CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I CASE DIGEST | THE DIOCESE OF BACOLOD V. COMELEC G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015
THE DIOCESE OF BACOLOD V. COMELEC
G.R. No. 205728,
January 21, 2015
TOPIC/DOCTRINE
Free speech and other intellectual
freedoms as "highly ranked in our scheme of constitutional values."
These rights enjoy precedence and primacy.
FACTS
On February 21, 2013,
petitioners posted two (2) tarpaulins were posted within a private compound
housing the San Sebastian Cathedral of Bacolod (on the front walls of the
cathedral within public view ). Each tarpaulin was approximately six feet (6')
by ten feet (10') in size. 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 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. Those who voted for the passing of the RH law
were classified by petitioners as comprising "Team Patay," while
those who voted against it form "Team Buhay":7
Respondents conceded
that the tarpaulin was neither sponsored nor paid for by any candidate.
Petitioners also conceded that the tarpaulin contains names of candidates for
the 2013 elections, but not of politicians who helped in the passage of the RH
Law but were not candidates for that election.
COMELEC ordered the
tarpaulin’s removal for being oversized otherwise, it will be constrained
to file an election offense against petitioners. (COMELEC Resolution No.
9615 provides for the size requirement of two feet (2’) by three feet (3’))
ISSUE(s)
Whether the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC) has the competence to limit expressions made by the citizens — who
are not candidates — during elections.
Whether the court may take this
petition under special civil action for certiorari and prohibition with application for preliminary
injunction and temporary restraining order under Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court seeking to nullify COMELEC’s Notice to Remove Campaign Materials.
RULING
No.
The Supreme Court has held free speech
and other intellectual freedoms as "highly ranked in our scheme of
constitutional values." These rights enjoy precedence and primacy. In the
hierarchy of civil liberties, the rights of free expression and of assembly
occupy a preferred position as they are essential to the preservation and
vitality of our civil and political institutions; and such priority "gives
these liberties the sanctity and the sanction not permitting dubious intrusions." The
preferred freedom of expression calls all the more for the utmost respect when
what may be curtailed is the dissemination of information to make more
meaningful the equally vital right of suffrage.
Here, the court held
that COMELEC’s general role includes a mandate to ensure equal
opportunities and reduce spending among candidates and their registered
political parties. 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. Furthermore, Section 17 of Commission on Elections
(COMELEC) Resolution No. 9615, the rules and regulations implementing the Fair
Elections Act, regulating the posting of campaign materials only apply to
candidates and political parties, and petitioners are neither of the two.
Yes, as to
the second issue.
The court ruled
that Rule 64 is not the exclusive remedy for all acts of the COMELEC. Rule 65
is applicable especially to raise objections relating to a grave abuse of
discretion resulting in the ouster of jurisdiction. The doctrine of hierarchy
of courts is not an iron-clad rule. This court has “full discretionary power to
take cognizance and assume jurisdiction [over] special civil actions for certiorari . . . filed directly with it for exceptionally compelling
reasons or if warranted by the nature of the issues clearly and specifically
raised in the petition.” As a special civil action, there must also be a
showing that there be no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of the law. ased on ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation v. COMELEC, 323 SCRA 811 (2000), this court could review orders and decisions of COMELEC — in
electoral contests — despite not being reviewed by the COMELEC En Banc, if: 1) It will prevent the miscarriage of
justice; 2) The issue involves a principle of social justice; 3) The issue
involves the protection of labor; 4) The decision or resolution sought to be
set aside is a nullity; or 5) The need for relief is extremely urgent and certiorari is the only adequate and speedy remedy
available.
Here, the court
ruled that during elections, we have the power and the duty to correct any
grave abuse of discretion or any act tainted with unconstitutionality on the
part of any government branch or instrumentality. This includes actions by the
COMELEC. Furthermore, it is this court’s constitutional mandate to protect the
people against government’s infringement of their fundamental rights. This
constitutional mandate outweighs the jurisdiction vested with the COMELEC.
Sovereignty resides in the people. Political
speech is a direct exercise of the sovereignty. The principle of exhaustion of
administrative remedies yields in order to protect this fundamental right.