The Diocese of Bacolod, Represented by the Most Rev. Bishop Vicente M.

Navarra a
nd the Bishop Himself in his Personal Capacity v. Commission on Elections and th
e Election Officer of Bacolod City, Atty. Mavil V. Majarucon GR No. 205728 SUMMA
RY OF THE PETITION FACTS: Petitioner Diocese of Bacolod is a Roman Catholic dioc
ese and is represented in this petition by its Bishop, the Most Rev. Vicente M.
Navarra. Petitioner Bishop Navarra is also filing this petition in his individua
l and personal capacity as the questioned orders are personally directed at him
and also as a concerned citizen, as the issues raised herein are matters of para
mount and transcendental importance to the public which must be settled early gi
ven the far-reaching implications of the unconstitutional acts of the respondent
s. Named as respondents are the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and its Electi
on Officer of Bacolod City Atty. Mavil V. Majarucon. On 21 February 2013, the pe
titioners have caused to be placed on the front wall of the Bacolod Cathedral tw
o sets of Tarpaulin, each sized 6x10 feet, with the messageConscience Vote (Team
Buhay/Team Patay (Team Patay Tarpaulin). The Team Patay Tarpaulin contained the
names of both Antiand Pro-Reproductive Health Law senatorial candidates. In the
ir special civil action for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rule
s of Court, petitioners sought the nullification of the 22 February 2013 order i
ssued by respondent Atty. Majarucon, which orders them to remove the supposed ov
ersizedTeam Patay Tarpaulin of the Diocese of Bacolod. They also sought to nulli
fy the 27 February 2013 order issued by the COMELEC, through its Law Department,
which orders the immediate removal of the Team Patay Tarpaulin and threatening
the petitioner Bishop of Bacolod with the filing of an election offense if he fa
ils to cause its immediate removal. On March 5, 2013, the Supreme Court En Banc
issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the respondents COMELEC and Atty.
Majarucon from removing the Team Patay Tarpaulin.

ISSUES/GROUNDS: 1. Respondents orders directives to remove or cause the removal o

f the subjectTeam Patay Tarpaulin are unconstitutional and void for infringing o
n petitioners right to freedom of expression on their own private property. 2. Re
spondents orders/directives to remove or cause the removal of the subjectTeam Pat
ay Tarpaulin are unconstitutional and void for violating the principle of separa
tion of Church and State enshrined in Section 6 of Article II of the 1987 Consti
tution. ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSIONS: 1. The assailed Orders/Directives to remove or ca
use the removal of the subjectTeam Patay Tarpaulin are not electoral campaign ma
terials and that the mention of the candidates in the infringes on the petitione
rs right to freedom of expression on their own private property: o the subject Te
am Patay Tarpaulins are not electoral campaign materials, stressing that the menti
oning of candidates name in the second tarpaulin was merely incidental to the pet
itioners campaign against the RH Law, which they have firmly campaigned against e
ven when it was just a bill being deliberated in Congress; o subject Team Patay
Tarpaulins are covered by the broader constitutional guaranty of freedom of expre
ssion and of conscience and not by the more narrow and limited election laws, ru
les, and regulations; o petitioners have the constitutional right to communicate t
heir views and beliefs by posting the subject Team Patay Tarpaulins on the Bacol
od Cathedral, a private property owned by the Diocese of Bacolod; o the RH Law an
d the candidates and party-lists running in the 2013 National Elections who supp
orted and who opposed its passage into a law are matters of public concern and a
legitimate subject of general interest and of discussion; o citing the Supreme
Courts jurisprudence in Chavez v. PCGG (G. R. No. 130716, December 9, 1998), the
petitioners argued that that public concern embraces a broad spectrum of subjects w
hich the public may want to know

