Led by the Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan), the petitioners in the cases said that the "no permit, no rally" and the CPR violate the Constitution as they curtail the right of the people to peaceably assemble and to air their grievances.

The two policies, reportedly culled from Batas Pambansa Blg. 880 or the Public Assembly Act, have been used by the Philippine National Police (PNP) in forcibly dispersing rallies that often resulted in violence.

Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban said the public hearing on the petitions filed as early as October last year was delayed because it took the petitioners time to complete their petitions.

And because of the consolidation of many petitions into three cases, the High Court will again issue guidelines in the conduct of the oral arguments for fast proceedings, Panganiban said.

Aside from Bayan, the other petitioners are the Kilusang Mayo Uno, the National Federation of Labor Unions, the Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas, Courage, Gabriela and protest leaders who were victims of violent police dispersals.

The petitioners include Fr. Jose Dizon, Renato Constantino Jr., Froyel Yanez and Fahima Tajar, the League of Urban Poor for Action, Kilusan sa Pambansang Demokrasya, Youth for National Democracy, Teatrong Bayan, Kongreso ng Maralitang Lungsod, Bukluran ng Manggagawang Pilipino, Akbayan, Sanlakas, and Partido ng Manggagawa .

Named respondents were Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita, Secretary Angelo Reyes as the interior and local government secretary when the policies were adopted, Philippine National Police chief Director General Arturo Lomibao, Metro Manila police chief Director Vidal Querol, and Manila Police head Chief Supt. Pedro Bulaong.

The petitioners said the provisions in BP 880 that were made as bases in the "no permit, no rally" and the CPR policies should be declared unconstitutional because they curtail the right of the people to peaceably assemble and to air their grievances by requiring a permit as a condition for the exercise of such right.

At the same time, they said BP 880 unduly delegates to the city or municipal mayor, "without clear standards," the discretion to deny a permit based on two conflicting standards –- the existence of a clear and present danger to public order, public safety, public convenience, public morals or public health, or an imminent and grave danger of a substantive evil.

They said BP 880 contravenes Section 4, Article III of the 1987 Constitution which states that "no law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances."