legislative engagement, and public advocacy concerning freedom of assembly. During the plenary session and open forum, participants exchanged additional practical insights derived from quick-reaction team deployments and case handling experiences. Topics included the unlawful seizure of property during arrests and dispersals, reforms to permit procedures, restrictions on the presence of armed officers during assemblies, the transition from a permit-based to a notice-based regime, and the designation of freedom parks. A total of 31 participants attended the National Case Conference. Defending Civic Space Through Policy Reforms, Strategic Advocacy, and Legal Capacity-Building Activity and Deliverables Report: March–May 2026 The project Defending Civic Space Through Policy Reforms, Strategic Advocacy, and Legal Capacity-Building commenced in March 2026 with the formation of the project team. In coordination with the Secretariat, the project team discussed the implementation strategy and developed a detailed timetable to guide project activities. From March to May 2026, the project successfully implemented the following activities: Reissue of The Playbook of Repression: Civil Society Report on the Misuse and Abuse of Combating the Financing of Terrorism Measures in the Philippines In April 2026, the National Union of People's Lawyers (NUPL) reissued its landmark study, The Playbook of Repression, in response to the growing recognition among civil society organizations of the severe consequences arising from the implementation of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) recommendations alongside the Anti-Terrorism Law (ATL) and the Terrorist Financing Prevention and Suppression Act (TFPSA). Originally released in 2025, the study exposes the dangerous convergence of FATF standards and Philippine anti-terrorism laws, which have been used to target activists, development workers, and other dissenting voices. Its findings have resonated with a broad range of stakeholders in both domestic and international communities, including churches, civil society organizations, United Nations mechanisms, and members of the diplomatic corps. The report has helped frame the shrinking of civic space in the Philippines as part of a broader global human rights concern. The 500 copies of the reprinted edition continue to serve as an essential resource for organizations, advocates, and individuals working to defend democratic freedoms and civic space. Case Conferences on Batas Pambansa Blg. 880 (BP 880) Five key case conferences were conducted prior to the National Case Consultation held on May 23–24, 2026. In between these activities, the project team and Secretariat facilitated several follow-up consultations and planning sessions to refine the project’s analysis and research agenda. Case Conference: March 6, 2026 Convened shortly after the formation of the project team, the initial consultation launched a comprehensive review of Batas Pambansa Blg. 880 (BP 880). While the law has remained the primary statute governing public assemblies since 1985 and has withstood several legislative attempts at amendment or repeal, its application has been significantly shaped by subsequent Supreme Court decisions. As Atty. Ephraim Cortez observed, the law has “labored through legislative stagnation and judicial evolution, ” prompting the team to examine the extent to which judicial rulings have effectively modified its implementation. The group also revisited a pivotal 2014 NUPL legal memorandum, which argued that although the Supreme Court recognizes freedom of assembly as a fundamental constitutional right, local authorities have frequently relied on BP 880’s regulatory mechanisms to restrict public dissent. The Secretariat noted that the memorandum’s core arguments remain highly relevant today. As a result, it was agreed that the forthcoming policy paper would examine whether the restrictive features of BP 880 continue to affect the exercise of the right to peaceful assembly despite judicial reinterpretation. To support this analysis, the Secretariat directed the team to:  Organize regional case conferences using a standardized survey instrument to document lawyers’ experiences in handling significant BP 880 cases;  Conduct targeted consultations with lawyers directly involved in BP 880- related cases to gather first-hand accounts of the law’s impact on civil liberties and the exercise of assembly rights. A total of 20 participants attended the consultation, including the NUPL Secretary General and President. Case Conference: April 9–10, 2026 The second case conference was convened to review the judicial developments that have significantly influenced the implementation of BP 880. The project team presented to the Secretariat a synthesis of landmark Supreme Court rulings, with particular emphasis on Bayan v. Ermita (G.R. No. 169838, April 2006). Participants highlighted three major developments arising from the decision: 1. Permit Requirements in Areas Without Designated Freedom Parks Since many local government units (LGUs) failed to designate Freedom Parks pursuant to Section 15 of BP 880, the Court ruled that public parks and plazas in non-compliant localities may be treated as de facto Freedom Parks. In such areas, no permit is required for assemblies; organizers are only required to provide written notice for coordination purposes. The team noted that only a limited number of cities have enacted ordinances specifically designating Freedom Parks and that no centralized database currently exists documenting compliance nationwide. Participants also observed that Section 4 of BP 880 exempts assemblies held within government-owned university campuses from permit requirements. 