G.R. No. 205728 - Diocese of Bacolod vs. Commission on Elections

Case Summary (G.R. No. 205728)

Key Dates

COMELEC notice: February 22, 2013.
COMELEC letter/order: February 27, 2013.
Supreme Court Decision (granting petition and making TRO permanent): January 21, 2015 (referenced).
Resolution denying respondents’ Motion for Reconsideration: July 5, 2016.

Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis

Constitution: 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision date post-1990). Relevant provisions invoked include Article IX-C (COMELEC powers), Article III, Section 4 (free speech), Article II, Section 26 (policy to ensure honesty and efficiency in public service), and Article XIII, Section 1 (education policy) as cited by respondents.
Statutes and rules: Republic Act No. 9006 (Fair Elections Act) Section 3.3; COMELEC Resolution No. 9615 implementing RA 9006 (Section 6(c) specifically limiting poster size to 2' x 3'); Omnibus Election Code Section 82 and prior election laws (Election Code of 1971, PD No. 1296, RA No. 6388, RA No. 6646) referenced by respondents.
COMELEC procedural rules: Rule 34 (preliminary investigation for election offenses) and COMELEC Resolution No. 9386 (Rules of Procedure in Investigation and Prosecution of Election Offense Cases).

Procedural Posture and Relief Sought

Respondents (COMELEC and election officer) filed a Motion for Reconsideration asking the Supreme Court to reverse its January 21, 2015 Decision that granted petitioners’ petition, made a temporary restraining order permanent, and declared the COMELEC acts unconstitutional. The Court’s July 5, 2016 resolution denied that Motion for Reconsideration with finality.

Respondents’ Main Arguments in the Motion

The COMELEC notices and letters were not final en banc quasi‑judicial acts and therefore not subject to Supreme Court review; the proper remedy is administrative review within COMELEC (Article IX‑C, Section 2(3)) or remedies under COMELEC rules including Rule 34. Petitioners failed to exhaust administrative remedies.
The tarpaulins are election propaganda as defined by COMELEC Resolution No. 9615 and RA 9006: they contained names of candidates and party-list groups and used marks (check/X) that plainly urged voters to vote for/against candidates. Posting on the cathedral façade was designed to draw attention. The tarpaulins thus fall squarely under COMELEC regulation.
Size limitations (historically 2' x 3' in earlier laws) apply equally to all persons and entities; the Fair Elections Act and Omnibus Election Code authorize content‑neutral regulation of election propaganda to promote political equality and minimize election spending. The size limit is a valid content‑neutral regulation and should be upheld under intermediate scrutiny. Respondents cited National Press Club v. COMELEC to support COMELEC’s supervisory regulatory powers over speech during election periods.

Court’s Rejection of Prematurity / Exhaustion Arguments

The Supreme Court (majority) denied the Motion and reiterated its earlier reasoning that Rule 64 is not the exclusive remedy for challenging COMELEC acts; a direct petition under Rule 65 is available where grave abuse of discretion is shown and where immediate judicial relief is necessary to prevent a chilling effect on constitutional rights. The Court found the asserted “chilling effect” on political speech and the urgent circumstances (the RH Law controversy and imminent elections) rendered exhaustion of administrative remedies unreasonable. The Court noted prior cases relied upon by respondents were factually distinct (election protests or disqualification suits by losing candidates) and inapposite here where petitioners were private parties asserting free expression.

Court’s Characterization of the Tarpaulin and Free Expression Analysis

The Court held that the tarpaulin primarily constituted social advocacy—a political expression addressing a public issue (the RH Law)—rather than election propaganda whose primary purpose is to promote or oppose election of candidates. The Court emphasized the special protection afforded political speech, including speech by private citizens on public issues, and that censorship or subsequent punishment that entails evaluation of viewpoint/content merits strict scrutiny. The Court found that labeling the tarpaulin as election propaganda would risk chilling political speech and that the secondary or incidental effect of influencing elections did not convert the expression into regulable campaign material in this instance.

Court’s View on Content-Based vs. Content-Neutral Regulation and Poster Size

The majority concluded the size limitation, as applied here, amounted to a content‑based regulation because “the form of expression is just as important as the information conveyed” and size materially affected the expression. Accordingly, the regulation failed constitutional scrutiny under the standard applicable to content‑based restrictions (compelling state interest and narrow tailoring), and the COMELEC’s order removing the tarpaulins was declared unconstitutional as applied.

