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

On November 17, 2021, the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) promulgated Resolution No. 10730, implementing the Fair Election Act ( Republic Act No. 9006 ). The Resolution defined “lawful election propaganda” to include specific size limits for materials like pamphlets and posters and authorized the removal, confiscation, or destruction of prohibited propaganda. The COMELEC launched “Oplan Baklas” to enforce these rules. The petitioners, who are non-candidates, publicly displayed oversized election paraphernalia (posters and tarpaulins) on their private properties during the campaign period for national positions. The COMELEC removed these materials for violating size restrictions. The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of Oplan Baklas, arguing it violated their freedom of speech, expression, and right to use private property, and that no law prohibits non-candidates from posting oversized materials on private property.

ISSUE

Whether the size restrictions on election propaganda under Republic Act No. 9006 and COMELEC Resolution No. 10730 apply to private individuals (non-candidates) displaying such materials on their private properties.

RULING

The dissenting opinion of Justice M. Lopez disagrees with the majority’s ruling that Oplan Baklas is unconstitutional as applied to the petitioners. The dissent submits that:
1. The petitioners are not exempt from the law. All persons, including non-candidates, must comply with the size restrictions on election propaganda.
2. Section 3 of RA 9006 does not limit its coverage solely to candidates and political parties.
3. The COMELEC has the constitutional authority to enforce these size restrictions as part of its duty to administer election laws.
4. The seized posters and tarpaulins constitute “election propaganda” as defined under election laws, specifically the Omnibus Election Code (Batas Pambansa Blg. 881), which defines election campaign or partisan political activity as any act designed to promote the election or defeat of a particular candidate, including publishing or distributing campaign literature.
5. The legislative history of RA 9006 indicates the term “election propaganda” was deliberately chosen as a broad term encompassing political advertisements and campaign materials, and its definition was intended to be consistent with the Omnibus Election Code.
6. Therefore, the size restrictions apply to the election propaganda displayed by the petitioners, and the COMELEC acted within its authority in enforcing them through Oplan Baklas.