1/4/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly In Disini, Jr., v. Secretary of Justice,[41] this Court has recognized that "[c]ommercial speech . . . is not accorded the same level of protection as that given to other constitutionally guaranteed forms of expression[.]"[42] This is because, as I opined in that case, the protection accorded to commercial speech is anchored on its informative character and it merely caters to the market.[43] Since the value of protection accorded to commercial speech is only to the extent of its channel to inform, advertising is not on par with other forms of expression. In contrast, political speech is "indispensable to the democratic and republican mooring of the state whereby the sovereignty residing in the people is best and most effectively exercised through free expression."[44] The rationale behind this distinction lies in the nature and impact of political speech: Political speech is motivated by the desire to be heard and understood, to move people to action. It is concerned with the sovereign right to change the contours of power whether through the election of representatives in a republican or the revision of the basic text of the Constitution. The· zeal with which we protect this kind of speech does not depend on our evaluation of the cogency of the message. Neither do we assess whether we should protect speech based on the motives of COMELEC. We evaluate restrictions on freedom of expression from their effects. We protect both speech and medium because the quality of this freedom in practice will define the quality of deliberation in our democratic society.[45] Media law professor Eric Barendt explained it succinctly in his book, Freedom of Speech: To confine freedom of expression to political speech (or at any rate to protect it most rigorously in this context) does reduce the scale of the difficulty. Political speech is immune from restriction, because it is a dialogue between members of the electorate and between governors and governed, and is, therefore, conducive, rather than inimical, to the operation of a constitutional democracy. The same is not so obviously true of other categories of 'speech', for which the protection of the free speech may be claimed-pornography or commercial advertising.[46] Philosopher and free speech advocate Alexander Meiklejohn similarly forwarded this thesis in arguing "that the principle of freedom of speech was rooted in principles of self-government, and that there should be absolute protection for the discussion of public issues, but considerably less protection for speech that did not discuss issues of public interest."[47] As a direct exercise of the people's sovereignty, political expression is accorded the highest protection. This is even more heightened during the election period, when political activities and speech are propelled by the electorate's ideals and choice of https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65669 29/60