2. Shift from Permit-Based Regulation to Notification The Court clarified that authorities may not deny permits based on the content or message of a planned assembly. Where a mayor fails to act on a permit application within two working days, the permit is deemed granted. Any denial must satisfy the constitutional “clear and present danger” standard. Participants noted that this jurisprudence has effectively shifted the process from seeking governmental permission to providing advance notice of an intended assembly. 3. Maximum Tolerance and the Invalidation of the Calibrated Preemptive Response Policy The Court declared the Calibrated Preemptive Response (CPR) policy unconstitutional and emphasized the obligation of law enforcement authorities to exercise maximum tolerance in managing public assemblies. Dispersal is permitted only where actual violence occurs or is imminent and only after the issuance of proper warnings. The Court further held that isolated acts of disorder do not justify the dispersal of an entire assembly. Participants also reviewed earlier jurisprudence, including Reyes v. Bagatsing (1983) and Primicias v. Fugoso (1948), which affirmed that public spaces are held in trust for public assembly and that the clear and present danger test remains the governing standard for restricting the exercise of assembly rights. Based on these findings, participants agreed that subsequent case conferences would focus on evaluating the current implementation of BP 880 through selected case studies. Case Conference: April 27, 2026 The project organized a case conference attended by lawyers from the NUPL National Office, NUPL–National Capital Region (NCR), Sentro para sa Tunay na Repormang Agraryo (SENTRO), Pro-Labor Legal Assistance Center (PLACE), and the Public Interest Law Center (PILC). The discussion examined BP 880 through the lens of the September 21, 2025 Anti- Corruption Rally, during which thousands of protesters gathered at Luneta Park to protest alleged corruption in government flood control projects. Violent confrontations and dispersals subsequently occurred in several parts of Metro Manila. Participants reviewed reports indicating that the dispersal resulted in the death of a bystander, Eric Saber, and the arrest of more than 216 individuals, including 91 minors, many of whom were reportedly not involved in the disturbances. The consultation also examined allegations that inquest proceedings exceeded the constitutional detention period and that several charges were later dismissed. Documentation presented by NUPL further alleged incidents of physical abuse, denial of basic necessities, and restrictions on family access while individuals were in custody. One detainee reportedly required surgery following injuries sustained during detention. The conference also reviewed the subsequent filing of sedition, rebellion, and cybercrime complaints against 97 individuals, including activist leaders who were reportedly not present during the incident. Participants discussed concerns regarding the use of criminal charges in relation to the exercise of freedom of assembly and expression, including contempt proceedings initiated against a youth leader who invoked the right against self-incrimination. Participants unanimously assessed the incident as raising serious concerns regarding compliance with constitutional and international standards on freedom of assembly. They identified alleged failures to observe the principle of maximum tolerance, the use of disproportionate force, unlawful arrests, and procedural irregularities. Participants further concluded that the case illustrated broader concerns regarding the potential criminalization of peaceful assembly and highlighted the need for reforms to strengthen protections for the exercise of assembly rights. Case Conference: May 8, 2026 On May 8, 2026, NUPL members from Cebu and Iloilo met with three members of the Secretariat to analyze pre-consultation findings on the state of freedom of assembly under the Marcos Jr. administration. The discussion highlighted recurring concerns regarding restrictions on assembly rights through both legal and law enforcement mechanisms. Prior to the joint consultation, the Cebu and Iloilo chapters conducted separate regional case conferences. Panay Atty. Angelo Karlo Guillen presented findings from consultations conducted with civil society organizations in Iloilo, Aklan, and Capiz. Participants documented experiences over the previous three years involving alleged red-tagging, militarization, arbitrary detention, and restrictions on the exercise of assembly rights. The discussion focused on four cases involving the violent dispersal of assemblies, namely the cases of Forro, Cerdanio, Aguilar, and Vergara, spanning more than three years under the administration of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. Participants argued that BP 880 functions not only as a regulatory framework but is also used in ways that contribute to the criminalization of dissent. They observed that safeguards