1/4/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly undertaken within or without our jurisdiction, it is made punishable under the challenged provision couched in pervasive terms. To reiterate, the perceived danger sought to be prevented by the restraint is the purported risk of compromising the integrity and order of our elections. Sensibly, such risk may occur only within premises where voting is conducted, i.e., in embassies, consulates, and other foreign service establishments. There is, therefore, no rhyme or reason to impose a limitation on the protected right to participate in partisan political activities exercised beyond said places. While it may be argued that the Congress could not be presumed to have enacted a ridiculous rule that transgresses the elementary principle of territoriality in penalizing offenses, however, the general language of the law itself contradicts such argument. For the same reason, we cannot accept the OSG's argument that the prohibition was intended to apply to candidates only, whose exercise of the right to campaign may be regulated as to time, place, and manner, citing the case of The Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC.[44] Again, the overbroad language of the questioned provision, i.e., "any person" is prohibited to engage in any partisan political activity within the voting period abroad, betrays such argument. The general term "any person" should be understood to mean "any person" in its general sense as it was not clearly intended to be restricted to mean "candidates only." It may not be amiss to point out, at this juncture, that a facial invalidation of the questioned statute is warranted to counter the "chilling effect" on protected speech that comes from its overbreadth as any person may simply restrain himself from speaking or engaging in any partisan political activity anywhere in order to avoid being charged of an electoral offense. Indeed, an overbroad law that "chills one into silence" should be invalidated on its face. Neither was there any provision in the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of the challenged law which clearly qualifies the application of the questioned prohibition within our jurisdiction and to candidates only. COMELEC Resolution No. 9843[45] or the IRR of R.A. No. 9189, as amended, which should have provided for well-defined and narrowly-tailored standards to guide our executive officials on how to implement the law, as well as to guide the public on how to comply with it, failed to do so. Article 63, Rule 15 of the said IRR similarly provides for an all-encompassing provision, which reads: RULE 15 CAMPAIGNING ABROAD ART. 63. Regulation on campaigning abroad. - The use of campaign materials, as well as the limits on campaign spending shall be governed by the laws and regulations applicable in the Philippines and subject to the limitations imposed by laws of the host country, if applicable. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65669 13/60