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

205728, January 21, 2015

Facts:
Bishop Vicente M. Navarra posted two (2) tarpaulins, each with approximately six feet (6′) by ten feet (10′)
in size, for public viewing within the vicinity of San Sebastian Cathedral of Bacolod. One of the tarpaulins
stated: “Conscience Vote” and lists of 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 the RH Law. 

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

When the said tarpaulin came to the attention of Comelec, it sent a letter to Bishop Navarra ordering the
immediate removal of the tarpaulin because it was in violation of Comelec Resolution No. 9615 as the
lawful size for election propaganda material is only two feet (2’) by three feet (3’); otherwise, it will be
constrained to file an election offense against the latter. 

Concerned about the imminent threat of prosecution for their exercise of free speech, Bishop Navarra, et
al. prayed for the Court to declare the questioned orders of Comelec as unconstitutional, and permanently
restraining the latter from enforcing them after notice and hearing.

Issue:
Whether or not the controversial tarpaulin is an election propaganda which the Comelec has the power to
regulate; otherwise its prohibition shall constitute an abridgment of freedom of speech.

Ruling:
It is not election propaganda.
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.
Personal opinions, unlike sponsored messages, are not covered by the second paragraph of Sec. 1(4) of
Comelec Resolution No. 9615 defining “political advertisement” or “election propaganda.”
The caricature, though not agreeable to some, is still protected speech. That petitioners chose to
categorize them as purveyors of death or of life on the basis of a single issue—and a complex piece of
legislation at that—can easily be interpreted as an attempt to stereotype the candidates and party- list
organizations. Not all may agree to the way their thoughts were expressed, as in fact there are other
Catholic dioceses that chose not to follow the example of petitioners.
But, the Bill of Rights enumerated in our Constitution is an enumeration of our fundamental liberties. It is
not a detailed code that prescribes good conduct. It provides space for all to be guided by their
conscience, not only in the act that they do to others but also in judgment of the acts of others.

Doctrine:
The right to freedom of expression, thus, applies to the entire continuum of speech from ulterances made
to conduct enacted, and even to inaction itself as a symbolic manner of communication.