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.

Popular posts from this blog

CRIMINAL LAW II CASE DIGEST/ BACLAYON V. MUTIA, 129 SCRA 148

CREDIT TRANSACTIONS CASE DIGEST/ BPI FAMILY BANK VS. FRANCO/ G. R. NO. 123498/ 23 NOVEMBER 2007

REMEDIAL LAW | Riviera Golf Club v. CCA G.R. No. 173783, June 17 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ QUINTOS VS. BECK/ 69 PHIL. 108 (1939)

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ MINA VS. PASCUAL/ 25 PHIL. 540 (1923)

LAW ON PROPERTY | ACOSTA V. OCHOA, ET AL., G.R. NO. 211559; G.R. NO. 215634, OCTOBER 15, 2019

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION | HYGIENIC PACKAGING CORPORATION VS. NUTRI-ASIA, INC ., G.R. NO. 201302, JANUARY 23, 2019

CRIMINAL LAW II CASE DIGEST/ BALA V. MARTINEZ, 181 SCRA 459

LEGAL ETHICS | MAURICIO C. ULEP VS. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC Bar Matter No. 553. June 17, 1993