1/4/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly candidate. At this time, people are most engaged in political discourse. Expressing a political ideology and campaigning for a candidate cannot be divorced from one's right of suffrage. Even electoral candidates rely on their supporters to campaign for them. Thus, any speech or act that directly involves the right of suffrage is a political activity by the people themselves. In Social Weather Stations, Inc. v. Commission on Elections,[95] this Court discussed the regulation of speech in the context of campaigns done by non-candidates or nonmembers of political parties: Regulation of speech in the context of electoral campaigns made by persons who are not candidates or who do not speak as members of a political party which are, taken as a whole, principally advocacies of a social issue that the public must consider during elections is unconstitutional. Such regulation is inconsistent with the guarantee of according the fullest possible range of opinions coming from the electorate including those that can catalyze candid, uninhibited, and robust debate in the criteria for the choice of a candidate. This does not mean that there cannot be a specie of speech by a private citizen which will not amount to an election paraphernalia to be validly regulated by law.[96] In Social Weather Stations, Inc., this Court considered the parameters within which a regulation may be held valid: Regulation of election paraphernalia will still be constitutionally valid if it reaches into speech cf persons who are not candidates or who do not speak as members of a political party if they are not candidates, only if what is regulated is declarative speech that, taken as a whole, has for its principal object the endorsement of a candidate only. The regulation (a) should be provided by law, (b) reasonable, (c) narrowly tailored to meet the objective of enhancing the opportunity of all candidates to be heard and considering the primacy of the guarantee of.free expression, and (d) demonstrably the least restrictive means to achieve that object. The regulation must only be with respect to the time, place, and manner of the rendition of the message. In no situation may the speech be prohibited or censored on the basis of its content.[97] (Emphasis in the original) Here, petitioner Loida Nicolas-Lewis assails the constitutionality and validity of Section 36.8 of the Overseas Absentee Voting Act and Section 74(II)(8) of Commission on Elections Resolution No. 10035. These are uniform provisions that prohibit partisan political activities abroad during the 30-day overseas voting period.[98] Section 36(8) of the Overseas Absentee Voting Act states: SECTION 36. Prohibited Acts. - In addition to the prohibited acts provided by law, it shall be unlawful: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65669 36/60