View full case

THE DIOCESE OF BACOLOD v. COMELEC & THE ELECTION OFFICER OF BACOLOD CITY

FACTS:

The respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration, seeking the dismissal of the Petition for lack of merit. The respondents contended that the assailed notice and letter were not final orders by the Commission on Elections En Banc and should not be subject to the review of the Court. They argued that the assailed notice and letter were issued in accordance with the law and should be reviewed by the Commission on Elections. The respondents also claimed that the tarpaulin in question constituted election propaganda that could be regulated by the Commission on Elections. They argued that the tarpaulin contained the names of candidates and party-list groups and suggested that voters should support or reject them based on their stance on the Reproductive Health Law. They further argued that the tarpaulin was posted in a prominent location to draw attention. The respondents asserted that the tarpaulin violated the size limitation prescribed by the Commission on Elections and was therefore subject to regulation. They argued that size limitation applies to all persons and entities without distinction and that the tarpaulin constituted a form of election propaganda. The respondents further contended that the Fair Elections Act regulated various election-related activities and that the size limitation was a valid content-neutral regulation.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the assailed notice and letter of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) are subject to review by the Supreme Court.

  2. Whether the tarpaulin in question is election propaganda regulated by the COMELEC.

  3. Whether the size limitation on election propaganda applies to all persons and entities.

RULING:

  1. The assailed notice and letter of the COMELEC are subject to review by the Supreme Court. The Court has jurisdiction to rule on the constitutionality of acts of the COMELEC, even in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions. The Court found that the assailed notice and letter were unconstitutional.

  2. The tarpaulin in question is election propaganda regulated by the COMELEC. It falls under the definition of election propaganda under the relevant resolution of the COMELEC. The tarpaulin contained the names of candidates and party-list groups and had markings suggesting support or rejection of certain candidates based on their stand on a particular law. The posting of the tarpaulin was deemed a form of election propaganda.

  3. The size limitation on election propaganda applies to all persons and entities. The Fair Elections Act, which regulates various election-related activities, including the posting of campaign materials, is applicable to not only candidates and political parties but also to other individuals and entities. Furthermore, even if the Fair Elections Act does not apply to private individuals, the size limitation on election propaganda still applies to everyone under the Omnibus Election Code. The size limitation is considered a valid content-neutral regulation on election activities.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review the constitutionality of acts of the COMELEC, even in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions.

  • The COMELEC has the power to regulate election propaganda, including the posting of campaign materials.

  • The Fair Elections Act regulates various election-related activities, applicable to both candidates/political parties and other individuals/entities.

  • The size limitation on election propaganda is a valid content-neutral regulation on election activities.