Case Digest (G.R. No. 205728)
Facts:
The Diocese of Bacolod, represented by the Most Rev. Bishop Vicente M. Navarra (petitioner), G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015, the Supreme Court En Banc, Leonen, J., writing for the Court. The petition sought certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 to annul a COMELEC Notice to Remove Campaign Materials (Feb. 22, 2013) and a letter from the COMELEC Law Department (Feb. 27, 2013) ordering removal of a six-by-ten foot tarpaulin posted on private church property.On February 21, 2013 petitioners posted two large tarpaulins on the front walls of the San Sebastian Cathedral in Bacolod City visible to the public. One read “IBASURA RH Law”; the other, headed “Conscience Vote,” listed national candidates in two columns labeled Team Buhay (those who voted against R.A. No. 10354) and Team Patay (those who voted for it). Both sides conceded the tarpaulin was not sponsored or paid for by any candidate, though it named persons who were then candidates.
On February 22, 2013 the Election Officer of Bacolod City (Atty. Mavil V. Majarucon) served a three-day notice to remove the material citing COMELEC Resolution No. 9615 (size limit two feet by three feet). Petitioners asked for guidance and continuation pending legal remedies (Feb. 25). The COMELEC Law Department’s Feb. 27 letter ordered immediate removal for violation of Resolution No. 9615 and warned of filing an election offense if not removed.
Fearful of prosecution and alleging infringement of free expression and violation of separation of church and state and property rights, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with application for TRO/preliminary injunction (Rule 65). The Supreme Court issued a TRO on March 5, 2013 enjoining enforcement and set oral arguments on March 19, 2013. Respondents filed comments contending the proper remedy was administrative and that COMELEC had authority to regulate election propaganda under Article IX‑C of the Constitution and implementing laws (R.A. No. 9006, COMELEC Res. No. 9...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- May the Supreme Court exercise jurisdiction via a Rule 65 petition to review the COMELEC Election Officer’s notice (Feb. 22, 2013) and the COMELEC Law Department’s letter (Feb. 27, 2013), notwithstanding the doctrine that only final COMELEC En Banc decisions are ordinarily reviewable (hierarchy/exhaustion questions)?
- Do the tarpaulins posted by petitioners constitute election propaganda subject to COMELEC regulation when posted by private non‑candidates?
- Did COMELEC have the authority to order removal of the tarpaulin on the ground that it exceeded the size limits in R.A. No. 9006 and COMELEC Resolution No. 9615, or did those issuances unconstitutionally abridge petitioners’ freedom of speech (including whether the regulation is content‑based or content‑neutral and what standard applies)?
- Did the COMELEC orders violate the separation of church and state or the free exercise of religion claimed by peti...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)