Benise Balaoing, ABS-CBN News
The Commission on Elections on Friday denied accusations that they entered private property without permission to take down allegedly unlawful campaign materials.
The poll body has been under fire for the past few days after they took down allegedly oversized campaign materials in private property.
“As far as entering private areas is concerned Mike, it’s always been part of the practice of Comelec to ask for permission,” Comelec spokesperson James Jimenez told ANC’s “Rundown.”
“Even in the last couple of days, when all of this was really blowing up, what was not being said was that in those cases where they entered into private spaces, the people had asked for permission. Humingi sila ng paalam.”
“We do not go invade spaces, we do not go invade private residences, for the purpose of enforcing our rules. We always ask for permission,” Jimenez added.
“If the property owner says ‘Yeah, I consent to you taking it down but can you do it for me?’ Then yes, we do it for them. But in cases where the property owner says ‘No, I’ll do it myself,’ we leave them alone.”
“If they are not compliant, if they don’t wanna take it down, then we advise them of what our next moves are going to be. Obviously our next moves are going to be citing them in violation of election rules and that would of course lead to all sorts of consequences.”
“Once they get that explanation, some remain adamant and some comply. So that’s all we do,” he said.
Jimenez also addressed the concerns about the presence of policemen during the Comelec’s “Oplan Baklas” operations.
“I certainly did not see any evidence of people being addressed by these armed persons, they were being addressed by Comelec personnel. And armed persons going around sorties of Comelec is pretty standard protective behavior, right?” he said.
“We do have to protect our people going around. That does not mean that these people are being used to coerce private citizens,” he added.
Lawyers have criticized the Comelec’s actions, noting that dismantling campaign materials in private property may be against the law.
In a TeleRadyo interview, Atty. Emil Marañon stressed that the Supreme Court has ruled on the issue of placing election campaign materials on private property.
“Under the law po, yung maximum size ng poster na pwedeng ikabit ng isang kandidato is or political party is only 2 feet by 3 feet po, so that’s very clear. Ang question lang po is kung whether or not nag-aa-apply ba yung size requirement doon sa private citizen na hindi naman nagfo-fall doon sa category na candidate or political party.”
“So this case actually went to the Supreme Court (SC) during the 2013 elections, and it was decided in a case in 2015, in a ponencia written po by Justice (Marvic) Leonen sinasabi niya doon, na hindi po saklaw ng regulatory powers ng Comelec yung private citizens, therefore po ay hindi din po siya sakop ng regulasyon as regards to size.”
“So in other words kahit po lumagpas ng 2 ft. by 3 ft. po yan, hindi po nava-violate nila yung batas regards ng size requirement,” he explained.
The election lawyer added, “Ang sinasabi ng Korte Suprema po, is protected right daw po yan, protected speech--yung paglalagay ng poster supporting endorsing, or opposing a candidate, saklaw ho yan ng ating freedom of expression po.”
Jimenez, however, said that Comelec can regulate poster sizes on private property to ensure a “level playing field” in the election process.
“If you were to pursue certain interpretations of jurisprudence to its logical conclusion, you’d have a situation where a candidate can actually have an entire building covered in their election propaganda, and no one will be able to do anything about it.”
“In such a situation, you’d have an election system that really depends on the number of rich friends you have. And is that really the sort of election system that we have?”
“The need to regulate, even just the size, of propaganda materials inside private properties stems from the need to ensure a level playing field,” he explained.
But University of the Philippines Constitutional Law Professor Dante Gatmaytan said that freedom of speech of citizens trumps the Comelec’s justifications.
“The Supreme Court in the diocese case was actually very categorical that size matters. The fact [is] that the Supreme Court said that.”
“Aside from the fact that the Comelec has no authority to regulate speech by non-candidates, the Court also said that regulating the size impairs the speech.”
“In addition to simply not having the authority, regulating tarpaulins and the campaign paraphernalia of non-candidates can also diminish free speech and therefore it was also frowned upon by the court,” he said.
Gatmaytan noted that the Comelec’s move seems to be restricting political speech in the time of an election
“It’s important for us to protect that right, especially in an election…where political views naturally have to be aired,” he said.
No comments:
Post a Comment