Professional Documents
Culture Documents
9 Diocese of Bacolod Vs Comelec PDF
9 Diocese of Bacolod Vs Comelec PDF
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
G.R. No. 205728, 21 January 2015, EN BANC (Leonen, J.)
What is involved in this case is the most sacred of speech forms: expression by the
electorate that tends to rouse the public to debate contemporary issues. This is not speech by
candidates or political parties to entice votes. It is a portion of the electorate telling candidates the
conditions for their election. It is the substantive content of the right to suffrage.
The Election Officer of Bacolod ordered the removal of the 2nd tarpaulin.
Claiming it to be an election propaganda, the COMELEC issued an order
prompting for the removal of the tarpaulin for being oversized. The Diocese
assailed the said order of the COMELEC for being violative of their constitutional
right to freedom of expression and that it is a violation of the separation of the state
and the church. The Diocese likewise assails that the tarpaulins are beyond the
regulatory powers of the COMELEC regarding election materials since they are
neither candidates nor belonging to any political party.
ISSUES:
2. Did the COMELEC order violate the constitutional right of the Diocese of
Bacolod to freedom of speech and expression?
RULING:
The tarpaulin was not paid for by any candidate or political party. There
was no allegation that the Diocese coordinated with any of the persons named in
the tarpaulin regarding its posting. On the other hand, petitioners posted the
tarpaulin as part of their advocacy against the RH Law. While the tarpaulin may
influence the success or failure of the named candidates and political parties, this
does not necessarily mean it is an election propaganda. The tarpaulin was not paid
for or posted “in return for consideration” by any candidate, political party, or
party-list group.
The message of the Diocese in this case will certainly not be what
candidates and political parties will carry in their election posters or media ads. The
message of the Diocese, taken as a whole, is an advocacy of a social issue that it
deeply believes. Through rhetorical devices, it communicates the desire of the
Diocese that the positions of those who run for a political position on this social
issue be determinative of how the public will vote. It primarily advocates a stand on
a social issue; only secondarily — even almost incidentally — will cause the election
or non-election of a candidate.
The tarpaulins exaggerate. Surely, “Team Patay” does not refer to a list of
dead individuals nor could the Archbishop of the Diocese of Bacolod have intended
it to mean that the entire plan of the candidates in his list was to cause death
intentionally. The tarpaulin caricatures political parties and parodies the intention of
those in the list. Furthermore, the list of “Team Patay” is juxtaposed with the list of
“Team Buhay” that further emphasizes the theme of its author: Reproductive health
is an important marker for the church of petitioners to endorse.
The restriction in the present case does not pass even the lower test of
intermediate scrutiny for content-neutral regulations. The action of the COMELEC
in this case is a strong deterrent to further speech by the electorate. Given the