G.R. No. 258805 , October 10, 2023
ST. ANTHONY COLLEGE OF ROXAS CITY, INC., REPRESENTED BY SISTER GERALDINE J. DENOGA, D.C., DR. PILITA DE JESUS LICERALDE, AND DR. ANTON MARI HAO LIM, PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, REPRESENTED BY THE ACTING CHAIRPERSON COMMISSIONER SOCORRO B. INTING, AND COMELEC DIRECTOR JAMES ARTHUR B. JIMENEZ IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SPOKESPERSON OF THE COMELEC AND AS DIRECTOR IV OF THE COMELEC DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION AND INFORMATION [EID], RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioners St. Anthony College of Roxas City, Inc., Dr. Pilita De Jesus Liceralde, and Dr. Anton Mari Hao Lim displayed on their private properties tarpaulins, murals, and other materials expressing support and soliciting votes for a presidential candidate in the 2022 Elections. Respondent Commission on Elections (COMELEC), implementing Oplan Baklas pursuant to COMELEC Resolution No. 10730, forcibly removed these “oversized” materials. Petitioners argued the COMELEC’s act violated their constitutional rights to free speech and expression. COMELEC contended that the size limitation for campaign materials under Section 82 of the Omnibus Election Code is a content-neutral regulation applicable to both candidates and private individuals.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC’s implementation of Oplan Baklas, involving the seizure and destruction of privately-owned election paraphernalia posted on private properties, is valid.

RULING

The Separate Opinion of Chief Justice Gesmundo concurs in the result of granting the petition but provides a distinct perspective. The opinion holds that the implementation of Oplan Baklas against election paraphernalia posted by private citizens on their private properties must be declared ultra vires or invalid for lack of statutory basis, although not necessarily unconstitutional. The COMELEC’s constitutional powers are to enforce election laws and recommend measures to Congress, such as limitations on propaganda materials. Current legislation, specifically the Fair Election Act ( Republic Act No. 9006 ) and its implementing COMELEC Resolution No. 10730, regulates only the acts of “candidates” and “registered parties” concerning election paraphernalia, not private citizens. Therefore, the COMELEC acted beyond its delegated statutory authority. The opinion clarifies that Congress may, in the future, enact a law authorizing the COMELEC to regulate such private displays, and the constitutionality of such a future statute would be determined if an actual case arises. The opinion expresses reservations about the ponencia’s heavy reliance on Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC, noting key factual differences, as Diocese involved social advocacy materials, not election paraphernalia. The opinion concludes that the seizure and destruction of the petitioners’ materials are ultra vires for lack of statutory basis and votes to GRANT the petition to restrain the implementation of Oplan Baklas under COMELEC Resolution No. 10730.