Case Digest (G.R. No. 258805)
Facts:
St. Anthony College of Roxas City, Inc., et al. v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 258805, October 10, 2023, the Supreme Court En Banc, Marquez, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners St. Anthony College of Roxas City, Inc., represented by Sister Geraldine J. Denoga, D.C., Dr. Pilita De Jesus Liceralde, and Dr. Anton Mari Hao Lim challenged the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and its Director James Arthur B. Jimenez in his official capacities. Petitioners allege that privately owned tarpaulins, posters, murals and similar materials endorsing former Vice‑President Leni Robredo (a presidential candidate in the May 9, 2022 elections) and displayed on their private properties were removed, confiscated, destroyed, defaced, or dismantled by COMELEC field officers pursuant to the COMELEC campaign dubbed “Oplan Baklas” implemented under COMELEC Resolution No. 10730.
Chronology: beginning February 9–14, 2022 petitioners discovered removal of oversized tarpaulins in Zamboanga City and Santiago, Isabela; they sent demand letters to local COMELEC election officers requesting cessation and return of seized materials but received no satisfactory action. On February 14, 2022 COMELEC sent a letter directing St. Anthony College to remove tarpaulins within 24 hours for violating Resolution No. 10730; some materials had already been removed. On March 1, 2022 petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus (seeking injunctive relief) in the Supreme Court and prayed for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). The Court issued a TRO on March 8, 2022.
The petition attacked the COMELEC’s interpretation and implementation of Sections 21(o), 24, and 26 of COMELEC Resolution No. 10730 (and related provisions in Republic Act No. 9006, the Fair Election Act, and the Omnibus Election Code) as unconstitutional and beyond COMELEC’s authority insofar as they were enforced against privately‑owned campaign materials on private properties. Petitioners advanced standing, ripeness, and exceptions to hierarchy/exhaustion doctrines due to a claimed chilling effect on political speech. COMELEC opposed the petition, arguing the relief was improper (acts were quasi‑legislative/quasi‑administrative), petitioners failed to show grave abuse of discretion, administrative remedies were not exhausted, and that the size limits and removals are lawful exercises of regulatory authority under the Constitution (Art. IX‑C), RA 9006, and Sec. 82 of the Omnib...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is the petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus properly before the Supreme Court (i.e., are jurisdiction, standing, ripeness, and exceptions to the doctrine of hierarchy/exhaustion satisfied)?
- Did the COMELEC have statutory authority to implement “Oplan Baklas” to remove, confiscate, or destroy privately‑owned election paraphernalia placed on private property under COMELEC Resolution No. 10730, RA 9006, or the Omnibus Election Code?
- If COMELEC lacked such authority, did its removal and destruction of petitioners’ privately‑owned election materials violate petitioners’...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)