The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued a temporary restraining order to stop the Commission on Elections (Comelec) from destroying or confiscating election materials in privately owned properties under its “Oplan Baklas” campaign.
The Court also gave the Comelec and its director and spokesman, James Jimenez, 10 days to comment on the petition filed by several supporters of presidential candidate Leni Robredo.
The petitioners have asked the Court to declare the Comelec’s Oplan Baklas as unconstitutional on the grounds of wrongful interpretation and implementation of Sections 21 (o), 24 and 26 of Comelec Resolution No. 10730.
They said dismantling of election materials such as tarpaulins and posters violates their constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression.
The Comelec’s actions, they added, violated their right not to be deprived of property without due process of law.
Section 21 (o) bars the installation of election propaganda material outside the common poster areas except on private property with the consent of the owner and must comply with the allowable 2ft x 3 ft requirements for posters.
Section 24 of the Comelec Resolution provides that only one signboard, not exceeding three feet by eight feet in size, identifying the place as the headquarters of the party of candidates is allowed to be displayed.
On the other hand, Section 26 states that “any prohibited form of election propaganda shall be stopped, confiscated, removed, destroyed or torn down by Comelec representatives at the expense of the candidate or political party for whose apparent benefit the prohibited election propaganda materials have been produced, displayed and disseminated.”
The petitioners asserted that Comelec Resolution 10730 applies only to candidates and political parties, and not to private individuals.
The petitioners noted that its position is consistent with the Court’s ruling Diocese in Bacolod vs. Comelec where it held that the regulation of the posting of campaign materials and the definition of lawful election propaganda under Section 9 and E, respectively of R.A. 9006, only apply to candidates, political parties and party list groups.
In the same ruling issued in 2015, the Court declared that the poll body “has no power to regulate the free expression of private citizens, who are neither candidates nor members of political parties” and that its action “violated the rights of free speech and expression of the petitioner.”
Among the petitioners are Dr. Pilita de Jesus Liceralde, one of the convenors of Isabela for Leni; Dr. Anton Mari Hao Lim, one of the convenors of Zamboangueños for Leni; and St. Anthony College of Roxas City.
The petitioners filed the petition in their capacity as owners or co-owners of the tarpaulins, posters, murals, and other election materials displayed in their respective properties and were forcefully dismantled by the Comelec under Oplan Baklas.
The petitioners are also seeking to permanently prohibit the respondents from implementing Sections 21 (o), Section 23, and Section 26 of the Comelec Resolution No. 10730, given the poll body’s interpretation that these also cover private individuals and private property.
Romulo Macalintal, lawyer for Robredo, said he had no doubt that the Supreme Court would stop the Comelec.
“This is indeed a welcome great development and victory for those candidates who do not have enough funds to sustain a nationwide campaign and who only depend upon the help and support of their volunteers,” he said.
“In this election 2022 where, for the first time, people from all walks of life are the ones spending for their candidates, the SC TRO will certainly give poor candidates a strong fighting chance to level the playing field in the political arena since it is now the private citizens who would do their own share in ensuring that we elect only honest and competent leaders with utmost integrity,” he added.
“I salute the SC for coming up with such a much needed injunction at this most opportune time to safeguard people’s right of suffrage,” he said.
