Diocese of Bacolod vs COMELEC

GR No. 205728
Leonen, J.

FACTS:

On 21 Feb. 2013, petitioners posted 2 tarpaulins within a private compound housing the San Sebastian
Cathedral of Bacolod. Each tarpaulin was approx. 6 ft. by 10 ft. in size. They were posted on the front walls
of the cathedral within public view.

The 2nd tarp is the subject of the present action. It contains “Conscience Vote” and lists candidates as
either “(Anti-RH) Team Buhay” with a check mark, or “(Pro-RH) Team Patay” with an X mark. The
electoral candidates were classified according to their vote on the adoption of RA 10354 or HR Law.
Those who voted for the passing of it were classified by petitioners as Team Patay.

On 22 Feb, respondent Atty. Majarucon, as Election Officer of Bacolod, issued a Notice to Remove
Campaign Materials which orders the tarp’s removal within 3 days from receipt for being oversized.
COMELEC Res. No. 9615 provides a size requirement of 2x3 ft only.

On 27 Feb, COMELEC Law Dept. issued a letter reiterating that the “election propaganda material”
violates the size requirement, thus must be removed immediately, otherwise, COMELEC will file an
election offense against the petitioners.

Concerned about the imminent threat of prosecution for their exercise of free speech, petitioners filed
this petition for certiorari and prohibition with application for preliminary injunction and TRO.

Petitioners argue that the tarpaulin was their statement of approval and appreciation of the named public
official’s act of voting against the RH Law, and their criticism toward those who voted in its favor. It was
“part of their advocacy campaign against the RH Law” which was not paid for by any candidate or political
party.

ISSUE: Whether the assailed notice and letter of removal of the tarp violated petitioner’s fundamental
right to freedom of expression

RULING: YES. It violates petitioner’s right to freedom of expression.

(L) Art. 3, Sec. 4 of the 1987 Constitution states that “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of
speech, of expression, or the press, or of the right of people peaceably to assemble and petition the govt
for redress of grievances.

(A) The SC has applied Art. 3, Sec. 4 even to government acts and so thus in an opinion by the COMELEC
Law Department, In a democracy, the right to freely participate in the exchange of ideas in furtherance of
political decision-making is recognized. The right to freedom of expression applies to the entire
continuum of speech from utterances made to conduct enacted and even to inaction itself as a symbolic
manner of communication.

1. The tarpaulins are not election propaganda covered by COMELEC Res. 9615. The SC held that
COMELEC’s argument that the tarp is an election propaganda, being a way of endorsing
candidates, holds no water. While the tarp may influence the success or failure of the named
candidates, this does not necessarily mean they are election propaganda. The tarp was not paid for
 or posted in return for consideration by any candidate, political party or party list group. The law
covers sponsored messages, NOT personal opinions.

2. Size does matter. Limiting the maximum size of the tarp would render ineffective petitioner’s
message and violate their right to exercise freedom of expression. Size enhances the efficiency in
communication because a larger tarpaulin allows larger fonts which make it easier to view from
greater distances, it allows emphasis of important message, and allows for more messages.

3. COMELEC has no basis to regulate expressions made by private citizens. COMELEC cites the
Constitution [Art. 9C, Sec. 4 and 2(7)], laws [Sec. 17 COMELEC Resolution 9615 and Sec. 79 of BP
991 or the Omnibus Election Code] and jurisprudence [National Press Club vs COMELEC] to say
that they had the power to regulate the tarps. However, all these provisions pertain to candidates
and political parties. Petitioners are not candidates nor do they belong to any political party. Thus,
COMELEC does not have the authority to regulate the enjoyment of the preferred right to freedom
of expression exercised by a noncandidate.

Hierarchy of Courts: Should petitioners exhaust administrative remedies first? No. In this case,
there is a clear threat to the paramount right of freedom of speech and of expression which warrants
invocation of relief from this court. The right to suffrage not only includes the right to vote for one’s
chosen candidate but also the right to vocalize that choice to the public in general, in the hope of
influencing their votes. The protection of these fundamental constitutional rights, therefore, allows for the
immediate resort to this court.