Case No.

57
Jessie D. Fuentevilla

THE DIOCESE OF BACOLOD VS COMELEC

January 21, 2015

FACTS: The case is a Special Civil Action for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court and Prohibition with application for preliminary injunction and TRO seeking to
nullify COMELEC’s Notice to Remove Campaign Materials dated February 22, 2013
and letter issued in February 27, 2013.

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”:

TEAMBUHAY                                      TEAMPATAY
Estrada,JV                                         Angara, Juan Edgardo
Honasan,Gregorio                               Casiño, Teddy
Magsaysay, Mitos                                 Cayetano, Alan Peter
Pimentel, Koko                                      Enrile, Jackie
Trillanes, Antonio                                   Escudero, Francis
Villar, Cynthia                                         Hontiveros, Risa

*Party List                                               Legarda, Loren

Party List Buhay           Gabriela, Akbayan, Bayan Muna, Anak Pawis 

Party List Ang Pamilya

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.

During the oral arguments, respondent’s conceded that the tarpaulin was neither
sponsored nor paid by any candidate. It further raised the doctrine of the hierarchy of
courts as it petitions for the dismissal of the case. Petitioners also conceded that the
tarpaulin contains names of candidates for the 2013 elections but not of politicians who
helped in the passage of RH Law, but were candidates for that election. It further
argued that it has no plain and speedy remedy in the course of law, such that the court
must pass on the petition.

ISSUE: Whether the act of the COMELEC infringes the Freedom of Religion and
Freedom of Speech.

HELD:

On Freedom of Religion: As aptly argued by COMELEC, the tarpaulin, on its

face, “does not convey any religious doctrine of the Catholic church.” That the position
of the Catholic church appears to coincide with the message of the tarpaulin regarding
the RH Law does not, by itself, bring the expression within the ambit of religious speech.
On the contrary, the tarpaulin clearly refers to candidates classified under “Team Patay”
and “Team Buhay” according to their respective votes on the RH Law.

On Freedom of Speech: Embedded in the tarpaulin, are opinions expressed by

petitioners. It is a species of expression protected by our fundamental law. There are
several theories and schools of thought that strengthen the need to protect the basic
right to freedom of expression.

First, this relates to the right of the people to participate in public affairs, including
the right to criticize government actions. Speech that promotes dialogue on public
affairs, or airs out grievances and political discontent, should thus be protected and
encouraged.

Second, free speech should be encouraged under the concept of a market place

of ideas.

Third, free speech involves self-expression that enhances human dignity.

Fourth, expression is a marker for group identity.

Fifth, the Bill of Rights, free speech included, is supposed to “protect individuals
and minorities against majoritarian abuses perpetrated through the framework of
democratic governance.”

Lastly, free speech must be protected under the safety valve theory. In order to
avoid this situation and prevent people from resorting to violence, there is a need for
peaceful methods in making passionate dissent. Free speech must, thus, be protected
as a peaceful means of achieving one’s goal, considering the possibility that repression
of nonviolent dissent may spill over to violent means just to drive a point.
In the hierarchy of civil liberties, the rights of free expression and of assembly occupy a
preferred position as they are essential to the preservation and vitality of our civil and
political institutions; and such priority “gives these liberties the sanctity and the sanction
not permitting dubious intrusions.”
 The instant petition is GRANTED. The temporary order previously issued is
hereby made permanent. The act of COMELEC in issuing the assailed notice dated
February 22, 2013 and letter dated February 27, 2013 is declared unconstitutional.