1/4/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly convention shall not be construed as part of any election campaign or partisan political activity contemplated under this Article. From this, it can easily be determined that the assailed provisions are content-based regulations precisely because they specifically target a kind of speech identified by its political element. Contrary to respondent's submission,[99] the assailed provisions are not content-neutral. While they seem to merely limit the time allowed in conducting partisan political activities, they should be evaluated without losing sight of the nature of the expression they seek to regulate. In her separate opinion, Associate Justice Estela Perlas-Bernabe characterized the regulations as forms of content-neutral restriction, arguing that they merely regulate the place and time in which political speech may be uttered. I disagree. The prohibition on the conduct of partisan political activities does not merely control the incidents or manner of the political expression, but actually regulates the content of the expression. As admitted by respondent, the limits are placed on the conduct of partisan political activities to subdue the "violence and atrocities"[100] that mar the electoral process. This means that the regulation is anchored on the content, nature, and effect of the prohibited activities. Although guised as merely limiting the manner of the expression, the assailed provisions cut deep into the expression's communicative impact and political consequences. The regulations are not merely incidental. Considering a regulation as content-neutral is only appropriate when the governmental interest and purpose are clear and unambiguous. In this case, the government's purpose in placing a 30-day restriction on political activities abroad is unclear. To sustain the validity of Section 36.8 of the Overseas Absentee Voting Act and Section 74(II)(8) of Commission on Elections Resolution No. 10035, they must be evaluated with strict scrutiny. To pass constitutional muster, there must be a showing of a compelling State interest in the 30-day prohibition of partisan political activities abroad. However, there are no clear, present, and substantial electoral dangers that will be prevented by the prohibition they impose. It is unclear if the substantial. dangers and evils sought to be curtailed even exist in every foreign jurisdiction where the prohibition is applied. It cannot be assumed that the same "horrendous and unforgivable atrocities"[101] during the election period in the Philippines are present and recurring in each and every country where Filipinos are situated. Every country has a unique election experience; it is uncertain if our overseas voters have been through any electoral conflict or violence to justify the State's restraint on free speech abroad. The prohibition applied to partisan political activities within the Philippines cannot be applied as a blanket prohibition that covers overseas voting. The cannot instate a regulation that unduly interferes with protected expression. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65669 38/60