MEMORANDUM OF LAW

TO: Ms. Juana de la Paz

FROM: Atty. Miko Gabriel Reyes
RE: Partisan Political Campaigns
DATE: April 22, 2023

QUERY:
Does the prohibition on partisan political campaigns restrict freedom of speech or social media
use?

SHORT ANSWER:
No, it does not prohibit partisan political campaigns that restrict freedom of speech or social
media use.

DISCUSSION:
Section 79 (b), Article X of the Omnibus Election Code defines partisan political activity as:
Section 79. Definitions.
(b) The term “election campaign” or “partisan political activity” refers to an act designed to
promote the election or defeat of a particular candidate or candidates to a public office:
The prohibition on partisan political campaigning emanated from Section 2(4) of Article IX-
B of the Constitution2 which states, “No officer or employee in the civil service shall engage,
directly or indirectly, in any electioneering or partisan political campaign.” This same prohibition
is echoed in the pertinent provision of the Republic Act No. 71603 or the Local Government
Code of 1991, to wit:

SECTION 93. Partisan Political Activity. – No local official or employee in the career civil
service shall engage directly or indirectly in any partisan political activity or take part in any
election, initiative, referendum, plebiscite, or recall, except to vote, nor shall he use his official
authority or influence to cause the performance of any political activity by any person or body.
He may, however, express his views on current issues, or mention the names of certain
candidates for public office whom he supports. Elective local officials may take part in partisan
political and electoral activities, but it shall be unlawful for them to solicit contributions from
their subordinates or subject these subordinates to any of the prohibited acts under the Omnibus
Election Code.

According to the Civil Service Commission's Advisory on Electioneering and Partisan

Political Activity, invoking the case of Disini v. Secretary of Justice, 4 “liking,” “commenting,”
“sharing,” “re-posting,” or “following” a candidate's or party's account are not considered
electioneering or partisan political activity unless they are used to solicit support for or against a
candidate or party during the campaign period.

The Supreme Court further stated in the case above that there is no libel liability for just
commenting on a post because there is no imputation or republication, apart from, to wit: Except
for the original author of the assailed statement, the rest (those who pressed Like, Comment, and
Share) are essentially knee-jerk sentiments of readers who may think little or haphazardly of
their response to the original posting. Given the cited laws, jurisprudence, and legal authorities,
the subject of this query is that a government employee can still freely express his political
belief, or the candidate of his choice provided he opts to speak or engage the same in a
responsible manner. Thus, his freedom of speech and engagement in social media is not
restricted.

__________________________________________
Disini v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 203335, February 11, 2014