SANGGUNIAN NG MGA MAG-AARAL NG MGA

PAARALANG LOYOLA NG ATENEO DE MANILA

STUDENT JUDICIAL COURT

CHRISTIAN I. DY
Petitioner
v.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
Respondent
Present: Pepito C.M., and Gaite, Pineda, Segismundo, Sta. Isabel, and Villaruel MM.
Citation: 2015 SJC 1
Issued: February 16, 2015

PER CURIAM.
Procedure
1. This cause originates from a petition (No. 1501) filed by Christian I. Dy
(Petitioner) on February 9, 2015. The Petitioner questions certain provisions on the
campaign manual issued by the Commission on Elections (Commisson) to candidates
in Sanggunian elections which requires them to submit their campaign paraphernalia
for approval prior to their actual production and posting. The Commission filed its
reply and counterarguments (No. 1502) to this petition on February 11, 2015.
Summary of the Petitioners appeals and arguments
2. The Petitioners main argument is against the Commissions policy of the prior
approval of campaign paraphernalia. Against this the Petitioner cites Art. IV Sec. 1 of
the Magna Carta of Undergraduate Student Rights (Magna Carta) stating the right
against prior restraint. The Petitioner states several arguments against the policy of
prior restraint. He argues that the requirement to have paraphernalia approved can
unjustly disadvantage candidates due to delays in the process. He also argues that the
power to review content is tantamount to the power of censorship. The Petitioner thus
appeals for the policy of prior approval to be declared unconstitutional.
Summary of the Respondents reply and counterarguments
3. The Respondents main argument is that their policy of prior approval is based on
the regulations prescribed by the Office of Student Activities (OSA) and the
Department of Student Welfare and Services (DSWS). The Respondent argues that all
promotional materials disseminated by students in the Loyola Schools must undergo a
process of prior approval.
Controversy
4. The issue before the Court is if certain provisions in the campaign manual are
unconstitutional.

Judgment

2015 SJC 1

I. ON THE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

5. In consequence to the Petitioners appeal to have the Commissions policy of prior
approval be declared unconstitutional, he also appealed that a temporary restraining
order be issued on the implementation of said the policy, while pending the judgment of
the Court.
6. It appeared from the receipt of the Commissions reply to the petition that the
policies being assailed by the Petitioner were connected to school policies. The Court
thus gave the Commission the benefit of the doubt and chose to exercise restraint on the
matter to avoid any unforeseen conflicts with school policies that were beyond its
jurisdiction. The Court thus refrained from issuing a temporary restraining order.
Ruling
7. The Court has denied the request for a temporary restraining order.
II. ON COMPLIANCE WITH SCHOOL POLICIES
8. The Court first considers the Petitioners arguments against the Commissions
policy of prior approval. The Petitioner questions Commissions policy that requires, in
his words, candidates to submit their campaign paraphernalia for approval prior to
their actual production and posting. The concerned part of the petition states:
Ateneo Commission on Elections issued a campaign manual to
candidates for this years General Elections. Certain provisions
require candidates to submit their campaign
paraphernalia for approval prior to their actual
production and posting. As a student afforded with certain
rights by the Magna Carta for Students Rights and as a candidate
for the 2015 Sanggunian General Elections, I, CHRISTIAN I. DY
(II- AB Economics-Honors Program) hereby petition the honorable
Court to declare unconstitutional and consequently nullify these
provisions. The following are arguments in favor of such
resolution:
(emphasis ours)

9. Article XIV Sec. 4 of the Constitution provides for the Electoral Code. Meanwhile,
Art. 6 Sec. 2 of the Electoral Code provides the legal basis for the campaign manual
which is issued on a per-election basis. A thorough reading of the campaign manual, as
currently in effect for the upcoming election, shows that it prescribes regulations about
the allowed type and quantity of campaign paraphernalia that can be used by
candidates as well as any additional regulations related to campaigning. Furthermore,
it shows several types of campaigning defined by the Commission. Regarding the use of
campaign paraphernalia, two classifications are given: tangible and non-tangible.
Tangible campaign paraphernalia are defined as: banners, streamers, posters, teasers,
and body tags. Non-tangible campaign paraphernalia are defined as: e-mail, IM, SMS;
classroom-to-classroom campaigning; mass action; and video campaigning.
10. Part A.3, page 3 of the campaign manual states the procedure for the use of
tangible campaign paraphernalia:
3. Procedure
a. Create a campaign plan and set it to
officialateneocomelec@gmail.com.

