Diocese of Bacolod v COMELEC

G.R. No. 205728 January 21, 2015

Ponente: Leonen, J.

Facts:
 Petitioners posted 2 tarpaulins within the private compound of the San Sebastian Cathedral of Bacolod. The
1st tarpaulin contains the message “IBASURA RH Law”, while the second tarpaulin (which is the subject of
the case) contains the heading “Conscience vote” and lists candidates as either Anti-RH “Team Buhay” with
a check mark or Pro-RH “Team Patay” with an X march.
 COMELEC issued a Notice to Remove Campaign Materials ordering the diocese to remove the tarpaulin to
which the petitioner replied requesting that, that (1) petitioner Bishop be given a definite ruling by
COMELEC Law Department regarding the tarpaulin; and (2) pending this opinion and the availment of legal
remedies, the tarpaulin be allowed to remain.
 COMELEC ordered the immediate removal of the tarpaulin or it will be constrained to file an election offense
against petitioners. The notice/letter of COMELEC were silent on the remedies available to the petitioners.
 Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari, w/ application for preliminary injunction and TRO against
respondents to restrain them from enforcing their orders for the removal of the tarpaulin.

Issues:
 W/N COMELEC’s issuance of the notice to remove the tarpaulin is a violation of the constitutional right to
freedom of speech and expression - YES

Ruling:
 Fundamental to the first issue is Art. III Sec. 4 of the Constitution: No law shall be passed abridging the
freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble and petition
the government for redress of grievances.
 The primary and incidental burden on speech must be weighed against a compelling state interest clearly
allowed in the Constitution. The test depends on the relevant theory of speech implicit in the kind of society
framed by our Constitution.
 Speech is not limited to vocal communication. The right to freedom of expression thus applies to the entire
continuum of speech
 Why there is a need to protect free speech:
1. It relates to the right of the people to participate in public affairs, including the right to criticize
government actions.
2. Free speech should be encouraged under the concept of a marketplace of ideas.
3. Free speech involves self-expression that enhances human dignity
4. Expression is a marker for group identity
5. The Bill of Rights is supposed to “protect individuals and minorities against majoritarian abuses
perpetrated through the framework of democratic governance.
6. Free speech must be protected under the safety valve theory which provides that nonviolent
manifestations of dissent reduce the likelihood of violence.
 Some types of speech may be subjected to some regulation by the State under its pervasive police power, in
order that it may not be injurious to the equal right of others or those of the community or society.
 The difference in treatment is expected because the relevant interests of one type of speech, e.g., political
speech, may vary from those of another, e.g., obscene speech. Distinctions have therefore been made in the
treatment, analysis, and evaluation of the permissible scope of restrictions on various categories of speech.
 Distinguishment between political and commercial speech
o Political speech – refers to speech “both intended and received as a contribution to public
deliberation about some issue
o Commercial speech – speech that does “no more than propose a commercial transaction.”
 The tarpaulin in this case is classified as political speech. It is not political propaganda as it was not paid for
by any candidate/political party/partylist group.
 It is clear from the IRR of RA 9006 that personal opinions are not considered “partisan political activity”.
 Speech with political consequences is at the core of the freedom of expression and must be protected by this
court.
Contest-based regulation
 COMELEC contends that the order for removal of the tarpaulin is a content-neutral regulation and that the
order was made simply because petitioners failed to comply with the maximum size limitation for lawful
election propaganda.
 Content-based regulation refers to restrictions “based on the subject matter of the utterance or speech, while
content-neutral regulation includes controls merely on the incidents of the speech such as time, place, or
manner of the speech.
 Content-based regulations bears a heavy presumption of invalidity and is measured by the clear and present
danger rule. The latter will pass constitutionality only If it is justified by a compelling reason and the
restrictions imposed are neither overbroad nor vague.
 The Court held that the regulation involved at bar is content-based.
 Further, with regard to the size of the tarpaulin, the Court held that the size regulation is not unrelated to the
suppression of speech. Limiting its maximum size would render ineffective the petitioner’s message and
violate their right to exercise freedom of expression.