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

Case Summary (G.R. No. 205728)

Procedural Posture

Petitioners filed a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition with application for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court to annul the COMELEC Notice (Feb. 22) and Law Department letter (Feb. 27) ordering removal of one tarpaulin and threatening election-offense prosecution. The Court issued a TRO and ultimately entertained the petition, treating it as raising grave abuse of discretion claims and constitutional questions concerning freedom of expression, separation of church and state, and property rights.

Undisputed Facts

Petitioners posted two tarpaulins on the front walls of San Sebastian Cathedral within public view; each measured about six feet by ten feet. One bore the message opposing the Reproductive Health Law; the other (the subject) labeled voters as a "Conscience Vote" classifying named candidates as either “(Anti-RH) Team Buhay” (check mark) or “(Pro-RH) Team Patay” (X mark). Respondents conceded the tarpaulins were not sponsored or paid for by any candidate; petitioners conceded the tarpaulin listed names of candidates for the 2013 elections.

Orders Challenged and Regulatory Basis

Election Officer Majarucon ordered removal on the ground the tarpaulins exceeded the maximum size for election propaganda stated in COMELEC Resolution No. 9615 (2 ft x 3 ft). The COMELEC Law Department confirmed and demanded immediate removal, warning of filing an election offense if not complied with. Petitioners challenged those administrative issuances as unconstitutional and as grave abuse of discretion.

Issues Presented to the Court

The case framed multiple interrelated questions: whether the challenged notices and letter were proper subjects of direct Supreme Court review under Rule 65; whether the tarpaulins constituted election propaganda or protected expression by non-candidates; whether COMELEC has authority to regulate or remove expression by private citizens posted on private property; whether the orders violated separation of church and state and religious free exercise; and whether petitioners’ posting violated the doctrine of hierarchy of courts or exhaustion of administrative remedies.

Jurisdictional and Procedural Analysis — Rule 65, COMELEC Competence, and Direct Resort to the Court

The Court concluded it had jurisdiction to entertain the Rule 65 petition despite COMELEC arguments that only final COMELEC En Banc decisions are reviewable. It emphasized that Rule 65 and the Court’s constitutional duty to correct grave abuse of discretion permit direct action where fundamental rights are threatened and ordinary remedies are inadequate, especially when the asserted abuse risks a chilling effect on preferred political speech during elections. The ponencia explicated recognized exceptions to hierarchies and exhaustion doctrines (miscarriage of justice, urgency, nullity, issues of transcendental importance, first impression, and inability of lower forums to provide adequate national guidance) and found the circumstances here sufficient to justify direct Supreme Court intervention.

Substantive Threshold — Characterization of the Tarpaulin as Expression and the Value of Political Speech

The Court treated the tarpaulin principally as political expression by non-candidates: expression directed at public issues (the RH Law) with incidental electoral consequences because it identified and classified candidates based on their RH votes. Emphasizing the preferred status of political speech under Article III, Section 4, the Court applied principles protecting communicative conduct and symbolic expression. It stressed that the medium and form (size and placement) are integral to the communicative content: size affects legibility, audience reach, emphasis, and the quality of public deliberation.

COMELEC Authority and Election-Propaganda Law — Scope and Limits

The Court analyzed RA 9006 and COMELEC Resolution No. 9615 and concluded those statutory and regulatory provisions are principally aimed at regulating candidates, political parties, and sponsored political advertising (including mechanisms to ensure equal opportunity and to limit campaign spending). The Court observed that many implementing provisions and past jurisprudence regulate media and franchise holders (e.g., National Press Club, Sanidad), and that the definitions and rules in Resolution 9615 were framed to address paid or sponsored political advertisements. Because the tarpaulin here was neither paid for nor coordinated with any candidate or party, the Court found that COMELEC lacked a sufficient legal basis to treat this non-candidate advocacy as campaign material subject to the same regulatory regime as candidate-sponsored propaganda.

Content-Based vs. Content-Neutral Regulation; Tests Applied

The Court examined whether the challenged regulation and enforcement were content-based or content-neutral. It observed that the size restriction as applied to the election period effectively operated as a regulation targeted at political speech (a form of content-based regulation because it applies to speech “affecting the elections”), and that content-based restraints carry a heavy presumption of invalidity and must satisfy the “clear and present danger” test (requiring a compelling governmental interest and narrow tailoring). The Court also considered the alternative that the size rule could be characterized as content-neutral time/place/manner regulation; even under that intermediate scrutiny, the rule had to further an important government interest, be unrelated to suppression of expression, and be no greater than essential.

