DIOCESE OF BACOLOD v. COMELEC, GR No.

205728, 2015-01-21
Facts:
This case defines the extent that our people may shape the
debates during elections.
We are asked to decide whether the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC) has the competence to limit expressions made by the
citizens who are not... candidates during elections.
special civil action for certiorari and prohibition with
application for preliminary injunction and temporary
restraining order... to nullify COMELEC's Notice to Remove
Campaign Materials... petitioners posted two (2) tarpaulins
within a private compound housing the San Sebastian Cathedral
of Bacolod.
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" with a check
mark, or "(Pro-RH) Team Patay" with an "X" mark
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":
During oral arguments, respondents conceded that the tarpaulin
was neither sponsored nor paid for by any candidate
On February 22, 2013, respondent Atty. Mavil V. Majarucon, in
her capacity as Election Officer of Bacolod City, issued a
Notice to Remove Campaign Materials[8] addressed to petitioner
Most Rev. Bishop Vicente M. Navarra.
election officer ordered the... tarpaulin's removal within
three (3) days from receipt for being oversized.
On February 27, 2013, COMELEC Law Department issued a
letter[12] ordering the immediate removal of the tarpaulin;
otherwise, it will be constrained to file an election offense
against petitioners. The letter of COMELEC Law Department was
silent on the... remedies available to petitioners. The letter
provides as follows:... please order/cause the immediate
removal of said election propaganda material, otherwise, we
shall be constrained to file an election offense case against
you.
Concerned about the imminent threat of prosecution for their
exercise of free speech, petitioners initiated this case
through this petition for certiorari and prohibition with
application for preliminary injunction and temporary
restraining order
They... question respondents' notice dated February 22, 2013
and letter issued on February 27, 2013.
this court, on March 5, 2013, issued a temporary restraining
order enjoining respondents from enforcing the assailed notice
and letter, and set oral arguments on March 19, 2013
Respondents insist that petitioners should have first brought
the matter to the COMELEC En Banc or any of its divisions.
Issues:
I
PROCEDURAL ISSUES
I.A
This court's jurisdiction over COMELEC cases
I.C
Hierarchy of courts
This brings us to the issue of whether petitioners violated
the doctrine of hierarchy of courts in directly filing their
petition before this court.
nvolving as it does the issue of whether the right of suffrage
includes the right of freedom of expression.
I.D
The concept of a political question
I.E
Exhaustion of administrative remedies
Ruling:
Respondents ask that this petition be dismissed on the ground
that the notice and letter are not final orders, decisions,
rulings, or judgments of the COMELEC En Banc issued in the
exercise of its adjudicatory powers, reviewable via Rule 64 of
the Rules of Court.[
Ambil, Jr. v. COMELEC
This court declared that it did not have jurisdiction and
clarified
This decision must be a final... decision or resolution of the
Comelec en banc, not of a division, certainly not an
interlocutory order of a division.
Repol v. COMELEC... this court provided exceptions to this
general rule.
This Court, however, has ruled in the past that this
procedural requirement [of filing a motion for
reconsideration] may be glossed over to prevent miscarriage of
justice, when the issue involves the principle of social
justice or the protection of labor, when the... decision or
resolution sought to be set aside is a nullity, or when the
need for relief is extremely urgent and certiorari is the only
adequate and speedy remedy available.
Ambil, Jr., Repol, Soriano, Jr., Blanco, and Cayetano cited by
respondents do not operate as precedents to oust this court
from taking jurisdiction over this case. All these cases cited
involve election protests or disqualification cases filed by
the losing... candidate against the winning candidate.
In the present case, petitioners are not candidates seeking
for public office. Their petition is filed to assert their
fundamental right to expression.
Furthermore, all these cases cited by respondents pertained to
COMELEC's exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial
power. This case pertains to acts of COMELEC in the
implementation of its regulatory powers.
In this case, the assailed issuances of respondents prejudice
not only petitioners' right to freedom of expression in the
present case, but also of others in future similar cases.
This has become a rare occasion when private citizens actively
engage the public in political discourse.
In the case before this court, there is a clear threat to the
paramount right of freedom of speech and freedom of expression
which warrants invocation of relief from this court. The
