View full case

DIOCESE OF BACOLOD v. COMELEC

FACTS:

On February 21, 2013, the Diocese of Bacolod posted two tarpaulins within the private compound housing the San Sebastian Cathedral, which were displayed on the front walls of the cathedral. The first tarpaulin carried the message "IBASURA RH Law," opposing the Reproductive Health Law of 2012 (Republic Act No. 10354). The second tarpaulin, central to this case, titled "Conscience Vote," classified electoral candidates for the 2013 elections into "(Anti-RH) Team Buhay" and "(Pro-RH) Team Patay," based on their votes on the RH Law.

On February 22, 2013, COMELEC Election Officer Atty. Mavil V. Majarucon issued a notice to petitioner Most Rev. Bishop Vicente M. Navarra, requiring the removal of the tarpaulin within three days due to its non-compliance with COMELEC Resolution No. 9615, which limits campaign material size to two feet by three feet. Subsequently, on February 27, 2013, the COMELEC Law Department reiterated the order to remove the tarpaulin and warned of legal action for non-compliance.

Concerned about imminent prosecution and asserting their right to free speech, petitioners filed a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. They challenged the COMELEC's notices as unconstitutional, requesting the continuation of the TRO and a final decision invalidating the disputed COMELEC orders. On March 5, 2013, following deliberation, the court issued a TRO against the enforcement of COMELEC’s directives. Respondents contended that the tarpaulin was “election propaganda” and subject to regulation. They also argued procedural points, which included jurisdiction and the hierarchy of courts. However, petitioners claimed that their expression, encapsulated in the tarpaulin, constituted a fundamental exercise of free speech on a significant public issue.

ISSUES:

I. Whether the 22 February 2013 Notice/Order by Election Officer Majarucon and the 27 February 2013 Order by the COMELEC Law Department are considered judgments/final orders/resolutions of the COMELEC which would warrant a review of this Court via Rule 65 petition.

  1. Whether petitioners violated the hierarchy of courts doctrine and jurisprudential rules governing appeals from COMELEC decisions.

  2. Assuming arguendo that the aforementioned orders are not considered judgments/final orders/resolutions of the COMELEC, whether there are exceptional circumstances which would allow this Court to take cognizance of the case.

II. Whether it is relevant to determine whether the tarpaulins are "political advertisement" or "election propaganda" considering that petitioner is not a political candidate.

III. Whether the tarpaulins are a form of expression (protected speech), or election propaganda/political advertisement.

  1. Assuming arguendo that the tarpaulins are a form of expression, whether the COMELEC possesses the authority to regulate the same.

  2. Whether this form of expression may be regulated.

IV. Whether the 22 February 2013 Notice/Order by Election Officer Majarucon and the 27 February 2013 Order by the COMELEC Law Department violate the principle of separation of church and state.

V. Whether the action of the petitioners in posting its tarpaulin violates the constitutional principle of separation of church and state.

RULING:

I. Procedural Issues:

  • This Court’s Jurisdiction and the Rule 65 Petition: The Court has jurisdiction over COMELEC cases under Rule 65, particularly when grave abuse of discretion is alleged, even if the orders are not the final orders, decisions, or rulings of the COMELEC En Banc. The court acknowledges exceptions to the general rule requiring the exhaustion of administrative remedies.

  • Hierarchy of Courts: Direct resort to the Supreme Court is justified by exceptional and compelling reasons, including genuine issues of constitutionality, issues of transcendental importance, cases of first impression, and circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial intervention.

  • Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies: The Court ruled that this principle does not apply due to the urgency and clarity of a fundamental constitutional right being at stake.

II. Substantive Issues:

  • Legal Basis for Regulation by COMELEC: The COMELEC has no legal basis to regulate expressions made by private citizens. The provisions of the Constitution, law, and jurisprudence cited by the COMELEC pertain to candidates and political parties only.

  • Violation of the Constitutional Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression: The tarpaulins are a form of protected political speech. The COMELEC’s regulation on the size of election materials should not apply to private citizens’ expressions and is a violation of their right to free speech.

  • Content-Based Regulation: The regulation is content-based as it only applies to political speech and not to other forms of speech like commercial speech. The regulation fails the clear and present danger test, and there is no compelling reason for the state to curtail such speech.

  • Right to Property: The COMELEC’s order infringes upon the petitioners’ right to use their property and is void for circumventing private property rights without due process of law.

V. Religion: The tarpaulins are not religious speech. The court concluded that the speech in question was political in nature, addressing candidates and public issues rather than religious doctrines.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Freedom of Speech and Expression: Article III, Section 4 of the Constitution protects freedom of speech, which includes the right to criticize the conduct of public officials and express personal opinions, especially political speech.

  • Hierarchy of Courts: Direct resort to the Supreme Court is permitted for compelling reasons or issues of significant constitutional import.

  • Grave Abuse of Discretion: Rule 65 may be invoked when there is a grave abuse of discretion by any government branch or instrumentality.

  • Separation of Church and State: The principle ensures that no law prohibits the free exercise of religion and that governmental actions do not unduly interfere with religious practice, while also recognizing the secular sphere of religious actors.

  • Right to Property: Any regulation affecting the free use of private property by individuals must meet stringent standards of due process and not constitute an arbitrary infringement on property rights.

  • Content-Based vs. Content-Neutral Regulation: Content-based regulations bear a heavy presumption of invalidity and must pass the clear and present danger test, while content-neutral regulations must be narrowly tailored to serve substantial governmental interests without unnecessarily impinging on free speech.