1/4/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly adjudicate remains to assure that the supremacy of the Constitution is upheld."[10] Guided by the foregoing principles, the Court finds that there exists an actual justiciable controversy in this case given the "evident clash of the parties' legal claims" [11] as to whether the questioned provision infringe upon the constitutionallyguaranteed freedom of expression of the petitioner, as well as all the Filipinos overseas. Petitioner's allegations and arguments presented a prima facie case of grave abuse of discretion which necessarily obliges the Court to take cognizance of the case and resolve the paramount constitutional issue raised. The case is likewise ripe for adjudication considering that the questioned provision continues to be in effect until the Court issued the TRO above-cited, enjoining its implementation. While it may be true that petitioner failed to particularly allege the details of her claimed direct injury, the petition has clearly and sufficiently alleged the existence of an immediate or threatened injury sustained and being sustained by her, as well as all the overseas Filipinos, on their exercise of free speech by the continuing implementation of the challenged provision. A judicial review of the case presented is, thus, undeniably warranted. Besides, in Gonzales v. COMELEC,[12] the Court ruled that when the basic liberties of free speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of association are invoked to nullify a statute designed to maintain the purity and integrity of the electoral process by Congress calling a halt to the undesirable practice of prolonged political campaign or partisan political activities, the question confronting the Court is one of transcendental significance, warranting this Court's exercise of its power of judicial review.[13] Verily, in discharging its solemn duty as the final arbiter of constitutional issues, the Court shall not shirk from its obligation to determine novel issues, or issues of first impression, with far-reaching implications.[14] That being so, this Court shall now endeavor to settle the constitutional issue raised in the petition promptly and definitely. Petitioner assails the constitutionality of Section 36.8 of R.A. No. 9189, as amended by R.A. No. 10590, which prohibits "any person to engage in partisan political activity abroad during the 30-day overseas voting period." A violation of this provision entails penal and administrative sanctions. Section 79(b) of the Omnibus Election Code defines partisan political activity as follows: Section 79. Definitions. - x x x xxxx (b) The term "election campaign" or "partisan political activity" refers to an act designed to promote the election or defeat of a particular candidate or candidates to a public office which shall include: (1) Forming organizations, associations, clubs, committees or other groups of persons for the purpose of soliciting votes and/or https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65669 5/60