THE DIOCESE OF BACOLOD VS.

COMELEC
G.R. NO. 205728, JAN. 21, 2015
LEONEN, J.:

TOPIC: CAMPAIGN

FACTS:

On February 21, 2013, petitioners posted two (2) tarpaulins within a private compound
housing the San Sebastian Cathedral of Bacolod. Each tarpaulin was approximately six
feet (6') by ten feet (10') in size. They were posted on the front walls of the cathedral
within public view. The first tarpaulin contains the message "IBASURA RH Law"
referring to the Reproductive Health Law of 2012 or Republic Act No. 10354. The
second tarpaulin is the subject of the present case. This tarpaulin contains the heading
"Conscience Vote" and lists 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 Republic Act No. 10354, otherwise
known as the RH Law. Those who voted for the passing of the law were classified by
petitioners as comprising "Team Patay," while those who voted against it form "Team
Buhay":

TEAM BUHAY TEAM PATAY

Estrada, JV Angara, Juan Edgardo
Honasan, Gregorio Casiño, Teddy
Magsaysay, Mitos Cayetano, Alan Peter
Pimentel, Koko Enrile, Jackie
Trillanes, Antonio Escudero, Francis
Villar, Cynthia Hontiveros, Risa
Party List Buhay Legarda, Loren
Party List Ang Pamilya Party List Gabriela
Party List Akbayan
Party List Bayan Muna
Party List Anak Pawis

On February 22, 2013, respondent Atty. Mavil V. Majarucon, in her capacity as Election
Officer of Bacolod City, issued a Notice to Remove Campaign Materials addressed to
petitioner Most Rev. Bishop Vicente M. Navarra. The election officer ordered the
tarpaulin’s removal within three (3) days from receipt for being oversized. COMELEC
Resolution No. 9615 provides for the size requirement of two feet (2’) by three feet (3’).
Concerned about the imminent threat of prosecution for their exercise of free speech,
petitioners initiated this case through this petition for certiorari and prohibition with
application for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order.

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not COMELEC may regulate expressions made by private citizens?

2. Whether or not the assailed notice and letter for the removal of the tarpaulin
violated petitioners’ fundamental right to freedom of expression?

HELD:

1. No. Respondents cite the Constitution, laws, and jurisprudence to support their
position that they had the power to regulate the tarpaulin. However, the Court
held that all of these provisions pertain to candidates and political parties.
Petitioners are not candidates. Neither do they belong to any political party.
COMELEC does not have the authority to regulate the enjoyment of the preferred
right to freedom of expression exercised by a non-candidate in this case.

2. Yes. The Court held that every citizen’s expression with political consequences
enjoys a high degree of protection. Moreover, the respondent’s argument that the
tarpaulin is election propaganda, being petitioners’ way of
endorsing candidates who voted against the RH Law and rejecting those who
voted for it, holds no water. The Court held that 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. By interpreting the law, it is clear that personal opinions are not included,
while sponsored messages are covered.