THE DIOCESE OF BACOLOD, REPRESENTED BY THE MOST REV.

BISHOP
VICENTE M. NAVARRA and THE BISHOP HIMSELF IN HIS PERSONAL
CAPACITY, Petitioners,

vs.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND THE ELECTION OFFICER OF BACOLOD

CITY, ATTY. MAVIL V. MAJARUCON, Respondents.

FACTS:

On February 21, 2013, petitioners posted two (2) tarpaulins within a private compound
housing the San Sebastian Cathedral of Bacolod. Each tarpaulin was approximately six feet (6)
by ten feet (10) in size. They were posted on the front walls of the cathedral within public view.
The first tarpaulin contains the message IBASURA RH Law referring to the Reproductive
Health Law of 2012 or Republic Act No. 10354. The second tarpaulin is the subject of the present
case. This tarpaulin contains the heading Conscience Vote and lists candidates as either (Anti-
RH) Team Buhay with a check mark, or (Pro-RH) Team Patay with an X mark. The electoral
candidates were classified according to their vote on the adoption of Republic Act No. 10354,
otherwise known as the RH Law. Those who voted for the passing of the law were classified by
petitioners as comprising Team Patay, while those who voted against it form Team Buhay.

Respondents conceded that the tarpaulin was neither sponsored nor paid for by any
candidate. Petitioners also conceded that the tarpaulin contains names ofcandidates for the 2013
elections, but not of politicians who helped in the passage of the RH Law but were not candidates
for that election.

Issue

Whether or not there was violation of petitioners right to property

Yes.

The Court held that even though the tarpaulin is readily seen by the public, the tarpaulin
remains the private property of petitioners. Their right to use their property is likewise protected
by the Constitution.

Any regulation, therefore, which operates as an effective confiscation of private property

or constitutes an arbitrary or unreasonable infringement of property rights is void, because it is
repugnant to the constitutional guaranties of due process and equal protection of the laws.
 The Court in Adiong case held that a restriction that regulates where decals and stickers
should be posted is so broad that it encompasses even the citizens private property.
Consequently, it violates Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution which provides that no person
shall be deprived of his property without due process of law.