principles laid down in this decision will likely influence
the discourse of freedom of speech in... the future,
especially in the context of elections.
The right to suffrage not only includes the right to vote for
one's chosen candidate, but also the right to vocalize that
choice to the public in general, in the hope of influencing
their votes. It may be said that in an... election year, the
right to vote necessarily includes the right to free speech
and expression.
This court finds that this is indeed a case of first
impression
In this case, it is this court, with its constitutionally
enshrined judicial power, that can rule with finality on
whether COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion or
performed acts contrary to the Constitution through the
assailed issuances.
case was filed during the 2013 election period. Although the
elections have already been concluded, future cases may be
filed that necessitate urgency in its resolution.
this court affords great... respect to the Constitution and
the powers and duties imposed upon COMELEC. Hence, a ruling by
this court would be in the best interest of respondents, in
order that their actions may be guided accordingly in the
future.
In this case, the repercussions of the assailed issuances on
this basic right constitute an exceptionally compelling reason
to justify the direct resort to this court. The lack of other
sufficient remedies in the course of law alone is sufficient
ground to allow direct resort to... this court.
This case also poses a question of similar, if not greater
import. Hence, a direct action to this court is permitted.
While generally, the hierarchy of courts is respected, the
present case falls under the recognized exceptions and, as
such, may be resolved by this... court directly.
The argument on exhaustion of administrative remedies is not
proper in this case.
Despite the alleged non-exhaustion of administrative remedies,
it is clear that the controversy is already ripe for
adjudication.
Petitioners' exercise of their right to speech, given the
message and their medium, had understandable relevance
especially during the elections. COMELEC's letter threatening
the filing of the election offense against petitioners is
already an actionable infringement of this... right. The
impending threat of criminal litigation is enough to curtail
petitioners' speech.
In the context of this case, exhaustion of their
administrative remedies as COMELEC suggested in their
pleadings prolongs the violation of their freedom of speech.
Even assuming that the principle of exhaustion of
administrative remedies is applicable... current controversy
is within the exceptions to the principle. In Chua v.
Ang,[110] this court held:... e circumstances emphasized are
squarely applicable with the present case.
First, petitioners allege that the assailed issuances violated
their right to freedom of expression and the principle of
separation of church and state. This is a purely legal
question. Second, the... circumstances of the present case
indicate the urgency of judicial intervention considering the
issue then on the RH Law as well as the upcoming elections.
Thus, to require the exhaustion of administrative remedies in
this case would be unreasonable.
A FINAL NOTE
We maintain sympathies for the COMELEC in attempting to do
what it thought was its duty in this case. However, it was
misdirected.
But this caricature, though not agreeable to some, is still
protected speech.
Embedded in the tarpaulin, however, are opinions expressed by
petitioners.
It is a specie of expression protected by our fundamental law.
It is an expression designed to invite attention, cause
debate, and hopefully, persuade.
This is a form of speech hopeful of a quality of democracy
that we should all deserve. It is protected as a fundamental
and primordial right by our Constitution. The expression in
the medium chosen by petitioners deserves our protection.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The temporary
restraining order previously issued is hereby made permanent.
The act of the COMELEC in issuing the assailed notice dated
February 22, 2013 and letter dated February 27, 2013 is
declared... unconstitutional.
SO ORDERED.
Principles:
Rule 64 is not the exclusive remedy for all acts of the
COMELEC. Rule 65 is applicable especially to raise objections
relating to a grave abuse of discretion resulting in the
ouster of jurisdiction.[22] As a special civil action, there
must also be a... showing that there be no plain, speedy, and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.
general rule: Sc has no power to review cases decided by
COMELEC Division
The Supreme Court has no power to review via certiorari, an
interlocutory order or even a final resolution of a Division
of the Commission on
Elections.
Exception to the general rule
Based on ABS-CBN, this court could review orders and decisions
of COMELEC in electoral contests despite not being reviewed by
the COMELEC En Banc, if:

1.

It will prevent the miscarriage of justice;

2.

The issue involves a principle of social justice;

3.

The issue involves the protection of labor;

4.

The decision or resolution sought to be set aside is a

nullity; or

5.

The need for relief is extremely urgent and certiorari is the

only adequate and speedy remedy available.
In Bañez, Jr. v. Concepcion,[63] we explained the necessity of
the application of the hierarchy of courts:
The Court must enjoin the observance of the policy on the
hierarchy of courts, and now affirms that the policy is not to
be ignored without serious consequences. The strictness of the
policy is designed to shield the Court from having to deal
with causes that are... also well within the competence of the
lower courts, and thus leave time to the Court to deal with
the more fundamental and more essential tasks that the
Constitution has assigned to it. The Court may act on
petitions for the extraordinary writs of certiorari,
prohibition and... mandamus only when absolutely necessary or
when serious and important reasons exist to justify an
exception to the policy.[64]
In Bañez, we also elaborated on the reasons why lower courts
are allowed to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, and
mandamus,... The Supreme Court is a court of last resort, and
must so remain if it is to satisfactorily perform the
functions assigned to it by the fundamental charter and
immemorial tradition. It cannot and should not be burdened
with the task of dealing with causes in the first... instance.
Its original jurisdiction to issue the so-called extraordinary
writs should be exercised only where absolutely necessary or
where serious and important reasons exist therefore
Where the issuance of an extraordinary writ is also within the
competence of the Court of Appeals or a
Regional Trial Court, it is in either of these courts that the
specific action for the writ's procurement must be presented.
This is and should continue to be the policy in this regard, a
policy that courts and lawyers must strictly observe
The doctrine that requires respect for the hierarchy of courts
was created by this court to ensure that every level of the
judiciary performs its designated roles in an effective and
efficient manner
Trial courts... are likewise competent to determine issues of
law which may include the validity of an ordinance, statute,
or even an executive issuance in relation to the Constitution.
The Court of Appeals is primarily designed as an appellate
court that reviews the determination of facts and law made by
the trial courts. It is collegiate in nature. This nature
ensures more standpoints in the review of the actions of the
trial court. But the Court of Appeals... also has original
jurisdiction over most special civil actions. Unlike the trial
courts, its writs can have a nationwide scope. It is competent
to determine facts and, ideally, should act on constitutional
issues that may not necessarily be novel unless there are
factual... questions to determine.
This court, on the other hand, leads the judiciary by breaking
new ground or further reiterating in the light of new
circumstances or in the light of some confusions of bench or
bar existing precedents. Rather than a court of first instance
or as a repetition of the actions of... the Court of Appeals,
this court promulgates these doctrinal devices in order that
it truly performs that role.
Supreme Court's role to interpret the Constitution and act in
order to protect constitutional rights when these become
exigent should not be emasculated by the doctrine in respect
of the hierarchy of courts. That has never been the purpose of
such... doctrine.
Thus, the doctrine of hierarchy of courts is not an iron-clad
rule.[68] This court has "full discretionary power to take
cognizance and assume jurisdiction [over] special civil
actions for certiorari . . . filed directly with it for
exceptionally compelling... reasons[69] or if warranted by the
nature of the issues clearly and specifically raised in the
petition."[70] As correctly pointed out by petitioners,[71] we
have provided exceptions to this doctrine:
First... genuine issues of constitutionality that must be
addressed at the most immediate time.
A second exception... when the issues involved are of
transcendental importance
In these cases, the imminence and clarity of the threat to
fundamental constitutional rights outweigh the necessity for
prudence. The doctrine relating to constitutional... issues of
transcendental importance prevents courts from the paralysis
of procedural niceties when clearly faced with the need for
substantial protection.
Third, cases of first impression[75] warrant a direct resort
to this court. In cases of first impression, no jurisprudence
yet exists that will guide the lower courts on this matter
Fourth, the constitutional issues raised are better decided by
this court
Fifth, the time element presented in this case cannot be
ignored.
Sixth, the filed petition reviews the act of a constitutional
organ
Seventh, petitioners rightly claim that they had no other
plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law that could free them from the injurious effects of
respondents' acts in violation of their right to freedom of
expression
Eighth, the petition includes questions that are "dictated by
public welfare and the advancement of public policy, or
demanded by the broader interest of justice, or the orders
complained of were found to be patent nullities, or the appeal
was considered as clearly an... inappropriate remedy
Ripeness is the "prerequisite that something had by then been
accomplished or performed by either branch [or in this case,
organ of government]... before a court may come into the
picture."[106]
Political speech enjoys preferred protection within our
constitutional order.
ted expressions, political expression would occupy the...
highest rank, and among different kinds of political
expression, the subject of fair and honest elections would be
at the top."
Sovereignty resides in the people.[109] Political speech is a
direct exercise of the sovereignty. The... principle of
exhaustion of administrative remedies yields in order to
protect this fundamental right.
On the other hand, prior exhaustion of administrative remedies
may be dispensed with and judicial action may be validly
resorted to immediately: (a) when there is a violation of due
process; (b) when the issue involved is purely a legal
question; (c) when the... administrative action is patently
illegal amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; (d) when
there is estoppel on the part of the administrative agency
concerned; (e) when there is irreparable injury; (f) when the
respondent is a department secretary whose acts as an alter...
ego of the President bear the implied and assumed approval of
the latter; (g) when to require exhaustion of administrative
remedies would be unreasonable; (h) when it would amount to a
nullification of a claim; (i) when the subject matter is a
private land in land case... proceedings; (j) when the rule
does not provide a plain, speedy and adequate remedy; or (k)
when there are circumstances indicating the urgency of
judicial intervention
Time and again, we have held that this court "has the power to
relax or suspend the rules or to except a case from their
operation when compelling reasons so warrant, or when the
purpose of justice requires it, [and when] [w]hat constitutes
[as] good and sufficient cause that... will merit suspension
of the rules is discretionary upon the court".[112] Certainly,
this case of first impression where COMELEC has threatened to
prosecute private parties who seek to participate in the
elections by calling attention to issues they want... debated
by the public in the manner they feel would be effective is
one of those cases.