embodied in the law—including the clear and present danger standard, protections for participants in peaceful assemblies, minimum distance requirements between police and demonstrators, non-interference provisions, and the requirement that dispersals be conducted peacefully—are often not observed in practice. Participants further noted what they viewed as selective enforcement of the law, particularly against critics and members of progressive organizations, while similar scrutiny is allegedly absent in pro-government events, election activities, and corporate gatherings. The group concluded that strategic litigation may be necessary to challenge the constitutionality of certain penal provisions of BP 880. Cebu A regional case conference was conducted in Cebu, where participants discussed five representative cases involving the exercise of peaceful assembly rights in Metro Cebu. Atty. Christina Lora presented the cases of People v. Villarino, Gumanao et al., Galon, Paglinawan, and Bon Gibalay. While two of the cases resulted in acquittals, three remain pending before the courts. A significant finding was that more than half of the arrests involved law enforcement personnel operating in plain clothes, which participants considered highly irregular and indicative of procedural concerns. Similar to the Iloilo consultation, participants identified recurring allegations of violations of the rights to peaceful assembly and expression. The group adopted the following strategic recommendations: 1. Abolish the Permit System– Eliminate permit requirements for public assemblies and designate public spaces as freedom parks where assemblies may be conducted without prior authorization. 2. Repeal BP 880– Replace BP 880 with legislation that more clearly protects the constitutional rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly and addresses concerns regarding the law's implementation. Case Conference: May 16, 2026 Atty. Kristina Conti convened the NCR chapter's case conference that analyzed patterns observed across several handled cases involving freedom of assembly. Discussions focused on the continuing tension between BP 880 and the constitutional protection afforded to peaceful assembly. Participants highlighted the tendency of authorities to implement a "no permit, no rally" approach despite Section 6(a) of BP 880, which provides that applications not acted upon within the prescribed period are deemed approved. According to participants, this practice often compels organizers to negotiate with local authorities rather than pursue legal remedies. The group also examined Philippine National Police operational guidelines and the "use-of-force continuum, " emphasizing that any use of force during public assemblies must remain necessary and proportionate. Participants recommended the preparation of a comprehensive review of past enforcement practices. Particular attention was given to the targeting of rally organizers and leaders. Participants noted that legal challenges to permit denials are often dismissed as moot and academic after the assembly has taken place, limiting opportunities for judicial review. Broad and discretionary grounds for denying permits, such as "public convenience, " were also identified as barriers to the exercise of assembly rights. To address these concerns, participants proposed a New Public Assembly Act featuring stronger accountability mechanisms, enhanced protections for media practitioners and medical responders, and formal recognition of legal observers, including representatives from the Commission on Human Rights (CHR). The conference also discussed several emerging legal issues:  Jurisdiction and Property Rights: Assemblies conducted in private or quasi-private spaces, such as Bonifacio Global City (BGC) or areas surrounding foreign embassies, face additional regulatory requirements and enforcement challenges.  Foreign Participation: Participants discussed legal issues surrounding the participation of foreign nationals in assemblies, including immigration-related restrictions and unresolved questions concerning dual citizens.  Procedural Rights: Discussions included the possibility of expunging records following probation and the limitations imposed by the Bar Salubong rule regarding assemblies near examination venues.  Freedom Parks: Participants emphasized the need to ensure the proper designation and recognition of freedom parks to facilitate assemblies without permit requirements. As a follow-up, the team agreed to review documentation relating to pandemic-era protest cases, including the San Roque 21 case, and to continue advocating for the passage of the Human Rights Defenders Bill. A total of 14 participants attended the consultation. National Case Conference on Freedom of Assembly May 24, 2026 | Brentwood Suites, Quezon City The National Union of Peoples' Lawyers (NUPL) conducted its National Case Conference on Freedom of Assembly on May 24, 2026, bringing together lawyers from Cagayan Valley, Southern Tagalog, the National Capital Region, Panay, Negros, and Mindanao who have experience handling cases involving freedom of assembly. The conference provided a venue for participants to exchange practical lessons and legal insights through breakout sessions and guided discussions centered on recurring legal issues arising from assembly-related cases. Following a brief historical overview of