St. Anthony College of Roxas City, Inc. vs. Commission on Elections

The COMELEC's authority to regulate the size and posting of election propaganda under the Fair Election Act (R.A. No. 9006) and its implementing resolutions is confined to materials produced or displayed by, or on behalf of, candidates and political parties. Consequently, the seizure and destruction of privately-owned election materials displayed on private property, absent any coordination with a candidate or party, constitute an impermissible encroachment on the constitutional rights to freedom of speech and property.

During the campaign period for the May 9, 2022 national and local elections, petitioners—a college, a doctor, and another individual—owned and displayed tarpaulins, posters, and other materials endorsing the presidential candidacy of former Vice President Maria Leonor Gerona Robredo on their respective private properties. Acting under "Oplan Baklas" and pursuant to COMELEC Resolution No. 10730, COMELEC regional and field officers dismantled, removed, and confiscated these materials on the ground that they were "oversized" (exceeding the 2 ft. x 3 ft. limit for posters). The COMELEC maintained that all such materials constituted "election propaganda" subject to its regulatory power to ensure fair elections and minimize spending.

• Parties and Materials: Petitioners St. Anthony College of Roxas City, Inc., Dr. Pilita De Jesus Liceralde, and Dr. Anton Mari Hao Lim owned and displayed tarpaulins and posters endorsing presidential candidate Maria Leonor "Leni" Robredo on their private properties (a school building, a private residence, and a family-owned volunteer center).
• COMELEC Action: Pursuant to "Oplan Baklas" and COMELEC Resolution No. 10730, COMELEC officers, sometimes accompanied by police, removed these materials for being "oversized" (exceeding 2 ft. x 3 ft.). Petitioners received letters demanding removal within 24 hours or face election offense charges.
• Petitioners' Response: Petitioners sent demand letters to COMELEC officers arguing the removal was illegal and unconstitutional, but received no response. They subsequently filed the instant petition, alleging violations of their rights to free speech and property.
• COMELEC's Position: The COMELEC argued the materials were "election propaganda" subject to regulation. It cited Section 82 of the Omnibus Election Code (B.P. Blg. 881) and Section 3 of R.A. No. 9006 as legal bases for the size restriction, contending the regulation was a valid, content-neutral time, place, and manner restriction justified by compelling state interests (equal opportunity, orderly elections, minimizing spending).

• Statutory Scope: Petitioners argued that R.A. No. 9006 and its implementing rules (COMELEC Resolution No. 10730) regulate only election propaganda of candidates and political parties, not privately-funded materials of private citizens. The COMELEC therefore acted without legal basis.
• Freedom of Speech: The removal constituted content-based censorship of political speech, the highest form of protected expression, which fails the clear and present danger test.
• Property Rights: The COMELEC's trespass onto private property to confiscate privately-owned materials violated their right to property without due process of law.

• Regulatory Authority: The COMELEC argued that all materials endorsing a candidate are "election propaganda" subject to its broad constitutional and statutory power to regulate the time, place, and manner of election propaganda to ensure fair elections.
• Legal Bases: It cited Section 82 of the Omnibus Election Code (which does not distinguish between candidates and private persons) and Section 3 of R.A. No. 9006 as providing the 2x3 feet size limit.
• Valid Regulation: The size restriction is a content-neutral, reasonable, and narrowly tailored regulation that serves compelling state interests and does not abridge free speech.

• Statutory Authority: Whether the COMELEC has legal authority under R.A. No. 9006 or the Omnibus Election Code to regulate the size of privately-owned election materials displayed by private individuals on their own property.
• Constitutional Rights: Whether the COMELEC's "Oplan Baklas," as implemented against the petitioners, violated their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression and to property.

