Comelec cannot remove privately-owned ads

The Supreme Court ruled that when a candidate or his supporter displays an oversized billboard or other campaign materials in a private property, Comelec has no authority to order its removal on the ground that it violates the Omnibus Election Code limiting the size of campaign materials.

Google GR number 205728, promulgated by the 15-member SC en banc in The Diocese of Bacolod represented by Bishop Vicente Navarra vs. Comelec and Bacolod Comelec officer Mavil Majarucon.

This decision was repeated by the SC in the case of St. Anthony College of Roxas City vs. Comelec, GR No 258805. The court clarified Comelec's broad powers to regulate election campaign materials don’t extend to privately-owned tarpaulins and other ads in private property.

Therefore, if senatorial candidate Camille Villar puts up a giant tarpaulin in a building privately owned by the Villars or in any of its malls and coffee shops, Comelec has no power to remove it. If Manny Pacquiao displays a huge multi-media ad in a mall he owns, Comelec has no power to order its removal.

If Abby Binay paints the entire wall of a 10-story building in Makati owned by her "friends", no authority can legally compel its removal. If Willy Revillame wraps his palatial mansion in Tagaytay entirely with a gargantuan portrait of his face, Comelec can only look with dismay. Property ownership defeats the spirit of the law promoting equal space and equal opportunity for campaigning.

In the Bacolod diocese case, Navarra allowed the display of a huge tarpaulin in the wall of the San Sebastian Cathedral showing two groups of senatorial candidates. One group was headlined Team Patay, listing senatorial candidates who supported the Reproductive Health Law composed of Angara, Cayetano, Enrile, Escudero, Hontiveros, Legarda, Casiño, and partylists Gabriela, Akbayan, Bayan Muna, and Anakpawis.

The other side of the tarpaulin was Team Buhay opposed the RH Law, Ejercito, Honasan, Pimentel, Trillanes, Villar, Magsaysay, and partylists Buhay and Ang Pamilya. The tarpaulin was 6x10 feet. Its message is Conscience Vote.

The tarpaulin ignited so much attention and interest especially among churchgoers on Sundays and other feast days. On February 25, 2013, Majarucon of the Comelec Bacolod ordered to remove the material. Navarra replied that Comelec should issue a definite ruling through its legal department so that the diocese can proceed in accordance with law. On February 27, 2013, the said department issued the order.

The diocese filed a petition before the SC to nullify the order and it decided in favor of the diocese. The SC held that it’s within the freedom of expression of the diocese to express their opinion and the display of ad within its own property, beyond the power of the Comelec to interfere.

There will be more serious damage to the principle of liberty if Comelec insists on removing private ads in private properties. Freedom of expression takes precedence over all the positive goals of the law regulating political advertisements. The court held that free expression should be encouraged under the concept of marketplace of ideas. Free speech involves self-expression that enhances human dignity. It will be more dangerous to stifle it.

The SC stressed that the rights of free expression is not only a civil right but also a political right essential to man's enjoyment of life. Through this freedom, citizens can participate not merely in the periodic establishment of the government through his suffrage, but also in the administration of public affairs, as well as in the discipline of abusive public officers.

In ruling against the Comelec, the SC held that in the hierarchy of civil liberties, the right of free expression occupies a preferred position as it is essential to the preservation and vitality of our civil and political institutions. Such priority gives the freedom of expression, sanctity, and the sanction not permitting intrusions.

Finally, the diocese is free to use its own property and Comelec has no power to interfere. Comelec can destroy illegal posters and tarpaulins in public places but never on private property such as church premises.

Therefore, today, rich candidates with buildings, malls, and coffee shops can embellish their own properties with their own political ads, and Comelec can only look at them with dismay. Poor candidates can only shake their heads with envy.

Moneyed candidates still command a considerable advantage over poorer bets who don’t own buildings and establishments. Freedom is directly proportional to property and possessions. That's the long and short of it.