1/4/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly undertaking any campaign for or against a candidate; (2) Holding political caucuses, conferences, meetings, rallies, parades, or other similar assemblies, for the purpose of soliciting votes and/or undertaking any campaign or propaganda for or against a candidate; (3) Making speeches, announcements or commentaries, or holding interviews for or against the election of any candidate for public office; (4) Publishing or distributing campaign literature or materials designed to support or oppose the election of any candidate; or (5) Directly or indirectly soliciting votes, pledges or support for or against a candidate. The foregoing enumerated acts if performed for the purpose of enhancing the chances of aspirants for nomination for candidacy to a public office by a political party, aggroupment, or coalition of parties shall not be considered as election campaign or partisan election activity. Public expressions or opinions or discussions of probable issues in a forthcoming election or on attributes of or criticisms against probable candidates proposed to be nominated in a forthcoming political party convention shall not be construed as part of any election campaign or partisan political activity contemplated under this Article. Basically, on its face, the questioned provision prohibits the act of campaigning for or against any candidate during the voting period abroad. In the main, petitioner argues that the prohibition is a violation of Article III, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution. Petitioner explains that the prohibited partisan political activities as defined under the law are acts of exercising free speech, expression, and assembly. Corollary, these activities are necessary for the voters to be informed of the character, platforms, and agenda of the candidates to the end of having an educated decision on who to vote for. As such, it is petitioner's position that the prohibition on partisan political activities is a clear curtailment of the most cherished and highlyesteemed right to free speech, expression, and assembly, as well as the right to suffrage. Specifically, petitioner argue that the questioned prohibition constitutes a contentbased prior restraint on the overseas Filipino voters' right to express their political inclinations, views and opinions on the candidates, hence, must be given the presumption of unconstitutionality and subjected to the strictest scrutiny, i.e., overcoming the clear and present danger rule. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65669 6/60