BP 880, Atty. Katherine A. Panguban presented NUPL's long-standing analysis of the law and its implementation. The presentation served as the foundation for three thematic breakout sessions:  Group A: Permit Requirements and Prior Restraint  Group B: Dispersal, Use of Force, and Maximum Tolerance  Group C: Non-Traditional Forms of Public Assembly Each group designated a rapporteur who later presented the principal findings of their discussions. Atty. Mark Joseph Tagala, rapporteur for Group A, reported several conclusions concerning permit requirements and prior restraint. Participants agreed that traffic concerns alone should not justify permit denials; that applicants should be afforded an opportunity to be heard before permit applications are denied or modified; that courts should continue to rule on the legality of permit denials even after a protest has taken place; and that applications not acted upon within the prescribed period should be deemed approved. Atty. Romina Marcaida presented the findings of Group B on dispersal, force, and maximum tolerance. Participants observed that concepts such as "maximum tolerance" and "imminent danger" remain susceptible to inconsistent interpretation and application. They further noted recurring concerns regarding compliance with domestic and international standards governing the use of force during protest dispersals. The group emphasized that peaceful assemblies should be presumed constitutionally protected and recommended mandatory investigations in cases involving deaths or serious injuries arising from arrests and dispersals. Participants also called for a unified rights-based framework governing body-worn cameras and expressed concern regarding the deployment of military personnel in composite task forces. Atty. Mark Vincent Lim reported on Group C's discussions concerning non-traditional forms of public assembly. Participants argued that constitutional protections should extend to other forms of collective action, including collective pleas for relief, occupations of government housing units, and community barricades established to oppose mining operations. The group also noted concerns regarding the filing of multiple criminal charges in cases involving non-conventional forms of collective dissent. The conference consolidated these findings into a set of Conference Points intended to guide NUPL's future litigation, legislative engagement, and public advocacy concerning freedom of assembly. During the plenary session and open forum, participants exchanged additional practical insights derived from quick-reaction team deployments and case handling experiences. Topics included the unlawful seizure of property during arrests and dispersals, reforms to permit procedures, restrictions on the presence of armed officers during assemblies, the transition from a permit-based to a notice-based regime, and the designation of freedom parks. A total of 31 participants attended the National Case Conference. Defending Civic Space Through Policy Reforms, Strategic Advocacy, and Legal Capacity-Building Activity and Deliverables Report: March–May 2026 The project Defending Civic Space Through Policy Reforms, Strategic Advocacy, and Legal Capacity-Building commenced in March 2026 with the formation of the project team. In coordination with the Secretariat, the project team discussed the implementation strategy and developed a detailed timetable to guide project activities. From March to May 2026, the project successfully implemented the following activities: Reissue of The Playbook of Repression: Civil Society Report on the Misuse and Abuse of Combating the Financing of Terrorism Measures in the Philippines In April 2026, the National Union of People's Lawyers (NUPL) reissued its landmark study, The Playbook of Repression, in response to the growing recognition among civil society organizations of the severe consequences arising from the implementation of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) recommendations alongside the Anti-Terrorism Law (ATL) and the Terrorist Financing Prevention and Suppression Act (TFPSA). Originally released in 2025, the study exposes the dangerous convergence of FATF standards and Philippine anti-terrorism laws, which have been used to target activists, development workers, and other dissenting voices. Its findings have resonated with a broad range of stakeholders in both domestic and international communities, including churches, civil society organizations, United Nations mechanisms, and members of the diplomatic corps. The report has helped frame the shrinking of civic space in the Philippines as part of a broader global human rights concern. The 500 copies of the reprinted edition continue to serve as an essential resource for organizations, advocates, and individuals working to defend democratic freedoms and civic space. Case Conferences on Batas Pambansa Blg. 880 (BP 880) Five key case conferences were conducted prior to the National Case Consultation held on May 23–24, 2026. In between these activities, the project team and Secretariat facilitated several follow-up consultations and planning sessions to refine the project’s analysis and research agenda. Case Conference: March 6, 2026 Convened shortly after the formation of the project team, the initial consultation launched a comprehensive review of Batas Pambansa Blg. 880 (BP 880). While