Title
St. Anthony College of Roxas City, Inc., represented by Sister Geraldine J. Denoga, D.C. vs. Commission on Elections, represented by Commissioner Socorro B. Inting
Case
G.R. No. 258805
Decision Date
Oct 10, 2023
COMELEC removed privately-owned campaign materials from private properties, violating free speech and property rights; Supreme Court ruled in favor of petitioners, limiting COMELEC's authority.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 258805)

Key Dates

February 9, 2022 – Dr. Lim’s tarpaulins removed in Zamboanga City.
February 11–16, 2022 – Demand letters and correspondence between petitioners and COMELEC election officers; further removals at volunteer centers.
March 1, 2022 – Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus filed with prayer for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO).
March 8, 2022 – Court issued TRO.
October 10, 2023 – En Banc decision rendered.

Applicable Law

1987 Constitution – Articles III (Free Speech and Property Rights), IX-C (COMELEC Powers).
Republic Act No. 9006 (Fair Election Act, 2001) – Section 3 (definition and size limits of “lawful election propaganda”), Section 9 (posting rules).
COMELEC Resolution No. 10730 (2021) – Implements RA 9006 for May 2022 elections, prescribing size limits, posting rules (Sections 6, 20, 21, 24, 26).
Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 (Omnibus Election Code) – Section 82 (lawful election propaganda definitions).

Factual Background

Petitioners own or co-own campaign paraphernalia expressing support for Robredo. These were installed on private premises. COMELEC officers, invoking Oplan Baklas under Resolution 10730, allegedly confiscated, defaced, or destroyed materials deemed “oversized” (exceeding 2 × 3 feet for posters; 3 × 8 feet for streamers).

Petitioners’ Claims

  1. COMELEC Resolution 10730 and its implementation exceed COMELEC’s authority by regulating private-person speech on private property.
  2. Removal order violates freedom of speech and expression (Art. III, Sec. 4) and property rights (Art. III, Sec. 1).
  3. RA 9006’s size and posting rules apply solely to candidates and political parties, not private individuals.
  4. COMELEC’s actions constitute grave abuse of discretion, lack of jurisdiction, and trespass.
  5. Standing asserted via direct injury to speech, property, and public rights; ripeness argued on ongoing and threatened removals.
  6. Direct recourse to the Supreme Court justified by transcendental public interest, need to prevent chilling effect, expanded judicial power, and procedural rule suspension.

Respondents’ Arguments

  1. Petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus improper; COMELEC acts are quasi-legislative.
  2. Petitioners failed to prove grave abuse of discretion and violated hierarchy of courts and exhaustion of administrative remedies.
  3. Seized materials constitute “election propaganda” under Resolution 10730, Section 1(16), subject to content-neutral size restrictions.
  4. Size limits derive from constitutional grant (Art. IX-C, Sec. 2(7)), RA 9006, and Batas Pambansa 881 Section 82; compelling state interests include equal opportunity, orderly elections, and spending restraint.

Jurisprudential Precedents

Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC (2015) – Private-person tarpaulins deemed social advocacy, not election paraphernalia; outlined four-factor test for valid regulation of private election speech (lawfulness, reasonableness, narrow tailoring, least restrictive means; time, place, manner only).
Social Weather Stations v. COMELEC (2015) – Applied Diocese test to election surveys (declarative speech subject to regulation).
National Press Club v. COMELEC (1992) and Osmeña v. COMELEC (1998) – Upheld content-neutral regulation of paid mass-media advertisements to equalize candidates.

Legal Issues

  1. Does COMELEC have statutory authority to regulate “oversized” election paraphernalia owned and displayed by private individuals on private property?
  2. Do size restrictions under RA 9006 and Resolution 10730 apply to non-candidates?
  3. Did COMELEC’s implementation infringe petitioners’ constitutional rights to free speech and property?

Court’s Rationale

– COMELEC’s authority to regulate election propaganda under RA 9006 and Resolution 10730 extends only to candidates and political parties, not private individuals. The repeated references in Sections 3, 6, 9, 20, and 21 to candidates and parties



...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.