1/4/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly candidates proposed to be nominated in a forthcoming political party convention x x x. Petitioner alleges that on the basis of the above regulations, she, together with thousands of similarly situated Filipinos all over the world, was prohibited by the different Philippine Consulates from conducting information campaigns, rallies, and outreach programs in support of their respective candidates for the May 2016 national elections. Petitioner contends that these regulations violate one's freedom of speech, expression, and assembly, and are content-based prior restraints on speech which curtail the expression of political inclinations, views, and opinions of Filipinos abroad. I agree. It bears emphasis at the outset that the Court should take cognizance of this case because of the presence of a justiciable controversy involving free speech, a textually identified fundamental right under the Constitution,[7] and not because of the alleged transcendental importance of the issue petitioner invokes. There exists an actual justiciable controversy when there is a contrariety of legal rights that can be interpreted and enforced on the basis of existing law and jurisprudence.[8] Here, there is an evident clash of the parties' legal claims, particularly on whether Section 36.8 of RA 9189, as amended by RA 10590, and Section 74(II)(8) of Comelec Resolution No. 10035 impair the free speech rights of petitioner and of all Filipinos abroad.[9] Section 36.8 of RA 9189, as amended by RA 10590 is an existing law that was fully implemented, as evidenced by the issuance of Section 74(II)(8) of Comelec Resolution No. 10035 during the 2016 national elections. The purported threat or incidence of injury is, therefore, not merely speculative or hypothetical but rather, real and apparent.[10] Equally important, the Court in Gios-Samar, Inc. v. Department of Transportation and Communications[11] already clarified the proposition that the purported transcendental importance of an issue does not operate as a talismanic license to justify direct recourse to the Court. Thus: To be clear, the transcendental importance doctrine does not clothe us with the power to tackle factual questions and play the role of a trial court. The only circumstance when we may take cognizance of a case in the first instance, despite the presence of factual issues, is in the exercise of our constitutionally-expressed task to review the sufficiency of the factual basis of the President's proclamation of martial law under Section 18, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution. The case before us does not fall under this exception. xxxx Accordingly, for the guidance of the bench and the bar, we reiterate that when a question before the Court involves determination of a factual issue indispensable to the resolution of the legal issue, the Court will refuse to resolve the question regardless of the allegation or invocation of compelling reasons, such as the transcendental or paramount importance of the case. Such question must first be https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65669 51/60