Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC, G.R. No.

205728, 21 January 2015

Facts:
On February 2013, petitioners posted two (2) tarpaulins within the
compound of San Sebastian Cathedral of Bacolod. Each tarpaulin was
approximately 6×10 in size. They were posted on the front walls of the
cathedral within public view.

The first tarpaulin contains the message “IBASURA RH Law” referring to the
Reproductive Health Law of 2012 or Republic Act No. 10354. The second
tarpaulin is the subject of the present case. This tarpaulin contains the
heading “Conscience Vote” and lists candidates as either “(Anti-RH)/ Team
Buhay” or “(Pro-RH)/Team Patay”.

The electoral candidates were classified according to their vote on the

adoption of the RH Law. Those who voted for the passing of the law were
classified by petitioners as comprising “Team Patay,” while those who voted
against it form “Team Buhay”

Respondent Atty. Mavil V. Majarucon, as Election Officer of Bacolod City,

issued a Notice to Remove Campaign Materials addressed to petitioner Most
Rev. Bishop Vicente M. Navarra, otherwise, COMELEC will be constrained to
file an election offense against the petitioners.

Issue: Whether or not COMELEC has the power to regulate the posting of
such tarpaulin.

Ruling:

No. The tarpaulin was not paid for by any candidate or political party. It is
not considered as a campaign material. There was no allegation that
petitioners coordinated with any of the persons named in the tarpaulin
regarding its posting. Petitioners posted the tarpaulin as part of their
advocacy against the RH Law. In this case, the COMELEC cannot regulate
the posting of such tarpaulin.

a. COMELEC does not have the authority to regulate the enjoyment of the
preferred right to freedom of expression exercised by a non-candidate.
Regulation of speech in the context of electoral campaigns made by persons
who are not candidates or who do not speak as members of a political party
which are, taken as a whole, principally advocacies of a social issue that the
public must consider during elections is unconstitutional. Such regulation is
inconsistent with the guarantee of according the fullest possible range of
opinions coming from the electorate including those that can catalyze
candid, uninhibited, and robust debate in the criteria for the choice of a
candidate.

b. Regulation of election paraphernalia will still be constitutionally valid if it

reaches into speech of persons who are not candidates or who do not speak
as members of a political party if they are not candidates, only if what is
regulated is declarative speech that, taken as a whole, has for its principal
object the endorsement of a candidate only. The regulation (a) should be
provided by law, (b) reasonable, (c) narrowly tailored to meet the objective
of enhancing the opportunity of all candidates to be heard and considering
the primacy of the guarantee of free expression, and (d) demonstrably the
least restrictive means to achieve that object. The regulation must only be
with respect to the time, place, and manner of the rendition of the message.
In no situation may the speech be prohibited or censored on the basis of its
content. For this purpose, it will not matter whether the speech is made with
or on private property.

c. Satire of political parties that primarily advocates a stand on a social issue

and only secondarily-even almost incidentally-will cause the election or non-
election of a candidate is not election propaganda as its messages are
different from the usual declarative messages of candidates. It is an
expression with political consequences, and "[t]his court's construction of
the guarantee of freedom of expression has always been wary of censorship
or subsequent punishment that entails evaluation of the speaker's viewpoint
or the content of one's speech.