Church and state on politics: Diocese of Bacolod vs Comelec

My class in Constitutional Law is holding a series of Oregon style debates on the Proposition: Resolved that the Church should not be excluded from election-related discussions on issues that concern human dignity, human rights, freedom and liberty. Central to the arguments is the famous Supreme Court En Banc decision in the case of Diocese of Bacolod vs Comelec, GR 205728, decided on January 15, 2015 through the brilliant mind of Justice Mario Victor F Leonen. This case may come out in the Bar Exams come September.

The senatorial elections of 2013 will be remembered in history as the time when the candidates were divided into those who supported the Reproductive Health Law or RH Law pushed by the then President and those who opposed it. The Diocese of Bacolod posted in front of the city cathedral two huge tarpaulins, six feet by ten feet in size. It contained two groups of senatorial bets. Those who opposed the RH, named under the heading "Team Buhay" and given a “check” sign were: JV Ejercito, Gringo Honasan, Koko Pimentel, Antonio Trillanes, Cynthia Villar, Mitos Magsaysay, Party List Buhay and Party List Ang Pamilya. Those who supported the RH, were listed under "Team Patay" with an “x” sign were: Sonny Angara, Alan Cayetano, Chiz Escudero, Risa Hontiveros, Loren Legarda, Jackie Enrile, Teddy Casino and Party Lists Gabriela, Akbayan, Anak Pawis and Bayan Muna.

The city election officer of Bacolod, Atty Mavil Majarucon, on February 22, 2013 issued an order to Bishop Vicente Navarra to remove the tarpaulin within three days for being oversized. It was the size not the content that was targeted. The bishop replied asking for a legal opinion of the Comelec Legal Department and pending the issuance of that opinion, the tarpaulin should remain. On February 27, 2013, the Comelec Law Department issued an order to the diocese to remove the tarpaulin, with a veiled threat of prosecution and a rather succinct declaration: "We pray that the Catholic Church will be the first institution to help the Comlec in ensuring the conduct of peaceful, orderly, honest and credible elections." The diocese went to the Supreme Court in the name of the fundamental right to free expression.

After a long and learned discourses on the legal philosophies and jurisprudential treatises, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the diocese and against the Comelec. First of all, the highest court of the land held that the Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction and unduly infringed on the right of the diocese members to freedom of expression. The Court said: "Nothing less than the electorate's political speech will be affected by the restrictions imposed by Comelec. Political speech is motivated by the desire to be heard and understood, to move to action. It is concerned with the sovereign right to change the contours of powers whether through the election of representatives in a republican government or the revision of the basic text of the Constitution." It was a complete victory of the freedom of the people against the impositions of the strong arms of government.

The writer of the landmark Decision, Justice Leonen, an icon of liberty and democracy, was a brilliant UP law professor and dean and one of the few appointees of President PNoy to the Supreme Court. It is noted that his ruling here concurred in by the majority of the 15 Justices was against the stand of President PNoy. He wrote: "The zeal with which we protect this kind of speech does not depend on our evaluation of the cogency of the message. Neither do we assess whether we should protect speech based on the motives of Comelec. We evaluate restrictions on freedom of expression from their effects. we protect both speech and medium because the quality of this freedom in practice will define the quality of deliberation in our democratic society."

In conclusion, the summary of the Supreme Court's ruling was: first, the Comelec had no legal basis to regulate expressions made by private citizens. Second, the Comelec violated the freedom of expression. Third, size doesn't matter. No matter how big or small the tarpaulin, Comelec violated the freedom of expression. Fourth, the Comelec made a content-based regulation, which exacerbates the violation. Fifth, the Comelec violated the right to property. Remember that the tarpaulin was posted in the private property of the diocese. Sixth, the tarpaulin did not violate the principle of separation between church and state because the tarpaulin was not a religious expression. Seventh, what the Diocese did was a legitimate participation of citizens in a democratic process. Eight, the Comelec had no right to interfere.

Like my students who are future lawyers, there are many things that we can learn from cases like this. As concerned Filipinos, we need to participate in conversations that can help shape national opinion on matters of public interest.