1/4/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly SECTION 1. The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all authority emanates from them. The electoral exercise is a significant forum for the sovereign. It is during this time that the primordial and fundamental protection for the speech of every voter and every citizen is most sacred. It is this type of political speech that lies at the core of the guarantee of freedom of expression in Article III, Section 4 of the Constitution. Therefore, any limitation on speech by the electorate must be justified on legitimate grounds that are clear and indubitable and with means that are narrowly tailored and only specifically calibrated to achieve those purposes. Unfortunately, neither Section 36.8[1] of the Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2013 nor Section 74(II)(8) of Commission on Elections Resolution No. 10035[2] can be justified as to its clear purpose or its narrowly circumscribed and calibrated means. Both impose a prohibition that unduly stifles the votes of Filipinos abroad when we should amplify their ideas, especially during elections, and even more so that a multitude of them are overseas workers whose sacrifices are just as abundant. Rather than a scalpel to precisely remove a specific evil, these regulations carelessly wield a wayward machete, striking negligent blows on the fundamental rights of Filipinos living overseas. In my view, and after a careful examination of the case and a cautious review of our jurisprudence, the 30-day prohibition on partisan political activities abroad violates the fundamental right of freedom of expression. Foremost, the assailed provisions are content-based regulations because they specifically target a kind of speech identified by its political element. While they seem to merely regulate the time allowed in conducting partisan political activities, their prohibition actually cuts deep into the expression's communicative impact and political consequences. Thus, being content-based regulations, the strict scrutiny test must be applied. They must bear a heavy presumption of unconstitutionality. It is uncertain what clear, present, and substantial dangers are sought to be curtailed in the different countries where the prohibition is applied. Respondent Commission on Elections failed to discharge its burden of proving that the State has a compelling interest in prohibiting partisan political activities abroad. It has not shown why the prohibition is necessary to maintain public order abroad during the election period. As they failed to overcome the presumption of the law's invalidity, the assailed provisions must be stricken down. Absent any compelling State interest, the constitutionally preferred status of free speech must be upheld. I The Constitution guarantees protection to the exercise of free speech, recognizing that https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65669 24/60