1/4/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly [17] See id. at 21. [18] Emphasis and underscoring supplied. [19] Naval v. COMELEC, 738 Phil. 506, 535 (2014). [20] See Comment, p. 21. [21] See COMELEC Resolution No. 9843, entitled "IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10590, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS 'AN ACT AMENDING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9189, 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 RULES AND REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE OVERSEAS VOTING ACT OF 2003, As AMENDED," approved on January 15, 2014. [22] See Dissenting Opinion of Retired Associate Justice Dante O. Tinga in Spouses Romualdez v. COMELEC, 576 Phil. 357, 433 (2008). [23] 751 Phil. 301 (2015). [24] Id. at 343, citing Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio's Separate Concurring Opinion in Chavez v. Gonzales, supra note 8, at 245. [25] The Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC; id. at 343. SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION LEONEN, J.: I concur in the result. Nonetheless, I maintain that the provisions in question should be stricken down as they are forms of prior restraint and content-based illicit prohibition on the exercise of the primordial right to freedom of expression. During elections, active deliberations prompted by the exercise of the freedoms of speech, expression, and association of the electorate itself should remain untrammeled. Our assurance of authentic democracy depends on safe spaces for vigorous discussion. The provisions in question do the exact opposite. Curtailing political speech during the elections is presumptively unconstitutional. The very first section in the Declaration of Principles and State Policies of the Constitution states: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65669 23/60