the law has remained the primary statute governing public assemblies since 1985 and has withstood several legislative attempts at amendment or repeal, its application has been significantly shaped by subsequent Supreme Court decisions. As Atty. Ephraim Cortez observed, the law has “labored through legislative stagnation and judicial evolution, ” prompting the team to examine the extent to which judicial rulings have effectively modified its implementation. The group also revisited a pivotal 2014 NUPL legal memorandum, which argued that although the Supreme Court recognizes freedom of assembly as a fundamental constitutional right, local authorities have frequently relied on BP 880’s regulatory mechanisms to restrict public dissent. The Secretariat noted that the memorandum’s core arguments remain highly relevant today. As a result, it was agreed that the forthcoming policy paper would examine whether the restrictive features of BP 880 continue to affect the exercise of the right to peaceful assembly despite judicial reinterpretation. To support this analysis, the Secretariat directed the team to:  Organize regional case conferences using a standardized survey instrument to document lawyers’ experiences in handling significant BP 880 cases;  Conduct targeted consultations with lawyers directly involved in BP 880- related cases to gather first-hand accounts of the law’s impact on civil liberties and the exercise of assembly rights. A total of 20 participants attended the consultation, including the NUPL Secretary General and President. Case Conference: April 9–10, 2026 The second case conference was convened to review the judicial developments that have significantly influenced the implementation of BP 880. The project team presented to the Secretariat a synthesis of landmark Supreme Court rulings, with particular emphasis on Bayan v. Ermita (G.R. No. 169838, April 2006). Participants highlighted three major developments arising from the decision: 1. Permit Requirements in Areas Without Designated Freedom Parks Since many local government units (LGUs) failed to designate Freedom Parks pursuant to Section 15 of BP 880, the Court ruled that public parks and plazas in non-compliant localities may be treated as de facto Freedom Parks. In such areas, no permit is required for assemblies; organizers are only required to provide written notice for coordination purposes. The team noted that only a limited number of cities have enacted ordinances specifically designating Freedom Parks and that no centralized database currently exists documenting compliance nationwide. Participants also observed that Section 4 of BP 880 exempts assemblies held within government-owned university campuses from permit requirements. 2. Shift from Permit-Based Regulation to Notification The Court clarified that authorities may not deny permits based on the content or message of a planned assembly. Where a mayor fails to act on a permit application within two working days, the permit is deemed granted. Any denial must satisfy the constitutional “clear and present danger” standard. Participants noted that this jurisprudence has effectively shifted the process from seeking governmental permission to providing advance notice of an intended assembly. 3. Maximum Tolerance and the Invalidation of the Calibrated Preemptive Response Policy The Court declared the Calibrated Preemptive Response (CPR) policy unconstitutional and emphasized the obligation of law enforcement authorities to exercise maximum tolerance in managing public assemblies. Dispersal is permitted only where actual violence occurs or is imminent and only after the issuance of proper warnings. The Court further held that isolated acts of disorder do not justify the dispersal of an entire assembly. Participants also reviewed earlier jurisprudence, including Reyes v. Bagatsing (1983) and Primicias v. Fugoso (1948), which affirmed that public spaces are held in trust for public assembly and that the clear and present danger test remains the governing standard for restricting the exercise of assembly rights. Based on these findings, participants agreed that subsequent case conferences would focus on evaluating the current implementation of BP 880 through selected case studies. Case Conference: April 27, 2026 The project organized a case conference attended by lawyers from the NUPL National Office, NUPL–National Capital Region (NCR), Sentro para sa Tunay na Repormang Agraryo (SENTRO), Pro-Labor Legal Assistance Center (PLACE), and the Public Interest Law Center (PILC). The discussion examined BP 880 through the lens of the September 21, 2025 Anti- Corruption Rally, during which thousands of protesters gathered at Luneta Park to protest alleged corruption in government flood control projects. Violent confrontations and dispersals subsequently occurred in several parts of Metro Manila. Participants reviewed reports indicating that the dispersal resulted in the death of a bystander, Eric Saber, and the arrest of more than 216 individuals, including 91 minors, many of whom were reportedly not involved in the disturbances. The consultation also examined allegations that inquest proceedings exceeded the constitutional detention period and that several charges were later dismissed. Documentation presented by NUPL further alleged incidents of physical abuse, denial of basic necessities, and restrictions on