citing the Supreme Courts jurisprudence in Adiong v. COMELEC ( G. R. No. 103956,

March 31, 1992), the petitioners further argued that debate on public issues shoul
d be uninhibited, robust, and wide open. o the content and the message of the sub
ject Team Patay Tarpaulin plainly relates to broad issues of interest to the comm
unity especially to the members of the Catholic community and that the subject ta
rpaulin simply conveys the position of the petitioners on the RH bill and the pub
lic officials who supported or opposed it as it gains relevance in the exercise
of the peoples right of suffrage in the advent of the 2013 polls; o considering th
e petitioners message, through the Team Patay Tarpaulin, was a matter of public c
oncern, the message being conveyed and the mode used for its communication and e
xpression to the public is entitled to protection under the Free Expression clau
se of the Bill of Rights of the 1987 Constitution; o not being candidates or pol
itical parties, the freedom of expression curtailed by the questioned prohibitio
n, using the logic of the Supreme Court in Adiong v. COMELEC, is not so much tha
t of the candidate or the political party; o there is no compelling and substant
ial State interest that is endangered or which will be endangered by the posting
of the subject Team Patay Tarpaulin which would justify the infringement of the
preferred right of freedom of expression. 2. The assailed orders/directives to
remove or cause the removal of the subjectTeam Patay Tarpaulin are unconstitutio
nal and void for violating the principle of separation of Church and State enshr
ined in Section 6 of Article II of the 1987 Constitution: o petitioners petition
against the RH Law is not only a matter of exercise of its freedom of expression
and of conscience but is also a matter of Catholic faith, morals, belief, and of
duty; o the Diocese of Bacolod has taken on the issue of the RH Law as part of h
er mission as part of its continued advocacy and obedience to the Catholic Churc
hs teachings; o in line with what they believe to be their duty in the faith, the
petitioners have declared the RH Law as being anti-life, antimorals, anti-famil
y, anti-marriage, and contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church. Conseque
ntly, petitioners have called on its members and followers not to support any ca
ndidate who is anti-life, and to support those who are pro-life;
o

o
o o o
o
considering that the views and position of the petitioners on the RH Bill is ine
xtricably connected to its Catholic dogma, faith, and moral teachings, the posti
ng of the subject Team Patay Tarpaulin has already gone beyond mere exercise of
freedom of expression and of conscience, but also of the right and privilege of
the Church to propagate and spread its teachings which should be insulated from
any form of encroachment and intrusion on the part of the State, and its agencie
s and officials; section 6 of the Article II of the 1987 Constitution monumental
izes the principle of separation of Church and State; at the core of its advocac
y against the RH Bill is the Gospel of Life which is a matter of Catholic doctri
ne, creed and dogma; the petitioners believe, as a matter of faith, that in thes
e times when there is a great conflict between a culture of death and a culture
of life, the Church should have the courage to proclaim the culture of life for
the common good of society; the questioned orders are unpardonable intrusion int
o the affairs of the Church and constitute serious violations of the principle o
f separation of Church and State which the State and its officials, including th
e herein respondents, are bound to respect, observe, and hold sacred.
PRAYER:

Petition be given due course; Issue a Temporary Restraining Order and/or a Writ
of Preliminary Injunction restraining respondents from further proceedings in en
forcing their orders for the removal of the subject Team Patay Tarpaulin; Declar
e the questioned orders of respondents as unconstitutional and void and permanen
tly restrain the respondents from enforcing them or any other similar orders; an
d Issue other reliefs as may be deemed just and equitable under the premises.
THE ISSUES TO BE ARGUED AS PER ADVISORY OF THE COURT EN BANC DATED MARCH 12, 201
3 1. Whether or not the 22 February 2013 Notice/Order by Election Officer Majaru
con and the 27 February 2013 Order by the COMELEC Law Department are considered
judgments/final orders/resolutions of the

