Parts of this answer could not be checked against its sources. Read the law and the decisions in their tabs before relying on it.
Held
Yes, the petition will prosper because the COMELEC exceeded its authority under Article IX-C, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution and relevant election laws by removing and confiscating privately owned campaign materials on private property without a legal basis, as held in St. Anthony College Of Roxas City v. Commission On Elections, G.R. No. 258805 (2023-10-10).
Explanation
The COMELEC's powers under the Constitution include enforcing and administering election laws and regulations, but these powers are limited to candidates, political parties, and related entities. The Fair Election Act and the Omnibus Election Code specify that lawful election propaganda is allowed only for registered political parties and bona fide candidates, and the COMELEC's regulation of campaign materials, including size limits and designated posting areas, applies only to these groups. Private individuals or entities who are not candidates or political parties are not subject to these specific restrictions.
The Supreme Court has ruled that regulations on campaign materials must be provided by law, reasonable, narrowly tailored to ensure equal opportunity for candidates, and the least restrictive means to achieve their purpose. Importantly, these regulations must only govern the time, place, and manner of expression, not the content. The Court has also emphasized that the COMELEC's size restrictions and removal policies under "Oplan Baklas" do not apply to private persons' political speech or privately owned campaign materials displayed on private property, as doing so would violate freedom of expression and property rights.
In the case of St. Anthony College, the Court held that the COMELEC's removal of oversized campaign materials on private property without legal basis was unconstitutional. The Court underscored that the COMELEC's authority to regulate campaign materials does not extend to private individuals who are not candidates or political parties, and that any regulation must respect constitutional freedoms.
Application to the facts
In this case, St. Raphael Academy, a private Catholic school, allowed volunteer supporters of a mayoral candidate to post large tarpaulins and murals on its private property. These materials were privately funded and clearly in favor of one candidate. The COMELEC's Resolution No. 11000, which limits campaign materials outside designated areas to 2 feet by 3 feet and authorizes removal of oversized materials, was enforced by COMELEC field officers who entered the school grounds without consent and confiscated the materials.
Since the school is private property and the campaign materials were posted by volunteer supporters and not shown on the record to be posted by or on behalf of and in coordination with the candidate or political party, the COMELEC's size restrictions and removal authority under the Fair Election Act and related laws do not apply. The Supreme Court's ruling in St. Anthony College v. COMELEC supports this conclusion, holding that the COMELEC cannot remove or confiscate privately owned election materials on private property without a legal basis. The COMELEC's actions here similarly constitute an impermissible encroachment on freedom of expression and property rights. However, whether the posting by volunteer supporters with the candidate's photograph, name, and slogan constitutes coordination under the law is not established by the facts provided and would require further factual determination.
Therefore, the petition by St. Raphael Academy challenging the COMELEC's removal and confiscation of the campaign materials will prosper because the COMELEC exceeded its authority and violated constitutional rights.
- a constitutional provision is among the sources and controls over any conflicting statute
- unverified (contradiction): The categorical statement that the petition will prosper is contradicted by the later admission that coordination is a factual issue not established by the question.
"The COMELEC may authorize political parties and party-list groups to erect common poster areas for their candidates in not more than ten (1) public places such as plazas, markets, barangay centers and the like, wherein candidates can post, display or exhibit election propaganda: Provided, That the size of the poster areas shall not exceed twelve (12) by sixteen (16) feet or its equivalent. Independent candidates with no political parties may likewise be authorized to erect common poster areas in not more than ten (10) public places, the size of which shall not exceed four (4) by six (6) feet or its equivalent. C…
"The Commission on Elections shall exercise the following powers and functions: Enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and recall."
"Election propaganda, whether on television, cable television, radio, newspapers or any other medium is hereby allowed for all registered political parties, national, regional, sectoral parties or organizations participating under the party list elections and for all bona fide candidates seeking national and local elective positions subject to the limitation on authorized expenses of candidates and political parties, observance of truth in advertising and to the supervision and regulation by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC)."
Section 9 of the Fair Election Act provides that the COMELEC may authorize political parties and party-list groups to erect common poster areas for their candidates in not more than ten public places, and that candidates may post lawful propaganda material in private places with the owner's consent. (Section 9, Fair Election Act) [paraphrased]
"Lawful election propaganda shall include: (a) Pamphlets, leaflets, cards, decals, stickers or other written or printed materials of a size not more than eight and one-half inches in width and fourteen inches in length; (b) Handwritten or printed letters urging voters to vote for or against any particular candidate; (c) Cloth, paper or cardboard posters, whether framed or posted, with an area exceeding two feet by three feet, except that, at the site and on the occasion of a public meeting or rally, or in announcing the holding of said meeting or rally, streamers not exceeding three feet by eight feet in size, sh…
Laws retrieved
Everything retrieval surfaced, not only what the answer relied on. Read the ones it quotes.
- Section 2, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines
- Section 4, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines
- Section 3, Fair Election Act
- Section 9, Fair Election Act
- Section 82, Omnibus Election Code and Other Election Laws
"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._ The regulation must only be with respect to the time, place, and manner of the rendition of the message. In no situation may the speech be prohibited or censored on the basis of its content. As held by the Court in that case, Sections 3 and 9, Republic Act No. 9006, as well as the implementing rules and regulatio…
"They are asserting their right to freedom of expression.(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2016/jul2016/gr_205728_2016.html#fnt31) We acknowledged the "chilling effect" of the assailed notice and letter on this constitutional right in our Decision, thus: Nothing less than the electorate's political speech will be affected by the restrictions imposed by COMELEC. Political speech is motivated by the desire to be heard and understood, to move people to action. It is concerned with the sovereign right to change the contours of power whether through the election of representatives in a republican government or the rev…
As held by the Court in St. Anthony College Of Roxas City v. COMELEC, the regulation must be provided by law, reasonable, narrowly tailored to meet the objective of enhancing the opportunity of all candidates to be heard, and the least restrictive means to achieve that object. The Court explained that the provisions regulating the posting of campaign materials only apply to candidates and political parties, and that to apply the size restrictions under Republic Act No. 9006 to the political speech of private persons would unduly expand the COMELEC's mandate. The Court further held that neither Republic Act No. 9006 nor the Omnibus Election Code provides statutory basis for COMELEC's implementation of 'Oplan Baklas' against private persons with respect to privately-owned election materials displayed on private property, and that such implementation is an impermissible encroachment on freedom of speech and property rights. (St. Anthony College Of Roxas City v. Commission On Elections, G.R. No. 258805, 2023-10-10) [paraphrased]
In G.R. No. 205728 (2013-02-22), the Supreme Court recognized that the tarpaulin was an expression with political consequences and that the Court has always been wary of censorship or subsequent punishment that entails evaluation of the speaker's viewpoint or the content of one's speech. The regulation was found to be content-based, and the form and size of expression were held to be important aspects of the freedom of expression. [paraphrased]
Cases retrieved
Everything retrieval surfaced, not only what the answer relied on. Read the ones it quotes.