family access while individuals were in custody. One detainee reportedly required surgery following injuries sustained during detention. The conference also reviewed the subsequent filing of sedition, rebellion, and cybercrime complaints against 97 individuals, including activist leaders who were reportedly not present during the incident. Participants discussed concerns regarding the use of criminal charges in relation to the exercise of freedom of assembly and expression, including contempt proceedings initiated against a youth leader who invoked the right against self-incrimination. Participants unanimously assessed the incident as raising serious concerns regarding compliance with constitutional and international standards on freedom of assembly. They identified alleged failures to observe the principle of maximum tolerance, the use of disproportionate force, unlawful arrests, and procedural irregularities. Participants further concluded that the case illustrated broader concerns regarding the potential criminalization of peaceful assembly and highlighted the need for reforms to strengthen protections for the exercise of assembly rights. Case Conference: May 8, 2026 On May 8, 2026, NUPL members from Cebu and Iloilo met with three members of the Secretariat to analyze pre-consultation findings on the state of freedom of assembly under the Marcos Jr. administration. The discussion highlighted recurring concerns regarding restrictions on assembly rights through both legal and law enforcement mechanisms. Prior to the joint consultation, the Cebu and Iloilo chapters conducted separate regional case conferences. Panay Atty. Angelo Karlo Guillen presented findings from consultations conducted with civil society organizations in Iloilo, Aklan, and Capiz. Participants documented experiences over the previous three years involving alleged red-tagging, militarization, arbitrary detention, and restrictions on the exercise of assembly rights. The discussion focused on four cases involving the violent dispersal of assemblies, namely the cases of Forro, Cerdanio, Aguilar, and Vergara, spanning more than three years under the administration of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. Participants argued that BP 880 functions not only as a regulatory framework but is also used in ways that contribute to the criminalization of dissent. They observed that safeguards embodied in the law—including the clear and present danger standard, protections for participants in peaceful assemblies, minimum distance requirements between police and demonstrators, non-interference provisions, and the requirement that dispersals be conducted peacefully—are often not observed in practice. Participants further noted what they viewed as selective enforcement of the law, particularly against critics and members of progressive organizations, while similar scrutiny is allegedly absent in pro-government events, election activities, and corporate gatherings. The group concluded that strategic litigation may be necessary to challenge the constitutionality of certain penal provisions of BP 880. Cebu A regional case conference was conducted in Cebu, where participants discussed five representative cases involving the exercise of peaceful assembly rights in Metro Cebu. Atty. Christina Lora presented the cases of People v. Villarino, Gumanao et al., Galon, Paglinawan, and Bon Gibalay. While two of the cases resulted in acquittals, three remain pending before the courts. A significant finding was that more than half of the arrests involved law enforcement personnel operating in plain clothes, which participants considered highly irregular and indicative of procedural concerns. Similar to the Iloilo consultation, participants identified recurring allegations of violations of the rights to peaceful assembly and expression. The group adopted the following strategic recommendations: 1. Abolish the Permit System– Eliminate permit requirements for public assemblies and designate public spaces as freedom parks where assemblies may be conducted without prior authorization. 2. Repeal BP 880– Replace BP 880 with legislation that more clearly protects the constitutional rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly and addresses concerns regarding the law's implementation. Case Conference: May 16, 2026 Atty. Kristina Conti convened the NCR chapter's case conference that analyzed patterns observed across several handled cases involving freedom of assembly. Discussions focused on the continuing tension between BP 880 and the constitutional protection afforded to peaceful assembly. Participants highlighted the tendency of authorities to implement a "no permit, no rally" approach despite Section 6(a) of BP 880, which provides that applications not acted upon within the prescribed period are deemed approved. According to participants, this practice often compels organizers to negotiate with local authorities rather than pursue legal remedies. The group also examined Philippine National Police operational guidelines and the "use-of-force continuum, " emphasizing that any use of force during public assemblies must remain necessary and proportionate. Participants recommended the preparation of a comprehensive review of past enforcement practices. Particular attention was given to the targeting of rally organizers and leaders. Participants noted that legal