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

This case involves a challenge to the constitutionality of certain provisions of COMELEC Resolution No. 10730, series of 2021, which regulate the size of campaign materials. The Concurring Opinion of Justice Leonen focuses on the issue of whether Sections 21(o), 24, and 26 of the said Resolution are unconstitutional for arbitrarily restricting the size of campaign materials, thereby stifling the right to free expression.

ISSUE

Whether Sections 21(o), 24, and 26 of COMELEC Resolution No. 10730, series of 2021, are unconstitutional for imposing prior restraint and arbitrarily restricting the size of campaign materials, in violation of the freedom of speech and expression.

RULING

The Concurring Opinion declares the challenged provisions unconstitutional. The ruling is grounded on the following principles:
1. Freedom of Expression as a Preferred Right: Freedom of speech and expression, especially political speech, occupies a preferred position in the hierarchy of constitutional values. It is essential for democratic political processes, public participation in nation-building, and ensuring government accountability.
2. Political Speech Deserves Highest Protection: Political speech, which includes the expression of support for candidates, is accorded the highest protection. Restrictions on such speech during election periods must be strictly examined and fully substantiated.
3. The Regulation is a Content-Based Prior Restraint: The size restriction on campaign materials is a form of prior restraint because it is an official governmental restriction on expression in advance of actual dissemination. It is content-based as it regulates the speech itself (campaign endorsement) based on its size. Content-based regulations bear a heavy presumption against their validity.
4. Strict Scrutiny Test Applied: As a content-based regulation, it must pass the strict scrutiny test. The government must show a compelling state interest, and the regulation must be narrowly tailored and the least restrictive means to achieve that interest. The opinion finds that the size restrictions arbitrarily stifle the people’s right to express support for their chosen candidates on their own private property and are not the least restrictive means to achieve the state’s interest (which is implied to be the prevention of visual clutter or ensuring fair elections).
5. Precedent on Size Restrictions: The opinion cites Diocese of Bacolod v. Commission on Elections, which established that for campaign paraphernalia, “the form matters as much as the content.” It also references Adiong v. Commission on Elections, which struck down a COMELEC prohibition on the posting of decals and stickers on mobile units, and 1-United Transport Koalisyon v. Commission on Elections, which invalidated a ban on motorcades. These cases reinforce that overbroad regulations on the form and manner of campaign expression are unconstitutional.
6. Conclusion: The size restrictions imposed by the COMELEC Resolution are unconstitutional prior restraints that violate the fundamental right to free speech and expression. They arbitrarily limit how citizens may express their political preferences on their own property without sufficient justification under the strict scrutiny standard.