• Statutory Authority: The COMELEC acted without legal authority. R.A. No. 9006 (the Fair Election Act) and its implementing rules (including COMELEC Resolution No. 10730) expressly and repeatedly limit their application to "registered political parties" and "bona fide candidates." The provisions on posting campaign materials (e.g., Section 9 of R.A. No. 9006, Section 20 of Resolution No. 10730) refer only to parties and candidates. Since the petitioners' materials were privately funded and displayed without coordination with any candidate or party, they fall outside the scope of these regulations. Section 82 of the Omnibus Election Code was impliedly repealed by R.A. No. 9006, as the later law introduced an irreconcilable inconsistency by expressly limiting the definition of election propaganda to candidates and parties.
• Constitutional Rights: The seizure violated petitioners' rights. Absent a valid statutory basis, the removal of the materials constituted an impermissible encroachment on the right to freedom of political speech and on property rights. The Court applied the test from Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC: even if the speech were declarative election paraphernalia, the regulation must be provided by law, reasonable, narrowly tailored, and the least restrictive means. Here, the regulation failed the first prong as it lacked a law applicable to private persons.

• Diocese of Bacolod Test for Regulating Private Electoral Speech — For a regulation of speech by private persons (not candidates or parties) in an electoral context to be valid, it must: (a) be provided by law; (b) be reasonable; (c) be narrowly tailored to enhance the opportunity of all candidates to be heard while considering the primacy of free expression; and (d) be demonstrably the least restrictive means to achieve its object. The regulation must only govern the time, place, and manner of the speech and cannot be based on content. The Court found the COMELEC's action failed the first requirement.
• Implied Repeal by Irreconcilable Inconsistency — A later statute (R.A. No. 9006) may impliedly repeal an earlier one (Section 82, Omnibus Election Code) if they cover the same subject matter and are so clearly inconsistent that they cannot be harmonized. The Court found such inconsistency in the scope of regulated persons (candidates/parties vs. all persons) and in specific operational details (e.g., duration for displaying streamers).

• "To apply the size restrictions under Republic Act No. 9006 to the political speech of private persons would be to unduly expand the COMELEC's mandate and ignore the law's repeated and express references to candidates and political parties only." (On the statutory limitation of COMELEC's power)
• "The Court has always protected political speech as one of the most important expressions guaranteed by the Constitution, and freedom of speech and expression is at the core of civil liberties and must be protected at all costs for the sake of democracy." (On the primacy of political speech)
• "Nothing less than the electorate's political speech will be affected by the restrictions imposed by COMELEC... 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." (Citing Diocese of Bacolod on the standard for evaluating speech restrictions)

• Diocese of Bacolod v. Commission on Elections, 751 Phil. 301 (2015) — Controlling precedent. The Court applied its doctrinal test for regulating private electoral speech and its holding that R.A. No. 9006's regulations apply only to candidates and political parties.
• Social Weather Stations, Inc. v. Commission on Elections, 757 Phil. 483 (2015) — Followed. The Court reiterated the Diocese of Bacolod test as the required judicial temperament for appraising speech principally designed to endorse a candidate.
• Genuino v. Commission on Audit, G.R. Nos. 230818 & 244540 (2023) — Followed for the doctrine on implied repeal by irreconcilable inconsistency.

• Section 3, Republic Act No. 9006 (Fair Election Act) — Defines lawful election propaganda as allowed for "registered political parties... and for all bona fide candidates." The Court held this limits the scope of regulated materials.
• Section 9, Republic Act No. 9006 — Governs the posting of campaign materials, mentioning only "political parties," "party-list groups," and "candidates." Held to confirm the law's limited applicability.
• Section 82, Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 (Omnibus Election Code) — Cited by COMELEC as a basis for size limits. The Court held it was impliedly repealed by R.A. No. 9006.
• COMELEC Resolution No. 10730 (2021) — Implementing rules for the 2022 elections. The Court noted its provisions (e.g., Sections 6, 20) also refer only to "parties and candidates."
• Article IX-C, Section 2(7), 1987 Constitution — Grants COMELEC the power to recommend measures to minimize election spending. The Court did not find this authorized the specific action taken.
• Article III, Sections 1 & 9, 1987 Constitution — Guarantee freedom of speech/expression and the right to property. The Court found these were violated by the COMELEC's actions.

Hernando, Zalameda, Gaerlan, Rosario, J. Lopez, Dimaampao, and Singh, JJ., concur. Gesmundo, C.J., Please see separate opinion. Leonen, SAJ., concur. See separate opinion. Lazaro-Javier, J., on official business but left her vote. See concurrence. Inting and Kho, Jr., JJ., no part.

• Justice M. Lopez — Please see dissent. (The summary of the dissenting opinion's main points is not provided in the decision text.)