Case Summary (G.R. No. 176150)
Petitioners and Respondents
Petitioners: Diocese of Bacolod, represented by Bishop Vicente M. Navarra Respondents: COMELEC En Banc and Atty. Mavil V. Majarucon, Bacolod City Election Officer
Key Dates
February 21, 2013 – Tarpaulins posted
February 22, 2013 – Election Officer’s notice to remove materials
February 27, 2013 – COMELEC Law Department letter threatening election‐offense prosecution
March 5, 2013 – Supreme Court grants TRO
January 21, 2015 – Decision rendered
Applicable Law
1987 Constitution Article II (State policy) Article III, Section 4 (freedom of speech) Article V (right of suffrage) Article VIII, Section 1 (judicial power/grave abuse) Article IX-C (COMELEC powers) Republic Act No. 9006 (Fair Elections Act) COMELEC Resolution No. 9615 (size limits for election propaganda)
Facts
Petitioners affixed two 6×10 ft tarpaulins within public view but on private property. The first protested the RH Law; the second classified and marked candidates as “anti-RH” or “pro-RH.” Respondents conceded no candidate paid for or sponsored these tarpaulins.
Procedural History and Relief Sought
Petitioners filed a Rule 65 certiorari/prohibition petition with TRO, challenging the removal notices as unconstitutional abridgments of speech. The Supreme Court issued a TRO pending full briefing and argument.
Procedural Issue: Jurisdiction and Justiciability
Respondents argued these notices were not final COMELEC En Banc decisions reviewable only under Rule 64. The Court held Rule 65 may still apply where grave abuse of discretion is alleged and no adequate remedy exists, invoking Article VIII, Section 1’s grant of certiorari power over grave abuses.
Procedural Issue: Hierarchy of Courts
Respondents urged dismissal due to failure to exhaust COMELEC administrative remedies and hierarchy of courts. The Court allowed direct recourse, concluding exceptions apply for cases of first impression, urgency, and transcendental importance impacting fundamental rights.
Procedural Issue: Political Question Doctrine
Respondents contended size limits for campaign materials were political questions non-justiciable. The Court rejected this, noting any governmental act infringing fundamental rights demands judicial review to correct grave abuses, regardless of subject matter.
Procedural Issue: Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
Respondents maintained petitioners should have awaited an election‐offense case under COMELEC procedures. The Court found that political speech, especially at risk during elections, warrants immediate relief and that administrative processes would prolong chilling effects on expression.
Definition and Scope of Election Propaganda
Under RA 9006 and Resolution 9615, “election propaganda” means any display of names or symbols associated with candidates intended to promote or oppose their election. These rules apply to all persons posting such materials, not just candidates.
Applicability to Private Actors
Both statutes and implementing rules extend to private individuals. The Court rejected arguments that only candidate-sponsored materials qualify, emphasizing the definitional focus on content and purpose rather than sponsorship.
Free Speech and Expression Protections
Article III, Section 4 forbids laws abridging speech. The Court underscored robust protection for political expression, especially during elections, as essential to democratic participation and the right to suffrage.
Content-Neutral Regulation of Manner of Speech
Size limits regulate the manner (time, place, and manner) of communication, not its content. As such, they are content-neutral and subject to intermediate scrutiny rather than the strict scrutiny applied to content-based restraints.
Application of Intermediate Scrutiny
A content-neutral restriction is valid if it (1) furthers an important government interest, (2) is unrelated to suppression of expression, and (3) is no greater than essential. The Court found COMELEC’s enforcement failed this test because the fixed 2×3 ft limit unduly restricted the effectiveness of political speech.
Government Interest in Regulating Sizes
COMELEC cited interests in equalizing campaign opportunities, minimizing election spending, and ens
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 176150)
Facts
- On February 21, 2013 petitioners (Diocese of Bacolod and Bishop Vicente M. Navarra) posted two tarpaulins inside their private church compound in Bacolod City.
- The first displayed “IBASURA RH Law”; the second, six by ten feet, bore the heading “Conscience Vote” and listed senatorial candidates as “(Anti-RH) Team Buhay” (check mark) or “(Pro-RH) Team Patay” (X mark) based on their votes on Republic Act No. 10354 (RH Law).
- It was undisputed the tarpaulins were privately funded, not paid for or coordinated with any candidate or party.
Procedural History
- February 22, 2013: Election Officer Mavil V. Majarucon issued a Notice to Remove for being oversized, citing COMELEC Res. No. 9615’s two-by-three-foot limit.
- February 27, 2013: COMELEC Law Department’s letter ordered immediate removal or face election-offense prosecution; remedies left unspecified.
- Petitioners filed a Rule 65 certiorari/prohibition petition with TRO application to enjoin enforcement.
- March 5, 2013: Supreme Court issued TRO.
- Respondents filed comments invoking COMELEC’s exclusive power to regulate election propaganda.
- March 19 – April 1, 2013: Oral arguments and memoranda submission.
Issues
- Should the Supreme Court entertain a certiorari/prohibition case under Rule 65 to review COMELEC’s administrative notices?
- Does COMELEC have authority to enforce size limits on tarpaulins posted by non-candidates during elections?
- Is the “Conscience Vote” tarpaulin “election propaganda” subject to regulation, or protected free speech?
- Were petitioners required to exhaust administrative remedies before COMELEC En Banc?
- Do the Comelec notices violate freedom of speech, property rights, and separation of church and state?
Relevant Provisions
- Constitution: Art. II, § 1 (sovereignty of the people); Art. III, § 4 (free speech); Art. IX-C, §§ 2(3), 2(7), 4 (COMELEC powers); Art. VIII, §§ 1(2), 5 (judicial power).
- Rules of Court: Rule 65 on certiorari and prohibition.
- O