1/4/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly they disallow certain partisan political activities and expression before they are conducted and uttered. Specifically, Section 36.8 of the Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2013 and Section 74(II)(8) of Commission on Elections Resolution No. 10035 declare unlawful the engagement of Filipinos abroad in partisan political activities during the 30-day overseas voting period. This results in a chilling effect that would discourage Filipinos abroad to express their opinion and political ideals during elections. Thus, being forms of prior restraint on the people's political expression, the assailed provisions bear a heavy presumption of invalidity. III When faced with contentions involving prior restraint on free speech, it is important to create a distinction between content-based and content-neutral regulations. Whether a regulation is content-based or content-neutral spells out the difference in the test applied in assaying a governmental regulation. A regulation is content-neutral if it is "merely concerned with the incidents of the speech, or one that merely controls the time, place[,] or manner, and under welldefined standards[,]"[75] regardless of the content of the speech. On the other hand, content-based restraint or censorship is based on the subject matter of the expression. [76] In a content-based regulation, the governmental action is tested with the strictest scrutiny "in light of its inherent and invasive impact."[77] It bears a heavy presumption of unconstitutionality. To pass constitutional muster, the regulation has to overcome the cleat and present danger rule.[78] Thus, the government must show the type of harm sought to be prevented by the content-based regulation. It must be based on a "substantive and imminent evil that has taken the life of a reality already on ground."[79] There must be an inquiry on whether the words used will "bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."[80] To justify the regulation, strict scrutiny requires a compelling State interest, and that it is narrowly tailored and the least restrictive means to achieve that interest.[81] In his dissent in Soriano v. Laguardia,[82] Chief Justice Reynato Puno explained the rationale behind the application of the strict scrutiny test: The test is very rigid because it is the communicative impact of the speech that is being regulated. The regulation goes into the heart of the rationale for the right to free speech; that is, that there should be no prohibition of speech merely because public officials disapprove of the speaker's views. Instead, there should be a free trade in the marketplace of ideas, and only when the harm caused by the speech cannot be cured by more speech can the bar the expression of ideas.[83] (Emphasis supplied, citation omitted) https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65669 34/60