challenges to permit denials are often dismissed as moot and academic after the assembly has taken place, limiting opportunities for judicial review. Broad and discretionary grounds for denying permits, such as "public convenience, " were also identified as barriers to the exercise of assembly rights. To address these concerns, participants proposed a New Public Assembly Act featuring stronger accountability mechanisms, enhanced protections for media practitioners and medical responders, and formal recognition of legal observers, including representatives from the Commission on Human Rights (CHR). The conference also discussed several emerging legal issues:  Jurisdiction and Property Rights: Assemblies conducted in private or quasi-private spaces, such as Bonifacio Global City (BGC) or areas surrounding foreign embassies, face additional regulatory requirements and enforcement challenges.  Foreign Participation: Participants discussed legal issues surrounding the participation of foreign nationals in assemblies, including immigration-related restrictions and unresolved questions concerning dual citizens.  Procedural Rights: Discussions included the possibility of expunging records following probation and the limitations imposed by the Bar Salubong rule regarding assemblies near examination venues.  Freedom Parks: Participants emphasized the need to ensure the proper designation and recognition of freedom parks to facilitate assemblies without permit requirements. As a follow-up, the team agreed to review documentation relating to pandemic-era protest cases, including the San Roque 21 case, and to continue advocating for the passage of the Human Rights Defenders Bill. A total of 14 participants attended the consultation. National Case Conference on Freedom of Assembly May 24, 2026 | Brentwood Suites, Quezon City The National Union of Peoples' Lawyers (NUPL) conducted its National Case Conference on Freedom of Assembly on May 24, 2026, bringing together lawyers from Cagayan Valley, Southern Tagalog, the National Capital Region, Panay, Negros, and Mindanao who have experience handling cases involving freedom of assembly. The conference provided a venue for participants to exchange practical lessons and legal insights through breakout sessions and guided discussions centered on recurring legal issues arising from assembly-related cases. Following a brief historical overview of BP 880, Atty. Katherine A. Panguban presented NUPL's long-standing analysis of the law and its implementation. The presentation served as the foundation for three thematic breakout sessions:  Group A: Permit Requirements and Prior Restraint  Group B: Dispersal, Use of Force, and Maximum Tolerance  Group C: Non-Traditional Forms of Public Assembly Each group designated a rapporteur who later presented the principal findings of their discussions. Atty. Mark Joseph Tagala, rapporteur for Group A, reported several conclusions concerning permit requirements and prior restraint. Participants agreed that traffic concerns alone should not justify permit denials; that applicants should be afforded an opportunity to be heard before permit applications are denied or modified; that courts should continue to rule on the legality of permit denials even after a protest has taken place; and that applications not acted upon within the prescribed period should be deemed approved. Atty. Romina Marcaida presented the findings of Group B on dispersal, force, and maximum tolerance. Participants observed that concepts such as "maximum tolerance" and "imminent danger" remain susceptible to inconsistent interpretation and application. They further noted recurring concerns regarding compliance with domestic and international standards governing the use of force during protest dispersals. The group emphasized that peaceful assemblies should be presumed constitutionally protected and recommended mandatory investigations in cases involving deaths or serious injuries arising from arrests and dispersals. Participants also called for a unified rights-based framework governing body-worn cameras and expressed concern regarding the deployment of military personnel in composite task forces. Atty. Mark Vincent Lim reported on Group C's discussions concerning non-traditional forms of public assembly. Participants argued that constitutional protections should extend to other forms of collective action, including collective pleas for relief, occupations of government housing units, and community barricades established to oppose mining operations. The group also noted concerns regarding the filing of multiple criminal charges in cases involving non-conventional forms of collective dissent. The conference consolidated these findings into a set of Conference Points intended to guide NUPL's future litigation, legislative engagement, and public advocacy concerning freedom of assembly. During the plenary session and open forum, participants exchanged additional practical insights derived from quick-reaction team deployments and case handling experiences. Topics included the unlawful seizure of property during arrests and dispersals, reforms to permit procedures, restrictions on the presence of armed officers during assemblies, the transition from a permit-based to a notice-based regime, and the designation of freedom parks. A total of 31 participants attended the National Case Conference. 35000 10750