Diocese of Bacolod vs COMELEC

GR 205728, January 21, 2015

Leonen, J.:

Facts:

On February 21, 2013 the diocese of Bacolod posted two posters within a private compound,
the measurement of the posters-tarpaulins were six by ten feet in size; the tarpaulins were focused on
the issues of the RH Law.

On February 22, 2013, Atty. Majarucon ordered the tarpaulin’s removal within three days on the
ground of the tarpaulins’ being oversized, the standard requirement being two by three feet.

On February 25, 2013, the diocese replied with the request that the Bishop be given a clear
decision regarding the tarpaulins; and that the tarpaulins be allowed to remain posted while availing
legal remedies and opinions.

On February 27, 2013, the COMELC Law Department issued a letter ordering the immediate
removal of the tarpaulin, as it will charged as an election offense.

The diocese filed a petition for review and prohibition for preliminary injunction and a
restraining order. After careful reconsideration, on March 3, 2013 the court issued a temporary
restraining order.

On March 13, 2013 COMELEC filed their arguments that a petition for certiorari is not a proper
remedy in this case, and that the tarpaulin is an election propaganda, and therefore the issuance of its
removal is valid and constitutional.

Issues:

1. (PROCEDURAL) Whether or not COMELEC had legal basis to regulate expressions made by private
citizens?

2. (PROCEDURAL) Whether or not there was grave abuse on the part of COMELEC?

3. (PROCEDURAL) Whether or not the court has jurisdiction over this case?

4. (CONSTITUTIONAL) Whether or not there was a violation of the constitutional right to freedom of
speech?

Ruling:

1. No. COMELEC does have the power regulate any tarpaulin by parties and candidates; but these do
not apply to private citizens.
2. Yes. They committed grave abuse of discretion when the COMELEC issued a notice and a letter
ordering the removal of the tarpaulin.

3. Yes. The court does have jurisdiction in light of the new circumstance that recently surface, it has
clear jurisdiction to hear this case.

4. Yes. There was a violation when the COMELEC ordered the Diocese the removal of their tarpaulin, our
constitution explicitly included the freedom of expression separately in addition to the freedom of
speech.

Disposition:

In the court’s decision dated January 21, 2015, the instant petition is granted; and the temporary
restraining order is now permanent; the act of the COMELEC in issuing a notice and a letter is declared
unconstitutional.