1/4/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly opportunity for citizens to determine, debate, and resolve public issues."[33] Speech that enlivens political discourse is the lifeblood of democracy. A free and robust discussion in the political arena allows for an informed electorate to confront its on a more or less equal footing.[34] Without free speech, the robs the people of their sovereignty, leaving them in an echo chamber of autocracy. Freedom of speech protects the "democratic political process from the abusive censorship of political debate by the transient majority which has democratically achieved political power."[35] In The Diocese of Bacolod: Proponents of the political theory on "deliberative democracy" submit that "substantial, open, [and] ethical dialogue is a critical, and indeed defining, feature of a good polity." This theory may be considered broad, but it definitely "includes [a] collective decision making with the participation of all who will be affected by the decision." It anchors on the principle that the cornerstone of every democracy is that sovereignty resides in the people. To ensure order in running the state's affairs, sovereign powers were delegated and individuals would be elected or nominated in key positions to represent the people. On this note, the theory on deliberative democracy may evolve to the right of the people to make accountable. Necessarily, this includes the right of the people to criticize acts made pursuant to governmental functions.[36] (Citations omitted) Speech with political consequences occupies a higher position in the hierarchy of protected speeches and is conferred with a greater degree of protection. The difference in the treatment lies in the varying interests in each type of speech. Nevertheless, the exercise of freedom of speech may be regulated by the State pursuant to its sovereign police power. In prescribing regulations, distinctions are made depending on the nature of the speech involved. In Chavez: Some types of speech may be subjected to some regulation by the State under its pervasive police power, in order that it may not be injurious to the equal right of others or those of the community or society. The difference in treatment is expected because the relevant interests of one type of speech, e.g., political speech, may vary from those of another, e.g., obscene speech. Distinctions have therefore been made in the treatment, analysis, and evaluation of the permissible scope of restrictions on various categories of speech.[37] (Citations omitted) This Court recognized in The Diocese of Bacolod that political speech occupies a preferred rank within our constitutional order, it being a direct exercise of the sovereignty of the people.[38] In a separate opinion in Chavez, Associate Justice Antonio Carpio underscored that "if ever there is a hierarchy of protected expressions, political expression would occupy the highest rank[.]"[39] In contrast, other types of speeches, such as commercial speech, are treated in this jurisdiction as "low value speeches."[40] https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65669 28/60