GR 205728 So; (July, 2016) (Digest)
G.R. No. 205728 , July 5, 2016
Diocese of Bacolod and Bishop Vicente M. Navarra vs. Commission on Elections and Election Officer Atty. Mavil V. Majarucon
FACTS
The case originated from the Comelec’s issuance of a Notice and Letter demanding the removal of a large tarpaulin posted by the Diocese of Bacolod, which listed candidates as either supporting or opposing the Reproductive Health Law. The Comelec deemed it an oversized election propaganda in violation of size limits under the Fair Elections Act (R.A. 9006) and its implementing rules. The Diocese filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, asserting that the Comelec’s acts violated its constitutional rights to freedom of speech and religion, and that the tarpaulin was not election propaganda but political expression on a social issue. The Court’s January 21, 2015 Decision granted the petition, declaring the Comelec’s actions unconstitutional. The Comelec filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which the majority denied, prompting this Dissenting Opinion.
ISSUE
The core issue in the dissent is whether the majority correctly denied the Motion for Reconsideration and invalidated the Comelec’s regulatory action, thereby unduly restricting the Comelec’s constitutional mandate to enforce election laws, including regulations on election propaganda.
RULING
Justice Brion dissented, arguing that the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration and the underlying Decision erroneously diminished the Comelec’s constitutional jurisdiction. He contended that the petition was premature, as the Diocese failed to exhaust administrative remedies by not elevating the matter to the Comelec en banc for a final determination before seeking judicial review. The dissent emphasized that the Court’s expanded judicial power to review administrative acts for grave abuse of discretion requires a prima facie showing of such abuse, which was absent here because the administrative process was not completed.
The dissent further argued that the tarpaulin constituted election propaganda subject to reasonable content-neutral regulation under R.A. 9006. The size restriction was a valid time, place, and manner regulation aimed at the substantial government interest of ensuring orderly elections and minimizing campaign spending, unrelated to suppressing speech. The majority’s characterization of the regulation as content-based was incorrect; the form (size) was regulated irrespective of the message. By invalidating the Comelec’s action, the majority departed from established jurisprudence that grants the Comelec broad authority to implement election laws and undermined Congress’s power to enact measures like poster size limits. The dissent maintained that the Comelec acted within its jurisdiction to enforce a constitutional and statutory regulatory scheme.