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
The case involves the Commission on Elections’ (COMELEC) implementation of “Oplan Baklas,” which involved the removal, defacement, or destruction of “oversized” tarpaulins, posters, and murals owned by petitioners St. Anthony College of Roxas City, Inc., et al. These materials were posted or installed within petitioners’ private properties and endorsed the Presidency of Maria Leonor Robredo during the 2022 National Elections. Petitioners are non-candidates, and the expenses for the materials came from their own pockets, posted voluntarily without instruction from any candidate.
ISSUE
Whether the COMELEC’s “Oplan Baklas,” as implemented against the petitioners’ election propaganda materials on their private properties, is unconstitutional for violating their right to freedom of speech and expression and their property rights.
RULING
The Concurring Opinion of Justice Lazaro-Javier agrees with the ponencia’s declaration that the COMELEC’s implementation of “Oplan Baklas” was unconstitutional. The Opinion holds that the COMELEC acted arbitrarily and beyond its authority. The regulation under Republic Act No. 9006 (the Fair Election Act) and COMELEC Resolution No. 10730 applies only to election propaganda by registered political parties, party-list groups, and bona fide candidates. Since petitioners are non-candidates, the size and posting regulations do not apply to them. The COMELEC’s actions constituted an overbroad regulation that offended petitioners’ protected freedom of expression and property rights. The constitutional infirmity lies not in the provisions of COMELEC Resolution No. 10730 (Sections 21(o), 24, and 26), which are consistent with RA 9006, but in the COMELEC’s erroneous and arbitrary implementation of those provisions against non-candidates.