Judgment

2015 SJC 1

b. You may produce the tangible campaign

paraphernalia upon approval of the campaign
proposal.
c. Submit proposed campaign paraphernalia for final
approval and stamping.
NOTE: For Posters, submit completed DSWS poster approval form
together with the paraphernalia.
d. Claim them 24 hours after submission. If unclaimed for
another 24 hours, the Commission reserves the right to
dispose of them.
NOTE: For Banners and Streamers, reserve lampposts and grilles
through Ateneo COMELEC upon claiming.
(emphasis ours)

Part B.3, page 4 of the campaign manual states the procedure for the use of nontangible campaign paraphernalia:
3. Procedures
Declare the plans and scripts of any non tangible campaign
paraphernalia through your campaign plan and proposal. Expect
to receive a confirmation email within 48 hours. If no reply has
been received, kindly email us at
officialateneocomelec@gmail.com.

11. Taking from the provisions of the campaign manual cited, it appears that the
Commission does indeed require the prior approval of campaign paraphernalia. The
procedure appears to be that candidates are to submit a campaign plan to the
Commission after the approval of which the candidates may produce the tangible
campaign paraphernalia.
12. The Commission states that it is DSWS, and not them, that regulates the
general activity of student promotion in the Loyola Schools. The Commission further
states that since they have jurisdiction over campaign activities, they coordinate with
DSWS as a practical course, but still in compliance with the latters guidelines. The
concerned parts of the Commissions reply state:
the Department of Student Welfare and Services (DSWS) has
certain rules and guidelines for any promotional materials that
can be issued by students in the Loyola Schools. However, since
COMELEC is taking charge of the preparations for elections, it
would be more practical if the approval of the candidates
paraphernalia will be coursed through the Commission. But still,
we abide by the guidelines set by the DSWS.
xxx
Moreover, we require candidates to first submit a campaign
proposal and have their paraphernalia checked through soft copy
to prevent wastage as opposed to having them printed already.
This wastage could be brought about by not following the specific
sizes of materials based on the guidelines of DSWS.

13. The Commission argues that the Office of Student Activities (OSA) prescribes
rules for the general activity of student promotion. They continue that OSA must be
informed of student activities in the Loyola Schools and it is through the campaign

Judgment

2015 SJC 1

manual that the Commission requires from the candidates that OSA can be informed of
these activities. The concerned part of the petition state:
Furthermore, activities, including campaigning, must be in accord
with the rules set by OSA. The Office must be informed of the
events to be conducted by students in the Loyola Schools. It is
through their plans that COMELEC is able to inform OSA of
these activities, if there are. We also align with the protocol of
Office of Administrative Services (OAS) to maintain order in
student activities. So, there is a need to monitor the conduct of
campaign.

14. The Court points out the Student Activities Guide (SAG), implemented by
OSA, which serves as the supervisory document for student activities in general. A
cursory reading shows that SAG defines and regulates the activity of promotion and
that DSWS is mandated to implement these regulations. Sec. 4, IV of SAG states:
Sec. 4. Aspects of the Activity
IV. Promotions
These refer to the traditional and non-traditional avenues utilized
by the student group to advertise their activities to the group
members and the public.
A. Student groups are encouraged to make use of print and
not-print, traditional and non-traditional means to promote
their activities.
B. The promotional designs and plans should be
submitted and approved first by the supervising office
before these are released and implemented.
C. Promotional materials should follow the parameters set in
the GSA.
1. These should not be in conflict with the values that the
University promote and uphold.
2. These should be aligned with the environment-friendly
efforts of the school.
D. The school reserves the right to disapprove and
remove promotional materials that do not adhere to the
set guidelines.
1. The Sanggunian Department for Student Welfare
and Services (DSWS) is also authorized to remove
promotional materials that do not follow the
guidelines.
(emphasis ours)

15. The Court sees the issue of the Commissions policy of prior approval per se as
being an issue in the determination of facts. It is apparent from the Commissions reply
and the provisions of SAG that the policy of prior approval itself does not come solely
from the Commission. The Court points out the fact that students, whether candidates
to elections or not, are all subject to the process of prior approval for any physical
promotional material they wish to disseminate on campus, notwithstanding the office
they have to go through to get approval. While the Court recognizes the fact that the
Commission may have its own regulations that are coursed through the process of prior
approval of campaign paraphernalia, it sees the policy of prior approval itself as
implemented in compliance to school policies.

