1/4/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly consulate, and other foreign service establishment, and not beyond it. Stated otherwise, the possibility of election-related discord discernibly arises only in places where our election laws remain operative; conversely, where foreign election laws apply, the possibility of election-related discord becomes a domestic concern of that country, and not ours. Hence, by generally banning partisan political activity regardless of the location where the political speech is specifically uttered abroad, Section 36.8 goes over and beyond the objective of ensuring "the holding of an honest and orderly [Philippine (not foreign)] election that upholds the secrecy and sanctity of the ballot" and "to maintain public order during election day." While the COMELEC argues that the thirty (30)-day prohibition only applies in the designated polling precincts[17] located in the above-stated places abroad, the general language of the law itself betrays such argumentation. On its face, Section 36.8 broadly prohibits "partisan political activity abroad during the thirty (30)-day overseas voting period."[18] It is a rule in statutory construction that "a word of general significance in a statute [- such as the word abroad -] is to be taken in its ordinary and comprehensive sense, unless it is shown that the word is intended to be given a different or restricted meaning,"[19] which exception was not shown to obtain in the present case. Hence, Section 36.8, as worded, foists a prohibition on partisan political activity (including political speech) that generally applies in all places abroad. In any case, even assuming that Section 36.8 was intended to restrictively apply only within the premises of the embassy, consulate, and other foreign service establishment as the COMELEC argues,[20] it is my view that this intent is not amply reflected in the provision or even amply clarified in its implementing rules.[21] Hence, there is an ambiguity in the law's scope that ultimately has the effect of "chilling" the free speech of our citizens residing overseas. In one case, it was observed that "where vague statutes regulate behavior that is even close to constitutionally protected, courts fear [that] a chilling effect will impinge on constitutional rights."[22] Verily, this observation gains peculiar significance when it comes to regulations that affect political speech. This is because, in The Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC,[23] the Court has ruled that " [p]olitical speech enjoys preferred protection within our constitutional order. x x x. [I]f ever there is a hierarchy of protected expressions, political expression would occupy the highest rank, and among different kinds of political expression, the subject of fair and honest elections would be at the top.[24] Sovereignty resides in the people [and] [p]olitical speech is a direct exercise of the sovereignty."[25] In fine, Section 36.8 of RA 9189, as amended by RA 10590, is a content-neutral regulation that, however, constitutes a restriction of free speech that is greater than what is essential to the furtherance of the public interest it was intended to meet. Thus, based on the above-discussed considerations, I vote to GRANT the petition and DECLARE the subject provision as unconstitutional. [1] Entitled "AN ACT PROVIDING FOR A SYSTEM OF OVERSEAS ABSENTEE VOTING BY QUALIFIED CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES ABROAD, APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," otherwise known as "THE OVERSEAS https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65669 21/60