1/4/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly We resolve. Freedom of expression has gained recognition as a fundamental principle of every democratic government, and given a preferred right that stands on a higher level than substantive economic freedom or other liberties.[15] In no equivocal terms did the fundamental law of the land prohibit the abridgement of the freedom of expression. Section 4, Article II of the 1987 Constitution expressly states: No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances. A fundamental part of this cherished freedom is the right to participate in electoral processes, which includes not only the right to vote, but also the right to express one's preference for a candidate or the right to influence others to vote or otherwise not vote for a particular candidate. This Court has always recognized that these expressions are basic and fundamental rights in a democratic polity[16] as they are means to assure individual self-fulfillment, to attain the truth, to secure participation by the people in social and political decision-making, and to maintain the balance between stability and change.[17] Rightfully so, since time immemorial, "[i]t has been our constant holding that this preferred freedom [of expression] calls all the more for the utmost respect when what may be curtailed is the dissemination of information to make more meaningful the equally vital right of suffrage."[18] In the recent case of 1-United Transport Koalisyon (1-UTAK) v. COMELEC,[19] the Court En Banc pronounced that any governmental restriction on the right to convince oth rs to vote for or against a candidate - a protected expression - carries with it a heavy presumption of invalidity. To be sure, this rather potent deviation from our conventional adherence to the presumption of constitutionality enjoyed by legislative acts is not without basis. Nothing is more settled than that any law or regulation must not run counter to the Constitution as it is the basic law to which all laws must conform. Thus, while admittedly, these rights, no matter how sacrosanct, are not absolute and may be regulated like any other right, in every case where a limitation is placed on their exercise, the judiciary is called to examine the effects of the challenged governmental action[20] considering that our Constitution emphatically mandates that no law shall be passed abridging free speech and expression. Simply put, a law or statute regulating or restricting free speech and expression is an outright departure from the express mandate of the Constitution against the enactment of laws abridging free speech and expression, warranting, thus, the presumption against its validity. In this regard, therefore, a law or regulation, even if it purports to advance a legitimate governmental interest, may not be permitted to run roughshod over the cherished rights of the people enshrined in the Constitution.[21] It is only when the challenged restriction survives the appropriate test will the presumption against its validity be overthrown. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65669 7/60