Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC (G.R.

205728 ) (January 1, 2015)

FACTS: Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC is a case regarding a special civil action for certiorari
and prohibition with application for preliminary injunction and TRO under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court seeking to nullify COMELEC materials date February 22, 2013. On February 2013,
petitioners posted 2 tarpaulins within a private compound housing the Cathedral of Bacolod.
Each tarpaulin was 6 feet by 10 feet in size. The tarpaulin were in public view. On the first tarp,
the message “IBASURA RH LAW” (or R.A. 10354) was written, while the second contains the
heading “Conscience vote.” Also on the second tarp was a list of candidates as either “(Anti-
RH) Team Buhay” with check mark; or “(Pro-RH) Team Patay” with an X mark. Team Buhay
consisted of Estrada, Honasan, Magsaysay, Pimentel, Trillanes, Villar, Cynthia, Party Lists
Buhay, and Ang Pamilya. Team Patay consisted of Angara, Casino, Cayetano, Enrile,
Escudero, Hontiveros, Legarda, Party Lists Gabriela, Akbayan, Bayan Muna, and Anak Pawis.

Respondents conceded that the tarps were neither sponsored nor paid for by any candidate.
Petitioners also concede that the tarps contains names of candidates for the 2013 election of
politicians who helped in the passage of RH Law but were not candidates for that election.
Election Officer Majarucon also issued a removal of the tarps for being too big; the prescribed
size being 2 feet by 3 feet. On February 27, COMELEC issued a letter ordering the immediate
removal of the tarpaulin; otherwise it would be constrained to file an election offense against
petitioners.

Petitioners then initiated this petition for certiorari and prohibition with application for preliminary
injunction and TRO. A TRO was issued enjoining respondents from enforcing the assailed
notice and letter on March 5. On March 13, respondents filed their comment arguing that the
petition for certiorari is NOT the proper remedy and that the tarps are an election propaganda
subject to regulation by COMELEC under Article IX-C, Section 4 of the Constitution.
Respondents contend that petitioners’ failure to file the proper suit with a lower court of
concurrent jurisdiction sufficient ground for dismissal of their petition. They stated that the
hierarchy of courts is compulsory, citing Heirs of Bertuldo Hinog v. Melicor. They finally
contend that none of the exceptions for the hierarchy of courts are present in the case.

Petitioners cite Fortich v. Corona on the court’s discretionary power to take cognizance of
the petition filed if it warranted by “compelling reasons, or [by] nature and importance of
the issues raised…” Petitioners submit that there are exceptional reasons to justify
discretionary power of the Court.

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners violated the doctrine of hierarchy of courts

HELD: NO. The petition is GRANTED. The TRO is hereby made permanent. The notice of the
COMELEC to petitioners are declared unconstitutional

RULING: The doctrine of hierarchy of courts was established in order to “...shield the Court from
having to deal with causes that are so well within the competence of lower courts…[The SC] to
deal with more fundamental and more essential tasks that the Constitution assigned to it.” It is to
assure the efficiency of the judiciary in its designated roles. Courts are territorially organized into
regional branches. Their writs generally reach within those territorial boundaries. Other cases
where resort to courts at their level would not be practical to their decisions considering their
decisions could still be appealed before higher Courts.
The CA is designated as an appellate court that review the determination of facts and law
made by the trial courts. It is collegiate in nature. But it also has original jurisdiction over
most special civil actions. It is competent to determine facts and, ideally, should determine
constitutional issues that may not necessarily be novel unless there are factual questions to
determine.

The Supreme court leads the judiciary by breaking new ground or further reiterating -- in
light of new circumstances or in light of some confusions of bench or bar -- existing
precedents. It is the SC’s role to interpret the Constitution and act in order to protect
constitutional rights when these become exigent should not be emasculated by the
doctrine in respect of hierarchy; which was never the purpose of the doctrine.

The SC has “full discretionary power to take cognizance and assume jurisdiction over special
civil actions for certiorari...filed directly with it for exceptionally compelling reasons or if
warranted by specific issues raised in petition. Two exceptions mentioned were (1) genuine
issues of constitutionality that must be addressed at the most immediate time (certiorari,
prohibition on actions of both legislative and executive branches) and (2) when the issues
involved are of transcendental importance (imminence and clarity of threat to fundamental
constitutional rights.) In the case at bar, there is a clear threat to the right of freedom of speech
and expression which warrants invocation of relief. The protection of fundamental rights allows
for immediate resort to this court.