1/4/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Thus, the prior restraint imposed in Section 36.8 of RA 9189, as amended by RA 10590, and Section 74(II)(8) of Comelec Resolution No. 10035 is not narrowly drawn to protect the avowed interest of the government.[45] This second requirement of the strict scrutiny test stems from the fundamental premise that citizens should not be hampered from pursuing legitimate activities in the exercise of their constitutional rights. While rights may be restricted, the restrictions must be minimal or only to the extent necessary to achieve the purpose or to address the State's compelling interest. When it is possible for governmental regulations to be more narrowly drawn to avoid conflicts with constitutional rights, then they must be so narrowly drawn.[46] All told, the application of a strict or exacting scrutiny to a content-based prior restraint becomes all the more Imperative when political speech is involved. The fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression has its fullest and most urgent application to speech and expression uttered during a campaign for political office.[47] For one, discussions of public issues and debate on the qualifications of candidates are integral to the operation of the system of Government established by our Constitution.[48] Also, under our system of laws, everyone has the right to promote his or her agenda and attempt to persuade society of the validity of his or her position through normal democratic means. It is in the public square that deeply held convictions and differing opinions should be distilled and deliberated upon.[49] Thus, the Constitution affords the broadest protection to political speech and expression in order to assure the unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.[50] In a republic where the people are sovereign, the ability of the citizenry to make informed choices among candidates for office is essential, for the identities of those who are elected will inevitably shape the course that we follow as a nation.[51] I hasten to add at this point that nothing We say here, however, should be construed to mean that the institution of a campaign-free zone in polling places abroad during the voting period is altogether foreclosed. In fact, the Court has already observed in Osmeña v. Comelec[52] that Our previous decisions in Gonzales and Valmonte v. Comelec[53] have demonstrated that the State can prohibit campaigning outside a certain period as well as campaigning within a certain place. The Court went on to say that in Valmonte, the validity of a Comelec resolution prohibiting members of citizen groups or associations from entering any polling place except to vote was upheld. The Court then concluded that "[i]ndeed, §261(k) of the Omnibus Election Code makes it unlawful for anyone to solicit votes in the polling place and within a radius of 30 meters thereof."[54] Statutorily mandated campaign-free zones have also been validated in the US. In Burson, the US Supreme Court upheld the validity of a provision of the Tennessee Code which prohibits the solicitation of votes and the display or distribution of campaign materials within 100 feet of the entrance to a polling place. The US Supreme Court found the provision to be a content-based restriction, but nonetheless found it valid https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65669 56/60