PRIVATE individuals who are supporters of Vice President Leni Robredo yesterday asked the Supreme Court to stop the Commission on Elections from dismantling or confiscating election materials such as tarpaulins and posters that are privately owned and funded and installed within private properties under its “Oplan Baklas” campaign.
In a 52-page petition filed through their counsel, Ray Paolo Santiago, the petitioners asked the high court to declare as unconstitutional the Comelec action, which it said was based allegedly on the poll body’s wrong interpretation and implementation of Sections 21 (o), 24 and 26 of Comelec Resolution No. 10730.
Named respondents in the petition were the Comelec and its spokesperson James Jimenez.
The petitioners included, among others, Dr. Pilita de Jesus Liceralde, one of the convenors of the Isabela for Leni group; Dr. Anton Mari Hao Lim, one of the convenors of Zamboangueños for Leni; and St. Anthony College of Roxas City.
In their plea, the petitioners asserted that Comelec Resolution 10730 applies only to candidates and political parties, and not to private individuals like them.
Section 21 (o) bars the installation of election propaganda material outside the common poster areas except on private property with the consent of the owner and must comply with the allowable 2ft x 3 ft requirements for posters.
Section 24 of the Comelec resolution provides that only one signboard, not exceeding three feet by eight feet in size, identifying the place as the headquarters of the party of candidates is allowed to be displaced.
On the other hand, Section 26 states that “any prohibited form of election propaganda shall be stopped, confiscated, removed, destroyed or torn down by Comelec representatives at the expense of the candidate or political party for whose apparent benefit the prohibited election propaganda materials have been produced, displayed and disseminated.”
Jimenez said that unless a temporary restraining order (TRO) is issued by the SC, the Comelec will continue taking down unlawful campaign paraphernalia for the May 9 polls.
“If the TRO is issued, then we will respect the TRO. But until we are restrained officially by the court, these operations will continue,” Jimenez said.
“If there are ongoing daily operations, though it may be not on the same scale, as a matter of abatement, then we will do the removal,” said Jimenez.
The petitioners told the high court that the rights of private individuals to express their beliefs in relation to the election of public officials have already been decided by the Supreme Court in the case of the Diocese of Bacolod versus the Comelec.
The said SC ruling held that the regulation of the posting of campaign materials and the definition of lawful election propaganda under Section 9 and E, respectively, of RA 9006 or the Fair Elections Act, only apply to candidates, political parties and party list groups.
The petitioners said nowhere in RA 9006 was it mentioned that the poll body’s prohibitions could be applied to private individuals.
“Hence, it is not within the power of the Comelec to include non-candidates under its regulatory powers, when said non-candidates were not referred to in the said law,” the petitioners said, stressing: “The poll body cannot prescribe and implement what the law does not provide. Comelec had no legal basis to regulate expressions made by private citizens. Petitioners are not candidates. Neither do they belong to any political party.
Comelec does not have the authority to regulate the enjoyment of the preferred right to freedom of expression exercised by a non-candidate in this case.”
The petitioners said that to allow the poll body to continue taking down tarpaulins, posters and other election materials posted by private individuals in their private properties would contravene the SC ruling, and more importantly, the fundamental freedoms of speech, expression and due process of law, which were all upheld by the SC in their decision on the Diocese of Bacolod case.
“By imposing size restrictions on these tarpaulins and posters and by taking them down and confiscating them, public respondents are not only unlawfully encroaching on one’s private property but also infringing on the fundamental freedom of expression of the petitioners,” they said.
“The wrong interpretation and implementation of Comelec Resolution No. 10730 cannot override and supersede constitutionally guaranteed rights; more so if it is expressed within the confine of ones’ private property,” they added.
They also stressed that there is no requirement under existing laws for non-candidates to comply with any size requirement of election paraphernalia when expressing their choice or endorsement of candidates via posters, tarps, sign boards or murals.
Baguio City Regional Trial Court Judge Maria Ligaya Itliong Rivera on Monday issued a temporary restraining order against the local Comelec office from enforcing Comelec Resolution No. 10732 that required volunteers and supporters of political candidates to get a permit for all of their campaign activities.
Rivera issued the 72-hour TRO after supporters of Robredo filed a lawsuit questioning the legality of the directive.
In her two-page order, Rivera acknowledged the petitioners’ rights of freedom of expression and assembly would suffer “grave and irreparable injury” because of the resolution.
Lawyer Karina Gay Balajadia Liggayu, who was among those who filed the petition, said they asked the court to issue a TRO against the Comelec to clarify if the poll body’s rules also included volunteers without direct ties to any official campaign or political party, and were not under the employ of any of the candidates.
The petitioners also asked the court to invalidate the Comelec campaign rules. — With Gerard Naval