Application of Constitutional Standards to the Size Restriction

Applying the tests, the Court concluded that COMELEC’s enforcement of the fixed two-by-three-foot size limitation (Section 3.3 RA 9006 and Section 6(c) of Resolution 9615) failed constitutional scrutiny. The Court held there was no sufficiently compelling or narrowly tailored justification for abridging non-candidate political expression on private property by enforcing a uniform fixed-size rule irrespective of context (distance, placement, nature of medium). The Court reasoned that the size limitation unduly impaired the communicative effectiveness of expression and risked a chilling effect on electorate speech; it also found that equal-opportunity and anti-spending objectives did not justify such a blunt and inflexible limitation on privileged political expression by non-candidates.

Property Rights and Private Posting

The Court recognized the petitioners’ property rights in the private compound and explained that regulations which effectively confiscate or arbitrarily limit use of private property for expression violate due process and property guarantees. The Court relied on precedent (including Adiong) to hold that rules so broad as to prohibit or unreasonably limit posting on private property impermissibly infringe property and liberty interests. Because the tarpaulin was posted on petitioners’ private property with no allegation of candidate sponsorship or unlawful circumvention, the COMELEC orders were an unconstitutional intrusion upon property and expression.

Separation of Church and State and Free Exercise Claims

The Court distinguished religious speech from political advocacy. Although petitioners were a Catholic diocese and bishop, the Court found the tarpaulin’s message was not ecclesiastical doctrine or sacramental action; rather, it named and classified political

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 205728)

Citation and Procedural Caption

Reported at 751 Phil. 301, En Banc; G.R. No. 205728; decided January 21, 2015.
Petitioners: The Diocese of Bacolod, represented by Most Rev. Bishop Vicente M. Navarra (also named in his personal capacity).
Respondents: Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and Bacolod City Election Officer Atty. Mavil V. Majarucon.
Relief sought: Special civil action for certiorari and prohibition with application for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court to nullify COMELEC’s Notice to Remove Campaign Materials (22 Feb 2013) and letter of COMELEC Law Department (27 Feb 2013).

Material Facts

On February 21, 2013 petitioners posted two tarpaulins on the front walls of the San Sebastian Cathedral of Bacolod, within a private compound but in public view; each tarpaulin measured approximately 6' x 10'.
The first tarpaulin bore the message "IBASURA RH" (referring to Republic Act No. 10354, the Reproductive Health Law of 2012).
The second tarpaulin (the subject of litigation) bore the heading "Conscience Vote" and listed named candidates classified into two lists: "(Anti-RH) Team Buhaya" with a check mark and "(Pro-RH) Team Pataya" with an X mark; the lists comprised candidates who voted for or against the RH Law and all named persons were candidates in the 2013 elections.
During oral arguments respondents conceded the tarpaulin was not sponsored nor paid for by any candidate; petitioners conceded the tarpaulin contains names of candidates but not of non-candidate politicians who helped pass the RH Law.
On February 22, 2013 Election Officer Majarucon issued a Notice to Remove Campaign Materials ordering removal within three days for being oversized under COMELEC Resolution No. 9615 (size requirement 2' x 3').
On February 25, 2013 petitioners requested a definite ruling and temporary allowance to keep the tarpaulin pending remedies.
On February 27, 2013 COMELEC Law Department issued a letter ordering immediate removal and warning it would be constrained to file an election offense if not removed; the letter listed particulars (material size 6' x 10', message, location) and stated the three-day notice had expired.
Concerned by the threat of prosecution, petitioners filed the Rule 65 petition; this Court issued a temporary restraining order on March 5, 2013 enjoining respondents and set oral arguments for March 19, 2013.
Respondents filed a comment (March 13, 2013) arguing Rule 65 was improper and that the tarpaulin constituted election propaganda subject to COMELEC regulation pursuant to Article IX-C, Section 4 of the Constitution.

Relief Sought and Court Disposition

Petitioners prayed: (1) that the petition be given due course; (2) issuance of TRO and/or writ of preliminary injunction restraining respondents from enforcing removal orders; and (3) after notice and hearing, declaration that the questioned COMELEC orders are unconstitutional and permanently enjoin their enforcement.
This Court, after deliberation, GRANTED the petition: the temporary restraining order previously issued was made permanent; COMELEC’s Notice dated February 22, 2013 and letter dated February 27, 2013 were declared unconstitutional.

