Oversized campaign ads masquerading as free expression

A day before the official campaign period for local elective posts began, I thought I would be seeing the last of those private billboards along our main thoroughfares featuring the names and faces of local candidates. I was wrong.

Thus, I looked more closely into the laws governing campaign advertisements. Apparently, the relevant Comelec resolutions implementing the Fair Elections Act, along with the loose interpretation of a Supreme Court decision, are what make a mockery of our electoral system possible.

Our election laws that regulate the size and placement of campaign materials, including posters and billboards, are grounded on a key principle: to level the playing field, or at least give some semblance of equal opportunity among candidates. Without limits, candidates or parties with the most resources can flood public spaces with campaign materials, drowning out lesser-known candidates or those with considerably fewer resources.

But this principle is defeated by what I deem a misappreciation of the law’s purpose. Stakeholders invoke the Supreme Court’s decision in Diocese of Bacolod v. Comelec (2015) to underscore the inutility of our regulators when measured against the country’s proclaimed commitment to fair elections.

Yet the Diocese of Bacolod v. Comelec case was fundamentally about freedom of expression. That the standards of free expression invoked in that context are now being applied to clear and obvious campaign advertisements on private properties strikes me as one of the most misguided applications of election law in our country.

Some might insist on quibbling over the distinction between “private property” and “public space.” They argue that billboards standing on private land --even if they tower over highways and buildings and are visible to thousands daily-- are purely private and therefore beyond regulation. That, to put it mildly, is the height of tragic comedy.

Are we really allowing larger-than-authorized campaign materials on private property, including massive billboards, just because the owner consents? Apparently so, since we still see them everywhere. They say it’s part of a private person’s freedom of expression. Wow, just wow.

Just because a billboard stands on private land doesn’t mean its influence is private; its audience is public. This kind of unchecked visibility breaks what election laws are meant to protect --fairness and a bit of decency in how we choose our leaders. The rich get more space, more eyes, more time. Their friends own the land, hang the banners, and call it legal.

The Diocese of Bacolod case and pertinent Comelec resolutions are now being used to justify unchecked campaign propaganda on private property during elections. This was never meant to be the consequence of that ruling. At its core, Diocese of Bacolod was a case about freedom of expression. The Supreme Court struck down the Comelec’s notice to remove the 'Team Patay/Team Buhay' tarpaulins. The tarpaulins were not considered standard campaign materials but rather advocacy-based, faith-informed messages urging a 'conscience vote' based on the candidates’ stance on the Reproductive Health Law. The court ruled that the Church was not campaigning for any specific candidate; it was expressing its views on a national issue as part of moral and religious discourse.

So the Supreme Court decision protected political speech. It was about issues and the right to speak one’s mind, not about giant ads plastered on billboards or buildings to obviously promote a candidate. That’s why applying Diocese of Bacolod to billboards designed to win votes is absurd. These are not the same thing. These billboard campaign ads are not 'free speech' in the same way. If we call this freedom of expression, we make the term hollow. We turn it into a cover for election-related activities it was never meant to protect.

It’s also quite dangerous to equate a church’s moral stand with a campaign ad on a private billboard. And just because a billboard stands on private land doesn’t mean it’s private. If people can see it from the street, it hovers over public space, clearly intended to influence votes.

The Diocese of Bacolod case may also need revisiting. A poster that tells, or even just suggests, who people should vote for or against, even if tied to an issue, is still campaign material during the campaign season. It should follow the law on placement, size, and content. Even if it’s on private property. Even if the owner consents.

If we don’t draw clear distinctions, we might as well drop any pretense of regulating toward fair elections.