THE DIOCESE OF BACOLOD vs COMELEC actionable infringement of this right.
actionable infringement of this right. The impending
G.R. No. 205728               January 21, 2015
PONENTE: Leonen
TOPIC: Right to expression, right to political speech,
right to property
FACTS:
                On February 21, 2013, petitioners posted two
(2) tarpaulins within a private compound housing the
San Sebastian Cathedral of Bacolod. Each tarpaulin was
approximately six feet (6′) by ten feet (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” 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 Republic Act No. 10354,
otherwise known as 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.”
                Respondents conceded that the tarpaulin was
neither sponsored nor paid for by any candidate.
Petitioners also conceded that the tarpaulin contains
names ofcandidates for the 2013 elections, but not of
politicians who helped in the passage of the RH Law but
were not candidates for that election.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the size limitation and its
reasonableness of the tarpaulin is a political
question, hence not within the ambit of the
Supreme Court’s power of review.
2. Whether or not the petitioners violated the
principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies
as the case was not brought first before the
COMELEC En Banc or any if its divisions.
3. Whether or not COMELEC may regulate
expressions made by private citizens.
4. Whether or not the assailed notice and
letter for the removal of the tarpaulin violated
petitioners’ fundamental right to freedom of
expression.
5. Whether the order for removal of the
tarpaulin is a content-based or content-neutral
regulation.
6. Whether or not there was violation of
petitioners’ right to property.
7. Whether or not the tarpaulin and its
message are considered religious speech.
when the challenged act has overcome the clear and
HELD:
FIRST ISSUE: No.
                The Court ruled that the present case does not
call for the exercise of prudence or modesty. There is no
political question. It can be acted upon by this court
through the expanded jurisdiction granted to this court
through Article VIII, Section 1 of the Constitution..
                The concept of a political question never
precludes judicial review when the act of a
constitutional organ infringes upon a fundamental
individual or collective right. Even assuming arguendo
that the COMELEC did have the discretion to choose the
manner of regulation of the tarpaulin in question, it
cannot do so by abridging the fundamental right to
expression.
                Also the Court said that in our jurisdiction, the
determination of whether an issue involves a truly
political and non-justiciable question lies in the
answer to the question of whether there are
constitutionally imposed limits on powers or functions
conferred upon political bodies. If there are, then our
courts are duty-bound to examine whether the branch
or instrumentality of the government properly acted
within such limits.
                A political question will not be considered
justiciable if there are no constitutionally imposed limits
on powers or functions conferred upon political bodies.
Hence, the existence of constitutionally imposed limits
justifies subjecting the official actions of the body to the
scrutiny and review of this court.
                In this case, the Bill of Rights gives the utmost
deference to the right to free speech. Any instance that
this right may be abridged demands judicial scrutiny. It
does not fall squarely into any doubt that a political
question brings.
SECOND ISSUE: No.
                The Court held that the argument on
exhaustion of administrative remedies is not proper in
this case.
                Despite the alleged non-exhaustion
of administrative remedies, it is clear that the
controversy is already ripe for adjudication. Ripeness is
the “prerequisite that something had by then been
accomplished or performed by either branch or in this
case, organ of government before a court may come
into the picture.”
                Petitioners’ exercise of their right to speech,
given the message and their medium, had
understandable relevance especially during the
elections. COMELEC’s letter threatening the filing of the
election offense against petitioners is already an
threat of criminal litigation is enough to curtail
petitioners’ speech.
                In the context of this case, exhaustion of
their administrative remedies as COMELEC suggested in
their pleadings prolongs the violation of their freedom
of speech.
THIRD ISSUE: No.
                Respondents cite the Constitution, laws, and
jurisprudence to support their position that they had the
power to regulate the tarpaulin. However, the Court
held that all of these provisions pertain to candidates
and political parties. Petitioners are not candidates.
Neither do they belong to any political party. COMELEC
does not have the authority to regulate the enjoyment
of the preferred right to freedom of expression
exercised by a non-candidate in this case.
FOURTH ISSUE: Yes.