Judgment

2015 SJC 1

16. As regards the particular issue of the Commissions policy of requiring approval
prior to the production of campaign paraphernalia, the Commissions reply clarifies and
the Court similarly finds that while the production of paraphernalia only after its
approval by the Commission is the recommended and practical course of action, its
production before approval is not necessarily a violation of the campaign manual so long
as any disapproved paraphernalia is not used.
17. As regards the Petitioners argument on the possibility of irregularities due to
delays in the approval of campaign paraphernalia which might unjustly hamper the
flow of a campaign, the Court finds the issue a logistical one, an issue involving the
operational activities of the Commission in coordination with other offices in the process
of review and approval. Furthermore, the Commission has already set deadlines for
itself in the approval of paraphernalia, contained in the campaign manual. Thus, unless
evidence can substantiate that gross neglect of duty, abuse of power, mismanagement,
inefficiency, or any other impeachable offense as defined by the Constitution has caused
irregular delays in the approval of paraphernalia, then the Court cannot agree with the
Petitioner based solely on his speculation.
Ruling
18. The Court finds that the Commissions policy of prior approval as prescribed in
the campaign manual is not solely coming from the Commission but is in part an
implementation of the provisions of SAG, a school policy beyond the Courts jurisdiction.
III. ON THE RIGHT AGAINST PRIOR RESTRAINT
19. While the Court finds the Commissions policy of prior approval itself as in part
an implementation of the provisions of SAG, it now considers the Commissions own
regulations coursed through the process of prior approval.
20. The Petitioner cites Art. IV Sec. 1 of the Magna Carta on the right against prior
restraint as the general argument against the Commissions regulations. The concerned
parts of the petition state:
[t]he power to approve or reject campaign material makes [the
Commission] the sole determiner of which campaign materials are
acceptable to the academic community.
xxx
[the Commission] can under certain provisions of the manual,
prevent content from even reaching the academic community that
will decide what is acceptable.
xxx
[i]nherent in the exercise of power to approve or reject content is
the power to censor content, a power which, under the Magna
Carta, no Ateneo institution reserves.

21. The Court regards the right against prior restraint as being intended to protect
the right to free speech. The Court thus similarly regards the Petitioners argument
against the Commissions regulations related to the prior approval campaign
paraphernalia as connected to his argument that the Commission can use or is using
such power of prior approval as a form of censorship. The Court thus turns its attention
to the policy in questionthe campaign manual. Only insofar as the Court can find
forms of censorship in provisions in the campaign manual can it then consider such
provisions as actually constituting a form of prior restraint. For if no form of censorship

Judgment

2015 SJC 1

can be found, then no censorship can actually be implemented prior to the actual
dissemination and display of the campaign paraphernalia.
22. What the Court looks for in censorship is the regulation of content to the point
that it substantially impairs the right to free speech. The Court emphasizes
substantial impairment as it also takes into account the rights responsible and,
consequently, limited exercise in connection to the rights of others and in the context of
the exercise itself, in the spirit of the Constitution which calls for the same responsible
exercise of student rights.
23. It is the view of this Court that, at least in the context of campaign
paraphernalia, the form refers to the medium that can or should be employed together
with any requirements on the mediums quantity or parameters (e.g. size, length, etc.)
while the content refers to the actual words or figures that can or should be written or
displayed in the medium employed. Based on this qualification then, the Court finds
several provisions in the campaign manual that regulate the form of campaign
paraphernalia, ranging from the allowable sizes and quantity for tangible paraphernalia
to the particular types of media that are allowed or prohibited. As regards content
however, the Court does find provisions that, based on this qualification, regulate
content in campaign paraphernalia. The Court divides these provisions into two types:
(1) The provisions that require the election dates to be placed on all tangible
campaign paraphernalia and on campaigns done through email, IM, SMS.
These are contained in Part A.1 (page 1) and Part A.B.2 (page 3) of the campaign
manual, respectively.
(2) The provisions that prohibit parties and candidates to put on body tags and
posters and teasers the names of parties and candidates other than their own.
These are contained in Part A.1.b.i (page 1) and Part A.1.c.i (page 1) of the
campaign manual.
24. For the provisions contained under paragraph 23, subparagraph (1), the Court
finds the requirement of adding a relatively neutral piece of informationthe election
datesas having a similarly neutral effect on campaign paraphernalia. The Court does
not find the requirement as having a substantial impairment upon the candidates right
to free speech.
25. For the provisions contained under paragraph 23, subparagraph (2), the Court
does not find the inability of parties and candidates to put on certain of their tangible
campaign paraphernalia the names of other parties and candidates as having a
substantial impairment upon their right to free speech.
Ruling
26. The Court finds that the Commissions own regulations coursed through the
process of prior approval, as prescribed in the campaign manual, do not impose a form of
censorship that substantially impairs the right to free speech. The Court does not find
these regulations as a form of prior restraint.

27. The Court finds the Commissions policy of prior approval is due in part to the
regulations of SAG (see pars. 818).
28. The Court does not find the Commissions own regulations coursed through the
process of prior approval as a form of prior restraint (see pars. 1926).
29. For these reasons, the Court does not find the campaign manual as
unconstitutional.
So ordered.