Chilling‑Effect Rationale and Rule 65 Justification

The Court relied on the doctrine that when an administrative act or threat thereof is capable of repetition and likely to create a chilling effect on constitutional rights, direct judicial intervention (Rule 65) is permissible to prevent such harm. The Court emphasized that the contested COMELEC actions were capable of repetition and could deter other citizens from speaking on election‑related public issues, thus justifying immediate judicial review without exhaustion of administrative channels.

Disposition by the Supreme Court

The Motion for Reconsideration was denied with finality. The January 21, 2015 Decision granting the petition, making the temporary restraining order permanent, and declaring the COMELEC acts unconstitutional was left intact.

Dissent (Justice Brion) — Prematurity and COMELEC Jurisdiction

Justice Brion dissented. He argued the petition was premature because COMELEC en banc had not rendered a final decision; consequently, judicial review should not have been entertained before COMELEC had the opportunity to exercise its constitutional and statutory powers to investigate, preliminarily determine, and, if warranted, prosecute election offenses. He stressed the importance of COMELEC’s exclusive and constitutional jurisdiction under Article IX‑C, Section 2(1) and (7) to administer and enforce election laws and to regulate time, place, and manner of election propaganda. Brion asserted that the Court improperly reviewed administrative acts of COMELEC units without a prima facie showing of grave abuse of discretion or completion of COMELEC processes.

Dissent — Tarpaulin as Election Propaganda

Justice Brion contended the tarpaulin plainly fit the statutory and regulatory definition of election propaganda: it was displayed during the campaign period, listed names of legislators who were candidates in the 2013 elections, used “Team Buhay” (with check marks) and “Team

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 205728)

Procedural Posture and Relief Sought

The case involves a Motion for Reconsideration filed by respondents (Commission on Elections and the Election Officer of Bacolod City, Atty. Mavil V. Majarucon) seeking reconsideration of this Court’s January 21, 2015 Decision and dismissal of the Petition for lack of merit. (Rollo references: pp. 284–307; dispositive portion cited at p. 306; original Decision quoted at p. 246.)
The January 21, 2015 Decision had granted the Petition, made a previously issued temporary restraining order permanent, and declared the acts of the COMELEC in issuing the assailed notice dated February 22, 2013 and letter dated February 27, 2013 to be unconstitutional.
The present Resolution by Justice Leonen addresses the Motion for Reconsideration and concludes with a denial of the Motion for Reconsideration with finality; the Resolution is dated July 5, 2016 (Clerk of Court’s notice indicates receipt by the Office on July 28, 2016 at 8:35 a.m.).

Factual Background (as recited by the parties and opinions)

Petitioners: The Diocese of Bacolod, represented by the Most Rev. Bishop Vicente M. Navarra, and the Bishop in his personal capacity, brought the Petition asserting freedom of expression claims.
Respondents: Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and Election Officer of Bacolod City, Atty. Mavil V. Majarucon, are the respondents who issued a Notice (Feb. 22, 2013) and a Letter/Order (Feb. 27, 2013) regarding a tarpaulin(s) displayed on the cathedral façade.
The subject twin tarpaulins included messages opposing the Reproductive Health (RH) Law; one tarpaulin reading “IBASURA RH LAW” and another containing a “conscience vote” heading with two lists labeled “Team Buhay” and “Team Patay,” including names of senators and members of the House of Representatives.
The tarpaulins were approximately six by ten feet in size and were posted in front of the San Sebastian Cathedral of Bacolod, within public view; all legislators named in both lists were candidates during the 2013 national elections.
The “Team Buhay” list showed a check mark next to names of legislators who voted against the RH Law; the “Team Patay” list showed an X mark next to the names of legislators who voted for the RH Law. The tarpaulins were not shown to be sponsored or paid for by any candidate.

Assailed COMELEC Acts and Documents

Notice dated February 22, 2013 (issued by Election Officer Mavil V. Majarucon) ordering removal of the tarpaulin(s) for noncompliance with size restrictions and characterizing the material as election propaganda.
Letter dated February 27, 2013 (issued by COMELEC Law Director Esmeralda Amora-Ladra) reinforcing the action and indicating possible prosecution for violation of election laws.
These administrative acts were the subject of the Petition and later the Motion for Reconsideration.

