Freedom of expression is a fundamental constitutional right that is the lifeblood of democracy. It guarantees and encourages a free discourse — an open exchange of views to help shape public opinion — to ensure a vibrant democracy.

This basic right is enshrined in the Constitution and should not be trampled upon by anyone — whether the powerful or the weak, the rich or the poor.

Article III, Section 4 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution is very clear. “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.” 

This constitutional right was once again upheld by the Supreme Court when it ruled recently that the removal and destruction of privately owned political campaign materials displayed on private properties is unconstitutional.

The High Tribunal’s ruling stemmed from a petition filed by St. Anthony College of Roxas City, Inc. against the Commission on Elections (Comelec). The poll body, which  was then enforcing “Oplan Baklas” under Republic Act No. 9006 (The Fair Election Act) and Comelec Resolution 10730, confiscated and destroyed political campaign materials displayed in the school premises. Oplan Baklas is the poll body’s campaign to take down political campaign materials it deemed illegal.

While the Supreme Court recognized “the zeal and dedication with which the Comelec performs its duties and fulfills its mandate to ensure free and fair elections, the best intentions cannot justify impermissible infringements on constitutional rights.”

The High Tribunal said “the Comelec’s implementation of Oplan Baklas as against St. Anthony, et al., is unconstitutional as it exceeded the bounds of permissible regulation under RA 9006 and Comelec Resolution No. 10730.”

In its ruling, the SC made it clear that the Comelec may validly implement Oplan Baklas against candidates and political parties. However, the SC said, the poll body cannot do the same against private individuals who are expressing their political preferences or support for a candidate or political party.

The Supreme Court stressed that it “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.”

In another decision issued in 2015 in the case of Diocese of Bacolod vs Comelec, the Supreme Court ruled that the “Comelec had no legal basis to regulate expressions made by private citizens… 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 case involves the display of political propaganda using tarpaulin inside the church premises.

In the same ruling, the High Tribunal stressed that “limiting the maximum size of the tarpaulin would render ineffective petitioners’ message and violate their right to exercise freedom of expression.”

These two rulings serve as a reminder to everyone that the right to freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press is guaranteed by the Constitution—no ifs or buts.

Let’s all respect these rights.