                The Court held that every citizen’s expression
with political consequences enjoys a high degree of
protection.
                Moreover, the respondent’s argument that the
tarpaulin is election propaganda, being petitioners’ way
of endorsing candidates who voted against the RH Law
and rejecting those who voted for it, holds no water.
                The Court held that while the tarpaulin may
influence the success or failure of the named candidates
and political parties, this does not necessarily mean it is
election propaganda. The tarpaulin was not paid for or
posted “in return for consideration” by any candidate,
political party, or party-list group.
                By interpreting the law, it is clear that personal
opinions are not included, while sponsored messages
are covered.
The content of the tarpaulin is a political speech
Political speech refers to speech “both intended and
received as a contribution to public deliberation about
some issue,” “fostering informed and civic minded
deliberation.” On the other hand, commercial speech
has been defined as speech that does “no more than
propose a commercial transaction.” The expression
resulting from the content of the tarpaulin is, however,
definitely political speech.
FIFTH ISSUE: Content-based regulation.
                Content-based restraint or censorship refers to
restrictions “based on the subject matter of the
utterance or speech.” In contrast, content-neutral
regulation includes controls merely on the incidents of
the speech such as time, place, or manner of the speech.
                The Court held that the regulation involved at
bar is content-based. The tarpaulin content is not easily
divorced from the size of its medium.
                Content-based regulation bears a heavy
presumption of invalidity, and this court has used the
clear and present danger rule as measure.
                Under this rule, “the evil consequences sought
to be prevented must be substantive, ‘extremely serious
and the degree of imminence extremely high.’” “Only
present danger rule will it pass constitutional muster,
with the government having the burden of overcoming
the presumed unconstitutionality.”
                Even with the clear and present danger test,
respondents failed to justify the regulation. There is no
compelling and substantial state interest endangered by
the posting of the tarpaulin as to justify curtailment of
the right of freedom of expression. There is no reason
for the state to minimize the right of non-candidate
petitioners to post the tarpaulin in their private
property. The size of the tarpaulin does not affect
anyone else’s constitutional rights.
SIXTH ISSUE: Yes.
                The Court held that even though the tarpaulin
is readily seen by the public, the tarpaulin remains the
private property of petitioners. Their right to use their
property is likewise protected by the Constitution.
                Any regulation, therefore, which operates as an
effective confiscation of private property or constitutes
an arbitrary or unreasonable infringement of property
rights is void, because it is repugnant to the
constitutional guaranties of due process and equal
protection of the laws.
                The Court in Adiong case held that a restriction
that regulates where decals and stickers should be
posted is “so broad that it encompasses even the
citizen’s private property.” Consequently, it violates
Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution which provides
that no person shall be deprived of his property without
due process of law.
SEVENTH ISSUE: No.
                The Court held that the church doctrines relied
upon by petitioners are not binding upon this court. The
position of the Catholic religion in the Philippines as
regards the RH Law does not suffice to qualify the
posting by one of its members of a tarpaulin as religious
speech solely on such basis. The enumeration of
candidates on the face of the tarpaulin precludes any
doubt as to its nature as speech with political
consequences and not religious speech.
Doctrine of benevolent neutrality
                With religion looked upon with benevolence
and not hostility, benevolent neutrality allows
accommodation of religion under certain circumstances.
Accommodations are government policies that take
religion specifically into account not to promote the
government’s favored form of religion, but to allow
individuals and groups to exercise their religion without
hindrance. Their purpose or effect therefore is to
remove a burden on, or facilitate the exercise of, a
person’s or institution’s religion.
                As Justice Brennan explained, the “government
may take religion into account . . . to exempt, when
possible, from generally applicable governmental
regulation individuals whose religious beliefs and
practices would otherwise thereby be infringed, or to
create without state involvement an atmosphere in
which voluntary religious exercise may flourish.”
Lemon test
A regulation is constitutional when:
1. It has a secular legislative purpose;
2. It neither advances nor inhibits religion; and
3. It does not foster an excessive
entanglement with religion.