MEMORANDUM

FOR : ATTY. CID GARCIA

FROM : AERON B. HALOS (GPC SECRETARIAT)

SUBJECT : COMELEC MEMO

DATE : March 16, 2016

QUESTION PRESENTED

Whether or not the restrictions provided by the COMELEC on the sizes of campaign
materials are applicable to those in private properties

BRIEF ANSWER

Yes, if the campaign material “has for its principal object the endorsement of a candidate
1
only.” In such a case, Section 19 of COMELEC Resolution 10049 providing for a size limit on
campaign materials posted on private property shall be applicable.

However, if the supposed campaign material consists of social advocacy as was the case in
Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC,2 then the restrictions shall not be applicable as they would be
violative of the Constitutionally-guaranteed right to freedom of speech.

DISCUSSION

Section 19 of COMELEC Resolution 10049 provides:

Section 19. Posting of Campaign Materials. – Parties and candidates may post lawful campaign
material in:

XXXXX

b. Property, provided that the posting has the consent of the owner thereof and that the
applicable provisions of Sections 6 herein are complied with.
Section 6 of the same resolution provides:

1
G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015.

2
Ibid.
 Section 6.

XXXXX

a. Pamphlets, leaflets, cards, decals, stickers or other written or printed materials the size of which
does not exceed eight and one-half (8 ½) inches in width and fourteen (14) inches in length;
XXXXX

c.Posters made of cloth, paper, cardboard or any other material, whether framed or posted, with an
area not exceeding two (2) feet by three (3) feet;

Although Section 19 specifically refers to parties and candidates, the paragraph subsequent to it
does not make such a distinction. To wit:

The posting of campaign materials in public places outside of the designated common poster areas,
on private property without the consent of the owner or in violation of Section 6 hereof, and in those
places enumerated under Section 7 (f) of these rules and the like, is prohibited. (emphasis supplied)

The paragraph can be construed to prohibit the posting of oversized campaign materials regardless
of who does the posting may it be a party, a candidate, or a private person or whether it was posted
on a public or private property.

Such a restriction on posting of campaign materials by private individuals on private property is not
violative of the right to free speech according to the Supreme Court in the case of Diocese of
Bacolod v. COMELEC. In the said case, the Court ruled:

Regulation of election paraphernalia will still be constitutionally valid if it reaches into speech of
persons who are not candidates or who do not speak as members of a political party if they are not
candidates, only if what is regulated is declarative speech that, taken as a whole, has for its
principal object the endorsement of a candidate only. (emphasis supplied)

The Court added that the “regulation must only be with respect to the time, place, and manner of
the rendition of the message.” The court concluded that in such cases of valid regulation, “it will not
matter whether the speech is made with or on private property.”

Such restrictions, however, shall not be applicable when the campaign material consists of social
advocacy as was in the case of Diocese of Bacolod. Restricting the size of the campaign materials in
such situations would “render the speech meaningless” and “will amount to the abridgment of
speech with political consequences.”