January 21, 2015

THE DIOCESE OF BACOLOD, REPRESENTED BY THE MOST REV. BISHOP VICENTE M.

NAVARRA and THE BISHOP HIMSELF IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY, Petitioners,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND THE ELECTION OFFICER OF BACOLOD CITY, ATTY.
MAVIL V. MAJARUCON, Respondents.

"The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all

government authority emanates from them." – Article II, Section 1, Constitution

Facts

On February 21, 2013, petitioners posted two (2) tarpaulins within a private compound
housing the San Sebastian Cathedral of Bacolod. Each tarpaulin was approximately six feet (6')
by ten feet (10') in size. They were posted on the front walls of the cathedral within public view.
The first tarpaulin contains the message "IBASURA RH Law" referring to the Reproductive
Health Law of 2012 or Republic Act No. 10354. The second tarpaulin is the subject of the
present case. This tarpaulin 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" mark.5
The electoral candidates were classified according to their vote on the adoption of Republic Act
No. 10354, otherwise known as the RH Law.6 Those who voted for the passing of the law were
classified by petitioners as comprising "Team Patay," while those who voted against it form
"Team Buhay":

On February 22, 2013, respondent Atty. Mavil V. Majarucon, in her capacity as Election Officer
of Bacolod City, issued a Notice to Remove Campaign Materials. The election officer ordered
the tarpaulin’s removal within three (3) days from receipt for being oversized. COMELEC
Resolution No. 9615 provides for the size requirement of two feet (2’) by three feet (3’).9

On February 25, 2013, petitioners replied requesting, among others, 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.

On February 27, 2013, COMELEC Law Department issued a letter ordering the immediate
removal of the tarpaulin; otherwise, it will be constrained to file an election offense against
petitioners. The letter of COMELEC Law Department was silent on the remedies available to
petitioners.

Concerned about the imminent threat of prosecution for their exercise of free speech, petitioners
initiated this case through this petition for certiorari and prohibition with application for
preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order.

Petitioner’s Contention

petitioners invoke their "constitutional right to communicate their opinions, views and beliefs
about issues and candidates." They argue that the tarpaulin was their statement of approval and
appreciation of the named public officials’ act of voting against the RH Law, and their criticism
toward those who voted in its favor. It was "part of their advocacy campaign against the RH
Law,"

Respondent’s Contention

Respondents argue that the tarpaulin is election propaganda, being petitioners’ way of
endorsing candidates who voted against the RH Law and rejecting those who voted for it. As
such, it is subject to regulation by COMELEC under its constitutional mandate.

Issue

Whether or not the COMELEC’s letter to remove the tarpaulin is in contravention with the
constitution and is violative of the basic right of expression of the petitioner?

Ruling

Yes. The act of the COMELEC in issuing the assailed notice dated February 22, 2013 and letter
dated February 27, 2013 is declared unconstitutional.

The tarpaulin in question may be viewed as producing a caricature of those who are running for
public office. Their message may be construed generalizations of very complex individuals and
party-list organizations.

They are classified into black and white: as belonging to "Team Patay" or "Team Buhay."

But this caricature, though not agreeable to some, is still protected speech.

Embedded in the tarpaulin, however, are opinions expressed by petitioners. It is a specie of

expression protected by our fundamental law. It is an expression designed to invite attention,
cause debate, and hopefully, persuade. It may be motivated by the interpretation of petitioners
of their ecclesiastical duty, but their parishioner’s actions will have very real secular
consequences. Certainly, provocative messages do matter for the elections.

What is involved in this case is the most sacred of speech forms: expression by the electorate
that tends to rouse the public to debate contemporary issues. This is not speechby candidates
or political parties to entice votes. It is a portion of the electorate telling candidates the
conditions for their election. It is the substantive content of the right to suffrage.

This. is a form of speech hopeful of a quality of democracy that we should all deserve. It is
protected as a fundamental and primordial right by our Constitution. The expression in the
medium chosen by petitioners deserves our protection.

The instant petition is GRANTED. The temporary restraining order previously issued is hereby
made permanent.