Legal and Regulatory Framework Cited in the Record

Article IX-C, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution: COMELEC’s powers referenced, including authority to decide “all questions affecting elections” and to administer and enforce election laws, and the specific provisions cited by respondents: sections 2(1), 2(3), 2(7), 4, and 10.
Republic Act No. 9006 (Fair Elections Act), particularly Section 3.3 (poster size limitation) and other historical antecedent laws cited by respondents: Rep. Act No. 6388 (Election Code of 1971), Pres. Decree No. 1296 (1978 Election Code), Election Code sec. 82 (Omnibus Election Code), Rep. Act No. 6646 (Electoral Reforms Law of 1987).
COMELEC Resolution No. 9615 (implementing rules for RA 9006 during the 2013 national elections), including Section 1.4 (definition of election propaganda / political advertisement) and Section 6(c) (size limitation implementation).
COMELEC Resolution No. 9386 (Rules of Procedure in the Investigation and Prosecution of Election Offense Cases in the Commission on Elections) — particularly Section 6 regarding conduct of preliminary investigation.
National Press Club v. Commission on Elections, 283 Phil. 795 (1992), cited by respondents as precedent regarding COMELEC’s supervisory and regulatory functions limiting free speech during election periods.

Respondents’ Arguments in the Motion for Reconsideration (as summarized in the Resolution)

Prematurity and jurisdictional challenge:
- The assailed notice and letter were not final orders by the COMELEC En Banc in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions and are thus not subject to Supreme Court review via Rule 64; respondents argue that these were administrative acts subject to COMELEC’s own review under Article IX-C, Section 2(3).
- There exist remedies under Rule 34 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure for preliminary investigation of election offenses; petitioners failed to exhaust administrative remedies.
Characterization of the tarpaulin as election propaganda:
- The tarpaulin falls within the definition of “election propaganda” under Section 1.4 of COMELEC Resolution No. 9615 for three reasons:
  - It “contains the names of the candidates and party-list groups who voted for or against the RH Law.”
  - The check mark on “Team Buhay” and the cross on “Team Patay” “clearly suggests” voters should vote for or reject those listed during the May 13, 2013 elections.
  - Petitioners posted the tarpaulin on the cathedral facade “to draw attention.”
- The “IBASURA RH Law” tarpaulin alone would have sufficed to express opposition to the law; petitioners “infused their political speech with election propaganda which may be regulated by the COMELEC.”
- It is immaterial that the posting was not “in return for consideration,” since the definition does not specify by whom election propaganda is posted.
Size limitation and history:
- Respondents discuss the historical legislative trajectory of size limitations (citing Rep. Act No. 6388 (1971), Pres. Decree No. 1296 (1978), Election Code sec. 82, Rep. Act No. 6646 (1987), Rep. Act No. 9006 (2000), and COMELEC Res. No. 9615 sec. 6(c)).
- Petitioners raised freedom of expression claims but did not challenge the soundness of the size limitation; petitioners even cut the tarpaulin in half, which respondents assert confirms the material is election propaganda.
Applicability to all persons and entities:
- The size limitation applies universally; even though petitioners are not political candidates, the tarpaulin’s objective was to persuade the public to vote for or against candidates named therein, thereby making it election propaganda subject to COMELEC regulation.
- The Fair Elections Act regulates a variety of election-related activities engaged in not only by candidates and political parties but also by other individuals and entities (sections cited regulating publications/printing/broadcast and election surveys).
- Alternatively, even if RA 9006 does not apply to private individuals, Section 82 of the Omnibus Election Code still applies to all.
- Respondents cite deliberations of the 1971 Election Code in support of uniform application and to prevent loopholes (example: prohibiting an individual follower of a candidate from writing “Vote for X” on a shirt).
Validity of size limitation as content-neutral regulation:
- Size limitation is a content-neutral regulation and thus only requires a substantial governmental interest under intermediate scrutiny.
- The COMELEC’s order to remove the tarpaulin for failure to comply with the size limitation “had nothing to do with the tarpaulin’s message,” and petitioners could still express themselves by other media without infringing the law.
- Constitutional provisions invoked to justify regulation include political equality and minimization of election spending.
Reliance on precedent:
- Respondents rely on National Press Club v. Commission on Elections for the principle that the COMELEC’s supervisory and regulatory functions under the 1987 Constitution place some limits on free speech during the election period.

Petitioners’ Position (as reflected in the Decision and Resolution)

Petitioners asserted their right to freedom of expression and argued that the COMELEC’s notice and letter had a chilling effect on political speech, particularly speech concerning public issues like the RH Law posted in the election period.
Petitioners’ tarpaulins were characterized by the Court as consisting of sa