1/4/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly [45] Promulgated on January 15, 2014. [46] Disini v. The Secretary of Justice, supra note 22. [47] ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation v. COMELEC, supra note 17. [48] G.R. No. 103956, March 31, 1992, 207 SCRA 712, 717. CONCURRING OPINION PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: At the onset, I concur that Section 36.8 of Republic Act No. (RA) 9189,[1] as amended by RA 10590[2] (Section 36.8), is a content-neutral regulation, for which the intermediate scrutiny test should be made to apply.[3] The said provision reads: Section 36. Prohibited Acts. - In addition to the prohibited acts provided by law, it shall be unlawful: xxxx 36.8. For any person to engage in partisan political activity abroad during the thirty (30)-day overseas voting period[.] (Emphasis supplied) The distinction between content-neutral and content-based regulations is well-settled in our jurisprudence. In Newsounds Broadcasting Network Inc. v. Dy:[4] [J]urisprudence distinguishes between a content-neutral regulation, i.e., merely concerned with the incidents of the speech, or one that merely controls the time, place or manner, and under well-defined standards; and a content-based restraint or censorship, i.e., the restriction is based on the subject matter of the utterance or speech.[5] (Emphases supplied) In Ward v. Rock Against Racism,[6] the Supreme Court of the United States of America stated that the principal inquiry in determining content-neutrality is whether the government has adopted such regulation "because of disagreement with the message it conveys."[7] As I see it, Section 36.8 is primarily a regulation on the place (i.e., overseas/abroad) and time (i.e., during the thirty [30]-day overseas voting period) in which political speech (particularly, those considered as "partisan political activity") may be uttered under the standards the provision prescribes. The government's purpose therefor is not https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65669 19/60