COMELEC which would warrant a review of this Court via a Rule 65 Petition. (a) W
hether or not petitioners violated the hierarchy of courts doctrine and jurispru
dential rules governing appeals from COMELEC decisions; (b) Assuming arguendo th
at the aforementioned Orders are not considered judgments/final orders/resolutio
ns of the COMELEC, whether there are exceptional circumstances which would allow
this Court to take cognizance of the case. 2. Whether or not it is relevant to
determine whether the tarpaulins are political advertisement or election propaganda
considering that petitioner is not a political candidate. 3. Whether or not the
tarpaulins are a form of expression (protected speech), or election propaganda/p
olitical advertisement. (a) Assuming arguendo that the tarpaulins are a form of
expression, whether or not the COMELEC possesses the authority to regulate the s
ame. (b) Whether or not this form of expression may be regulated. 4. Whether or
not the 22 February 2013 Notice/Order by Election Officer Majarucon and the 27 F
ebruary 2013 Order by the COMELEC Law Department violate the Constitutional prin
ciple of separation of church and state. 5. Whether or not the action of the pet
itioners in posting its tarpaulin violates the Constitutional principle of separ
ation of church and state. OSG COMMENT: DIOCESE OF BACOLOD, et al. vs. COMELEC,
et al. ISSUES: 1. Whether or not petitioners availed of the proper remedy in ass
ailing respondents notice and letter ordering the removal of the subject tarpauli
n. 2. Whether or not the assailed order and notice issued by respondents are val
id and constitutional considering that the same allegedly violate the petitioner
s right to freedom of expression and the

principle of separation of Church and State enshrined in the 1987 Constitution.

ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSION: 1. A petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65
of the Rules of Court filed before this Honorable Court is not the proper remed
y to question the subject notice and letter of respondents. o Petitioners filed
the petition before the Honorable Court, claiming that they have no other plain,
speedy and adequate remedy to assail the notice and letter issued by the respon
dents. Contrary to their claim, prior resort to the COMELEC constitutes a plain,
speedy and adequate remedy that bars the petitioners from directly asking relie
f from the Honorable Court from the alleged injurious effects of the subject let
ter and notice. o In filing the instant suit, the petitioners violated the rule
on exhaustion of administrative remedies. Before a party is allowed to seek inte
rvention of the court, it is a pre-condition that he should have availed of all
the means of administrative processes afforded him. Petitioners should have firs
t brought the matter to the COMELEC En Banc or to any of its Divisions before go
ing directly to the Supreme Court via petition for certiorari and prohibition. o
The letter and notice issued by the respondents are not subject to review by th
e Supreme Court, as the power of the Court to review the decisions of the COMELE
C is limited only to final decisions, rulings and orders of the COMELEC en banc
rendered in the exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial power (citing Amb
il Jr. vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 143398 October 25, 2000). Considering that the assa
iled letter and notice are not final orders of the COMELEC En Banc rendered in t
he exercise of its adjudicatory and quasi-judicial functions but mere issuances
of Atty. Marjucom and the COMELEC Law Department, the same are not reviewable by
the Honorable Court but by the COMELEC itself. o Granting that the assailed not
ice and letter are subject to review by the Honorable Court, petitioners must be
able to show that respondents committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the same. Petitioners have not shown f
acts essential to prove that the assailed notice and letter were issued in a whim
sical, arbitrary

or capricious manner or the abuse of discretion is so patent and gross to amount to