Issues Presented (as articulated in the petition and by the Court)

Whether the February 22, 2013 notice/order by Election Officer Majarucon and the February 27, 2013 letter by COMELEC Law Department are judgments/final orders/resolutions of the COMELEC reviewable via Rule 65, or whether extraordinary circumstances permit this Court to assume jurisdiction despite the orders not being final.
Whether it is relevant to determine whether the tarpaulins constitute "political advertisement" or "election propaganda" when petitioners are not candidates.
Whether the tarpaulins are protected expression (speech) or election propaganda/political advertisement; if protected, does COMELEC possess authority to regulate them and, if so, may this form of expression be regulated.
Whether the orders violate the principle of separation of church and state.
Whether petitioners’ posting of the tarpaulin violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

Threshold Jurisdictional and Procedural Rulings

Rule 64 is not the exclusive remedy for all COMELEC acts; Rule 65 (certiorari/prohibition) applies where grave abuse of discretion exists and where no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law is available.
The Court recognized its expanded constitutional duty to determine whether there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by any government branch or instrumentality (Art. VIII, Sec. 1).
The Court rejected respondents’ argument that COMELEC’s acts were exclusively reviewable by COMELEC En Banc under Article IX-C, Sec. 2(3), holding that the subject of the controversy—restriction on free speech—does not fall under COMELEC’s exclusive power to decide all questions affecting elections and that COMELEC’s regulatory acts do not divest the Court of its jurisdiction to entertain constitutional challenges.
The Court treated petitioners’ allegations as involving grave abuse of discretion by COMELEC because the notice and letter threatened imminent criminal action effectively abridging meaningful political speech and could have a chilling effect on electorate speech.
Doctrine of hierarchy of courts: recognized as important but not absolute; the Supreme Court has full discretionary power to take cognizance of special civil actions filed directly where exceptionally compelling reasons exist (transcendental importance, case of first impression, urgency, constitutional organ action, lack of plain, speedy and adequate remedy, public welfare/public policy considerations).
The Court found several justifications for direct resort to it: protection of fundamental right to expression during elections (preferred speech), issues of transcendental importance, case of first impression on whether right of suffrage includes right to freedom of expression, urgency (election period) and the fact that the action involved COMELEC, a constitutional organ.
Exhaustion of administrative remedies: Court held that ripeness existed and that exhaustion would prolong violation of freedom of speech; the principle yields where fundamental rights are at stake, where the issue is a purely legal question, and under enumerated exceptions (citing Chua v. Ang); here urgency and the purely legal nature of the question justified bypassing administrative exhaustion.

Substantive Holding — COMELEC Authority to Regulate Non‑Candidate Speech

General rule: COMELEC’s regulatory powers under Article IX-C (Sec. 2(7), Sec. 4) and implementing statutes and resolutions focus principally on candidates, political parties, franchises and media to guarantee equal opportunity during elections.
The Court held COMELEC had no authority to regulate the enjoyment of freedom of expression exercised by non-candidates in the manner done here: the tarpaulins were posted by petitioners (non-candidates), were not paid for by any candidate or political party, and fell within petitioners’ exercise of free expression and property rights.
Cases cited (Sanidad v. COMELEC, National Press Club, others) support the distinction that media practitioners and private citizens are not franchise holders or candidates and therefore cannot be regulated in the same manner as candidates/parties when exercising their own expression.

Definition and Application of "Election Propaganda" and Statutory/Regulatory Provisions

RA 9006 and COMELEC Resolution No. 9615 define political advertisement/election propaganda as matter that contains identifying elements capable of association with a candidate or party and intended to promote or oppose the election of said candidate(s); implementing rules of COMELEC (Resolution No. 9615) prescribe size limits (Section 6(c): 2' x 3') and other posting requirements (Section 17 et seq.).
The Court emphasized that the statutory and regulatory phrases and penalties are written and applied in the context of candidates and political parties, but the laws and rules as drafted also encompass materials that may be posted by others; nevertheless, the key distinction is whether the materials are election propaganda of the sort that the law was designed to regulate (e.g., sponsored, paid, coordinated with candidates) versus independent issue advocacy by non-candidates.
The Court found the tarpaulins in this case were posted by petitioners as part of an advocacy against the RH Law and were not coordinated with or paid for by candidates or parties; hence, they constituted protected political spee