This election’s campaign rules, promulgated by the Commission on Elections (Comelec), have been shaped by the Supreme Court’s decisions on a number of cases. Candidates now have the freedom to buy up virtually as much airtime as their spending limits will allow, and public-utility vehicles—buses, jeepneys and taxis—will probably soon become rolling poster boards for your favorite politicians.
The most important change, however, has to be the one wrought by Diocese of Bacolod v. Comelec. In that case involving Team Patay/Team Buhay posters, the Court held that the Comelec could not regulate campaign propaganda placed on private property, with the consent of the property owner. This was the Comelec’s position to begin with. Where the Court and the Comelec differed, however, was with regard to the sizes of the posters. The Comelec believed that size could still be regulated; the Court disagreed.
Here’s where things turn surreal. Now the argument has cropped up that, since billboards are private property, the Comelec is equally powerless to regulate their use for political purposes. That’s right. Billboards. Those huge things by the side of the road that normally show the most beautiful people doing their best to convince the rest of us that we can look like them, too, if only we buy their jeans. Imagine, instead of big-name stars, those billboards featured politicians running for office.
I don’t know why anyone would even entertain this notion, given that the reliance on diocese is so clearly misplaced. In that case, the Court demonstrated its awareness of the possibility of abuse. It said: “On the other extreme, moved by the credentials and the message of a candidate, others will spend their own resources in order to lend support for the campaigns. This may be without agreement between the speaker and the candidate, or his or her political party. In lieu of donating funds to the campaign, they will instead use their resources directly in a way that the candidate or political party would have done so.” This is the exact same argument being put forward by those who want to exempt billboards from campaign regulation; an argument that the Court recognized may effectively skirt the constitutional and statutory limits of campaign spending.
And so the Court clarified: “This is not the situation in this case.”
Otherwise put, the decision in Diocese was never meant to excuse the scenario being proposed by those who believe that billboards should be considered unregulated private property. In fact, the diocese itself says: “This does not mean that there cannot be a species of speech by a private citizen which will not amount to an election paraphernalia to be validly regulated by law;” and then goes on to provide for situations where, in the context of regulation, “it will not matter whether the speech is made with or on private property.”
Yeah, billboards. I’m looking at you.
****
Don’t forget to report campaign violations to the Comelec on Twitter, using the hashtag #SumbongKo. Voter vigilance is key.
James Arthur B. Jimenez is director of the Commission on Elections’s Education and Information Department.