1/4/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly By banning partisan political activities or campaigning even during the campaign period within embassies, consulates, and other foreign service establishments, regardless of whether it applies only to candidates or whether the prohibition extends to private persons, it goes beyond the objective of maintaining order during the voting period and ensuring a credible election. To be sure, there cart be no legally acceptable justification, whether measured against the strictest scrutiny or the most lenient review, to absolutely or unqualifiedly disallow one to campaign within our jurisdiction during the campaign period. Most certainly, thus, the challenged provision, whether on its face or read with its IRR, constitutes a restriction on free speech that is greater than what is essential to the furtherance of the governmental interest it aims to achieve. Section 36.8 of R.A. No. 9189 should be struck down for being overbroad as it does not provide for well-defined standards, resulting to the ambiguity of its application, which produces a chilling effect on the exercise of free speech and expression, and ultimately, resulting to the unnecessary invasion of the area of protected freedoms.[46] For the foregoing reasons, this Court declares Section 36.8 of R.A. No. 9189, as amended by R.A. No. 10590, unconstitutional for violating Section 4, Article III of the 1987 Constitution. To be clear, this Court does not discount the fact that our leaders, chosen to maneuver this nation's political ventures, are put in position through an electoral process and as such, the government is constitutionally mandated to ensure sound, free, honest, peaceful, and credible elections, the same being indispensable in our democratic society. In our goal to achieve such peaceful and credible democratic process, however, we cannot likewise disparage the most exalted freedom of expression, which is undeniably recognized as the bedrock of every democratic society, it being an "indispensable condition of nearly every other form of freedom."[47] After all, the conduct of elections is premised upon every democratic citizen's right to participate in the conduct of public affairs and social and political decision-making through the exercise of the freedom of expression. A restraint on such a vital constitutional right through an overbroad statute cannot, thus, be countenanced and given judicial imprimatur. As pronounced by the Court in the landmark case of Adiong v. COMELEC: [48] When faced with border line situations where freedom to speak by a candidate or party and freedom to know on the part of the electorate are invoked against actions intended for maintaining clean and free elections, the police, local officials and COMELEC, should lean in favor of freedom. For in the ultimate analysis, the freedom of the citizen and the State's power to regulate are not antagonistic. There can be no free and honest elections if in the efforts to maintain them, the freedom to speak and the right to know are unduly curtailed. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED. The Court declares Section 36.8 of Republic Act No. 9189, as amended by Republic Act No. 10590 as UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The temporary restraining order issued by this Court on April 19, 2016 is hereby made PERMANENT and its application is accordingly extended https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65669 15/60