JUST to clarify, the restriction on the size of campaign posters is not a Comelec invention. It is a provision of law. The Constitution empowers the Comelec to enforce and administer all laws and regulations for the conduct of an election, not to make them. If it finds the law wanting, it cannot supplement it. It can only recommend to Congress passage of the appropriate corrective or supplementary measure. If the Comelec violates or exceeds its mandate, recourse can be made to the Supreme Court.
The Diocese of Bacolod took this route in 2013 after the Comelec ordered it to remove the two oversized tarpaulins posted in the church compound including one that classified certain candidates in the 2013 election as Team Buhay or Team Patay, based on their stand on the Reproductive Health law. The Comelec contended that the tarpaulins constituted campaign propaganda and should conform to the Fair Election Act’s provision on measurements. The Diocese disagreed, pointing out that not one of those who installed the tarpaulins was a candidate.
The Court’s decision, which upheld the right of the archdiocese to post the tarpaulins, has been written about extensively and generally praised as a triumph for the constitutional freedom of expression. It is now the backbone of the arguments in favor of a petition filed with the Supreme Court against the indiscriminate removal by the Comelec of oversized campaign materials including those that were posted in privately owned properties not by the candidates or by their political parties, but by or with the consent of the owners.
Not much has been mentioned, however, of the portion of the decision under the heading, “A Final Note” which opened with a consoling note to the poll body. “We maintain sympathies for the Comelec in attempting to do what it thought was its duty in this case.” But then it added, “(h)owever, it was misdirected.”
The Court explained that “the Bill of Rights enumerated in our Constitution is an enumeration of our fundamental liberties, not a detailed code that prescribes good conduct. It provides space for all to be guided by their conscience, not only in the act that they do to others but also in judgment of the acts of others.”
The decision went on to characterize the issue involved as “the most sacred of speech forms: expression by the electorate that tends to rouse the public to debate contemporary issues. This is not speech by candidates or political parties to entice votes. It is a portion of the electorate telling the candidates the conditions for their election. This is a form of speech hopeful of a quality of democracy that we should all deserve.”
Why the Comelec launched Oplan Baklas in spite of the clear language of the Supreme Court decision in the Diocese of Bacolod case is befuddling. The Court couldn’t have stated it more plainly: Posters installed by citizens in the privacy of their premises are expressions of opinion which cannot be restricted without impinging on their right to freely express themselves especially on matters affecting their public interest.
We cannot, of course, predict how the Court will rule in the Baklas case. But the fact that it issued a temporary restraining order as it did in Bacolod Diocese vs. Comelec indicates that it at least recognizes that there are certain rights that need to be preserved and protected while the Court deliberates on the merits of the petition.
The Comelec has taken a beating lately for a variety of reasons: the allegedly intentional delay in the release of the decision in the Marcos disqualification petitions, the sudden about-face in the fact-checking agreement with Rappler and Oplan Baklas, among others. While a number of people suspect their motives, I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. Maybe, as the Supreme Court noted, they were only trying to do what they thought was their duty in these cases. I just pray that they are not misdirected.