THE DIOCESE OF BACOLOD vs. 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.