[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
17 views2 pages

Diocese of Bacolod Vs COMELEC

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Diocese of Bacolod, stating that their tarpaulins criticizing political candidates were a form of protected political expression rather than election propaganda. The Court found that the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) exceeded its authority by ordering the removal of the tarpaulins, which infringed on the Diocese's property rights and freedom of expression. The size limitation imposed by COMELEC was deemed arbitrary and unconstitutional, leading to a permanent injunction against the removal order.

Uploaded by

An Na
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
17 views2 pages

Diocese of Bacolod Vs COMELEC

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Diocese of Bacolod, stating that their tarpaulins criticizing political candidates were a form of protected political expression rather than election propaganda. The Court found that the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) exceeded its authority by ordering the removal of the tarpaulins, which infringed on the Diocese's property rights and freedom of expression. The size limitation imposed by COMELEC was deemed arbitrary and unconstitutional, leading to a permanent injunction against the removal order.

Uploaded by

An Na
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

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.
G.R. No. 205728
January 21, 2015
Facts:
The Diocese of Bacolod, led by Bishop Vicente M. Navarra, displayed tarpaulins
on the cathedral's facade during the 2013 elections. These tarpaulins voiced
opposition to the Reproductive Health (RH) Law and labeled certain candidates
and party-list groups as "Team Buhay" (pro-life) and "Team Patay" (pro-death),
encouraging voters to support or reject them accordingly. The Commission on
Elections (COMELEC) issued a notice and letter demanding the removal of the
tarpaulins for breaching size restrictions on election propaganda as outlined in the
Fair Election Act and COMELEC regulations.
The Diocese filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition, asserting that the
tarpaulins constituted a form of protected political expression and should not fall
under COMELEC's regulations regarding election propaganda. They argued that
the regulation infringed upon their constitutional rights to freedom of expression
and property rights.
Issue:
Whether the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) has the authority to
order the removal of tarpaulins put up by the Diocese of Bacolod that criticize
specific political candidates, claiming to enforce election laws and regulate
campaign materials — and whether this action constitutes a legitimate use of
police power that supersedes the right to free speech and expression.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Diocese of Bacolod holding that the
tarpaulins were not election propaganda but a form of political expression with
social advocacy, primarily addressing a public issue and only incidentally related
to the election of candidates. The regulation imposed by COMELEC, particularly
the size limitation on election propaganda, was a content-based restriction that
failed the reasonability test and was unconstitutional as applied to the Diocese’s
tarpaulins. COMELEC exceeded its authority by ordering the removal of the
tarpaulins on private property without the consent of the owner, infringing on the
Diocese’s property rights and freedom of expression. Political speech by private
citizens, especially on matters of public concern, enjoys the highest protection
under the Constitution and cannot be unduly restricted by COMELEC. The size
limitation for election for propaganda posters (2 feet by 3 feet) was arbitrary and
did not consider the context or distance from the audience, rendering the regulation
unreasonable. The Court permanently enjoined COMELEC from enforcing the
removal order and declared the assailed issuances unconstitutional.

You might also like