86.

Diocese of Bacolod vs COMELEC

FACTS:
On February 2013, petitioners posted two (2) tarpaulins within the compound of San Sebastian
Cathedral of Bacolod. Each tarpaulin was approximately 6×10 in size. They were posted on the
front walls of the cathedral within public view.

The first tarpaulin contains the message “IBASURA RH Law” referring to the Reproductive
Health Law of 2012 or Republic Act No. 10354. The second tarpaulin is the subject of the
present case. This tarpaulin contains the heading “Conscience Vote” and lists candidates as either
“(Anti-RH)/ Team Buhay” or “(Pro-RH)/Team Patay”.

The electoral candidates were classified according to their vote on the adoption of the RH Law.
Those who voted for the passing of the law were classified by petitioners as comprising “Team
Patay,” while those who voted against it form “Team Buhay”:

TEAM BUHAY TEAM PATAY

Estrada, JV Angara, Juan Edgardo
Honasan, Gregorio Casiño, Teddy
Magsaysay, Mitos Cayetano, Alan Peter
Pimentel, Koko Enrile, Jackie
Trillanes, Antonio Escudero, Francis
Villar, Cynthia Hontiveros, Risa
*Party List Legarda, Loren
Party List Buhay Gabriela, Akbayan, Bayan Muna, Anak Pawis Party List Ang Pamilya
Respondent Atty. Mavil V. Majarucon, as Election Officer of Bacolod City, issued a Notice to
Remove Campaign Materials addressed to petitioner Most Rev. Bishop Vicente M. Navarra,
otherwise, COMELEC will be constrained to file an election offense against the petitioners.

ISSUE:
Whether the act of the COMELEC infringes the Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech.

HELD:
On Freedom of Religion. As aptly argued by COMELEC, the tarpaulin, on its face, “does not
convey any religious doctrine of the Catholic church.” That the position of the Catholic church
appears to coincide with the message of the tarpaulin regarding the RH Law does not, by itself,
bring the expression within the ambit of religious speech. On the contrary, the tarpaulin clearly
refers to candidates classified under “Team Patay” and “Team Buhay” according to their
respective votes on the RH Law.
On Freedom of Speech. Embedded in the tarpaulin, are opinions expressed by petitioners. It is a
specie of expression protected by our fundamental law. There are several theories and schools of
thought that strengthen the need to protect the basic right to freedom of expression.
First, this relates to the right of the people to participate in public affairs, including the right to
criticize government actions. Speech that promotes dialogue on public affairs, or airs out
grievances and political discontent, should thus be protected and encouraged.
Second, free speech should be encouraged under the concept of a market place of ideas.
Third, free speech involves self-expression that enhances human dignity.
Fourth, expression is a marker for group identity.
Fifth, the Bill of Rights, free speech included, is supposed to “protect individuals and minorities
against majoritarian abuses perpetrated through [the] framework [of democratic governance]. ”
Lastly, free speech must be protected under the safety valve theory. In order to avoid this
situation and prevent people from resorting to violence, there is a need for peaceful methods in
making passionate dissent. Free speech must, thus, be protected as a peaceful means of achieving
one’s goal, considering the possibility that repression of nonviolent dissent may spill over to
violent means just to drive a point.
In the hierarchy of civil liberties, the rights of free expression and of assembly occupy a
preferred position as they are essential to the preservation and vitality of our civil and political
institutions; and such priority “gives these liberties the sanctity and the sanction not permitting
dubious intrusions.”

87. Gonzales vs. Katigbak

FACTS: Petitioner was the producer of the movie Kapit sa Patalim which the Board of
Review for Motion Pictures and Televisions allowed on condition that certain deletions were
made and that it was shown on adults only. The petitioner brought an action, claiming violation
of their freedom of expression.

HELD: Motion pictures are important both as a method for the communication of ideas and the
expression of the artistic impulse. The power of the Board is limited to the classification of films.
For freedom of expression is the rule and restrictions the exception. The power to impose prior
restraint is not to be presumed, rather the presumption is against its validity. Censorship is
allowable only under the clearest proof of a clear and present danger of a substantive evil to
public safety, public morals, public health or any other legitimate public interest. The Board
committed an abuse of discretion in subjecting petitioner to difficulty and travail before the
movie was classified as "For adults only" without deletion. However there is not enough votes to
consider the abuse of discretion grave as it explained that there were reasons for its action
because of the scenes showing women erotically dancing naked and kissing and caressing each
other like lesbians.