The Diocese of Bacolod v.

COMELEC
G.R. No. 205728
January 21, 2015
Freedom of Speech

Facts:

This is a motion for reconsideration filed by the herein respondents when the
court has decided and granted in favor of the herein petitioners in issuing TRO for the
COMELEC in pushing to remove the tarpaulins posted by the herein petitioners and the
declaring that the letters dated February 22 and 27, 2013 are both void and
unconstitutional. The case arose from when the Diocese of Bacolod posted 2 tarpaulins
within its compound stating its opposition on RH law, with the message “IBASURA RH
LAW” and another entitled “CONSCIENCE VOTE WITH THE LIST OF CANDIDATES
CATEGORIZING TEAM BUHAY AND TEAM PATAY” with a check mark and “X”
mark

The petitioners argued that COMELEC’ s notice for the removal of the “TEAM
PATAY” and “TEAM BUHAY” tarpaulins, which classified senatorial candidates
according to their respective votes on the Reproductive Health (RH) Law, violate their
fundamental right to freedom of expression. COMELEC, on the other hand, contended
that the tarpaulins, each measuring 6x10 feet, are election propaganda subject to their
regulation pursuant to their mandate under Article IX -C, Section 4 of the Constitution.
Thus, the assailed notice ordering their removal for b eing oversized by reason that
campaign materials for the elections may only measure 2x3 feet is valid and constitutional.

Issues:
1. WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITIONERS VIOLATED THE PRINCIPLE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE EXHAUSTION WHEN IT ELEVATED THE ISSUE TO THE
SUPREME COURT RATHER THAN ADDRESSING THE ISSUE TO THE COMELEC;
2. WHETHER OR NOT THE SUBJECT TARPAULINS FALLS WITHIN THE
DEFINITION OF ELECTION PROPAGANDA AND THUS CAN BE REGULATED BY
THE COMELEC;
3. WHETHER OR NOT THE COMELEC VIOLATED THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF
EXPRESSION IN ORDERING THE REMOVAL OR REGULATION OF THE
TARPAULINS
4. WHETHER OR NOT THE ORDER OF THE REMOVAL IS A CONTENT BASED OR
CONTENT-NEUTRAL REGULATION.

Ruling:

1. NO. Direct resort to this court is allowed to avoid such proscribed conditions. Rule 65 is also
the procedural platform for raising grave abuse of discretion.

The urgency posed by the circumstances during respondents' issuance of the assailed notice and
letter-the then issue on the RH Law as well as the then upcoming elections-also rendered
compliance with the doctrine on exhaustion of administrative remedies as unreasonable.
2. NO. the tarpaulin consists of satire of political parties that "primarily advocates a stand on a
social issue; only secondarily-even almost incidentally-will cause the election or non-election of
a candidate." It is not election propaganda as its messages are different from the usual
declarative messages of candidates. The tarpaulin is an expression with political consequences,
and "this court's construction of the guarantee of freedom of expression has always been wary of
censorship or subsequent punishment that entails evaluation of the speaker's viewpoint or the
content of one's speech."

We recognize that there can be a type of speech by private citizens amounting to election
paraphernalia that can be validly regulated. However, this is not the situation in this case. The
twin tarpaulins consist of a social advocacy, and the regulation, if applied in this case, fails the
reasonability test.

3. Petitioners are not candidates. They are asserting their right to freedom of expression. We
acknowledged the "chilling effect" of the assailed notice and letter on this constitutional right in
our Decision, thus:

Nothing less than the electorate's political speech will be affected by the restrictions imposed by
COMELEC. Political speech is motivated by the desire to be heard and understood, to move
people to action. It is concerned with the sovereign right to change the contours of power
whether through the election of representatives in a republican government or the revision of
the basic text of the Constitution. The zeal with which we protect this kind of speech does not
depend on our evaluation of the cogency of the message. Neither do we assess whether we
should protect speech based on the motives of COMELEC. We evaluate restrictions on freedom
of expression from their effects. We protect both speech and medium because the quality of this
freedom in practice will define the quality of deliberation in our democratic society.

COMELEC's notice and letter affect preferred speech. Respondents' acts are capable of
repetition. Under the conditions in which it was issued and in view of the novelty of this case, it
could result in a "chilling effect" that would affect other citizens who want their voices heard on
issues during the elections. Other citizens who wish to express their views regarding the
election and other related issues may choose not to, for fear of reprisal or sanction by the
COMELEC.

4. The regulation is content-based. The Decision discussed that "the form of expression is just as
important as the information conveyed that it forms part of the expression" and size does
matter.