grave abuse of discretion. The respondents issued the notice andletter pursuant
to the COMELECs mandate to regulate and supervise the use of mass media during e
lection period as embodied in the 1987 Constitution. 2. The subject tarpaulin is
an election propaganda subject to regulation by respondent COMELEC pursuant to
its mandate under Section 4, Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution. Hence, respo
ndents notice and letter ordering its removal for being oversized are valid and c
onstitutional. o In furtherance of COMELECs mandate to supervise and regulate ele
ctions, Congress enacted RA 9006 (the Fair Elections Act), giving the COMELEC po
wer to promulgate its own rules and regulations. Pursuant to this, COMELEC promu
lgated Resolution 9615 (Rules and Regulations Implementing RA 9006, in connectio
n to the 13 May 2013 National and Local Elections, and Subsequent Elections). Re
solution 9615 defines the following terms:
Election Campaign or Partisan Politic
al Activity- an act designed to promote the election of defeat of a particular ca
ndidate or candidates to a public office, and shall include, among others, the a
ct of directly or indirectly soliciting votes, pledges of support for or against
any candidate
Political Advertisement or Election Propaganda- any matter broadca
sted, published, printed, displayed or exhibited, in any medium, which contain t
he name, image, logo, brand, insignia, motif, initials,and other symbol or repre
sentation, that is capable of being associated with a candidate or a party, and
is intended to draw the attention of thepublic or a segment thereof to promote o
r oppose, directly or indirectly, the election of the said candidate or candidat
es to a public office From the definitions, the subject tarpaulin is a form of el
ection propaganda subject to regulation by the COMELEC pursuant to its mandate u
nder Section 4, Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution.

o
o
o
o
o
The subject tarpaulin contains the message CONSCIENCE VOTE and classifies the cand
idates into two groups, Team Buhay (with a check mark) and Team Patay (with a cross
mark). The check mark on Team Buhay and the cross mark on Team Patay convey to the p
ublic that those belonging to the Team Buhay should be voted while those under Team
Patay should be rejected. On its face, it is obvious that the tarpaulin is petit
ioners way of endorsing those candidates who voted against the RH Law and rejecti
ng those who voted for the said law. Petitioner also admitted in their petition
that they have called on its members and followers not to support any candidate w
ho is anti-life, and to support those who are prolife. These declarationsconfirm
that they put up the tarpaulin not merely to promote the Churchs position on the
RH Law but to express their support for or against the candidates listed therein
, depending on who they voted on the RH Law. Section 6 of Resolution 9615 sets t
he size limit for campaign posters to two feet by three feet. This is also embod
ied in section 82 of the Omnibus Election Code. The subject tarpaulin has the es
timated size of six feet by ten feet, which is beyond the maximum allowable size
for campaign posters for private properties. In ordering the removal of the tar
paulin, Atty. Marjucom, in her capacity as election officer, merely enforcedsect
ion 6 of Resolution 9615 and section 82 of the Omnibus Election Code. Similarly,
in issuing the assailed letter, the COMELEC Law Department only acted pursuant
to COMELECs regulatory and supervisory functions under the 1987 Constitution. Pet
itioners cannot claim that their right to freedom of expression has been violate
d. Petitioners are completely free to express their support for or against any c
andidate through the use of campaign posters and other forms of propaganda, prov
ided they comply with the limitations provided by law as regards their size. The
assailed notice and letter are not forms of censorship. The only reason that th
e respondents sought the removal of the tarpaulin is that it failed to comply wi
th the maximum allowable size provided by law. Assuming that the assailed notice
and letter amount to infringement of the petitioners right to freedom of express
ion, such encroachment is authorized by the Constitution itself. The

o
supervisory and regulatory powers of the COMELEC under the Constitution set to s
ome extent a limit on the right to free speech during the election period. By or
dering the petitioners to comply with the size requirement, the COMELEC was exer
cising its supervisory and regulatory authority for the purpose of ensuring equa
l opportunity for candidates for political office. The assailed notice and lette
r do not intrude into purely religious and ecclesiastical matters. They do not s
eek to regulate the content the subject tarpaulin, but only the size, which resp
ondents found to be in violation of Resolution 9615 and the Omnibus Election Cod
e. On its face, the subject tarpaulin does not convey any religious doctrine of
the Catholic Church. Rather, it is an election propaganda. The fact that the tar
paulin did not comply with Resolution 9615 and the Omnibus Election Code gave re
spondents reason to order its removal, consistent with COMELECs mandate to regula
te and supervise all form of media communication and information during election
period. Thus, respondents did not violate the principle of separation of Church
and State provided in the Constitution.
PRAYER: The Petition should be dismissed for lack of merit.