Diocese of Bacolod v.

COMELEC
G.R. No. 205728 Jan. 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.
HELD:
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.