The 2025 midterm election is fast approaching and political candidates are gearing up their campaign mechanisms, such as the production of their own election paraphernalia. Nonetheless, aside from the candidates themselves, the private individuals and/or eligible voters also play a huge role in the upcoming elections either through the actual voting and participation in the campaigns in their own ways.
One such participation in issue in St. Anthony College of Roxas City, Inc. et al. v. COMELEC, et al. (G.R. No. 258805, 10 October 2023 is the production and display by private individuals of their own election paraphernalia in support of the candidates of their choice and the regulatory limitations thereof. While the regulation of the election paraphernalia produced by political candidates is certainly under the jurisdiction of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), the extent of the latter’s authority over election paraphernalia owned and displayed by private persons is in question.
The subject of the case is COMELEC’s “Oplan Baklas”, pursuant to Sections 21(o), 24 and 26 of COMELEC’s Resolution No. 10730, which gave COMELEC officials the authority to remove and confiscate oversized tarpaulins, posters and other campaign materials, including those owned by private individuals and posted within their premises, residences or establishments. This then empowered COMELEC officials of Roxas City to dismantle, remove, destroy and confiscate the posters, tarpaulins and other campaign materials in support of former Vice President Leni Robredo owned and posted by petitioners St. Anthony College et al., within their own premises.
Essentially, the main issue is whether COMELEC has authority to regulate the expressions made by private individuals within their private property considering that its power to regulate the posting of election propaganda under the Fair Elections Act applies only to candidates and political parties. The Supreme Court resolved the issue in favor of the petitioners and found that COMELEC’s implementation of Oplan Baklas as to St. Anthony College et al.’s election paraphernalia is unconstitutional.
Considering that the posters and tarpaulins subject of the case are recognized as election paraphernalia primarily intended to endorse a certain candidate, the Court applied the test enunciated in Diocese of Bacolod v. Commission on Elections[1] for the valid regulation of a specie of speech of persons, who are not candidates or who do not speak as members of a political party, amounting to election paraphernalia. Thus, the regulation a) should be provided by law; b) reasonable; c) narrowly tailored to meet the objective of enhancing the opportunity of all candidates to be heard and considering the primacy of the guarantee of free expression; and d) demonstrably the least restrictive means to achieve that object.
As applied in the case, since the posters and tarpaulins were not produced or displayed “by or on behalf of and in coordination with candidates or political parties” but are the result of privately-funded initiatives and were displayed willingly by the petitioners on their own private property, they are beyond the scope of the size restrictions under the Fair Elections Act. To apply the size restrictions to political speech of private persons unlawfully expands the express reference of the law to candidates and political parties only.
Moreover, Section 82 of the Omnibus Election Code cannot be the basis of such action by the COMELEC as such provision has been impliedly repealed by the provisions of the Fair Elections Act as the provisions of the two election laws are irreconcilably inconsistent and cannot be enforced altogether. In truth, the Fair Election Act, the later law, limits the definition of election propaganda to materials paid and displayed by candidates and political parties.
For more of Dean Nilo Divina’s legal tidbits, please visit www.divinalaw.com. For comments and questions, please send an email to cad@divinalaw.com.
[1] 751 Phil. 301 (2015)
