Case Digest (G.R. No. 205728)
Facts:
In Diocese of Bacolod v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 205728, decided on July 5, 2016 under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, the petitioners are the Diocese of Bacolod, represented by the Most Rev. Bishop Vicente M. Navarra and the Bishop in his personal capacity. The respondents are the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and its Bacolod City Election Officer, Atty. Mavil V. Majarucon. In February 2013, the petitioners posted two large tarpaulins on the façade of the San Sebastian Cathedral in Bacolod City. One displayed “IBASURA RH LAW,” while the other listed candidates in two groups—“Team Buhay” (those who opposed the Reproductive Health Law) with a check mark, and “Team Patay” (those who supported it) with an “X”—under the heading “conscience vote.” The COMELEC issued a Notice dated February 22, 2013 and a Letter dated February 27, 2013 directing removal of the tarpaulins for exceeding the 2×3-foot size limit for election propaganda under Republic Act No. 9006 (Fair EleCase Digest (G.R. No. 205728)
Facts:
- Background
- Petitioners: The Diocese of Bacolod, represented by Bishop Vicente M. Navarra in institutional and personal capacities.
- Respondents: Commission on Elections (COMELEC) En Banc and Bacolod City Election Officer Atty. Mavil V. Majarucon.
- Subject Matter: Two six-by-ten-foot tarpaulins posted on the façade of San Sebastian Cathedral in early 2013—one reading “RH LAW IBASURA” and another entitled “conscience vote,” listing legislators as “Team Buhay” (check-marked) and “Team Patay” (X-marked) based on their votes on the Reproductive Health Law, during the May 13, 2013 elections.
- Procedural History
- January 21, 2015 Decision: The Supreme Court granted the petition under Rule 65, made permanent the TRO against the COMELEC notice of February 22, 2013 and letter of February 27, 2013, and declared those acts unconstitutional.
- Motion for Reconsideration: Respondents argued (a) lack of finality and premature resort to the Court; (b) violation of exhaustion of administrative remedies; (c) that the tarpaulin is election propaganda regulable under RA 9006 and the Omnibus Election Code; (d) validity of the 2′ × 3′ size limit as content-neutral regulation.
- July 5, 2016 Resolution: The Supreme Court denied the motion for reconsideration, reaffirming its January 21, 2015 Decision.
Issues:
- Jurisdiction and Procedural Questions
- Are the February 22, 2013 notice and February 27, 2013 letter final, reviewable COMELEC acts subject to certiorari under Rule 65?
- Should the petition have been dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under COMELEC rules?
- Merits
- Does the “conscience vote” tarpaulin qualify as election propaganda under RA 9006 and COMELEC Resolution No. 9615?
- Is the statutory and regulatory 2′ × 3′ size limitation on election posters a valid exercise of COMELEC’s power?
- Does enforcement of that size limit constitute a content-based or content-neutral restriction on free speech, and does it pass constitutional scrutiny?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)