THE so-called “Guidelines” issued by the Commission on Elections under its Resolution 0732 on November 24, 2021 which it now fully implements, is causing a lot of confusion among ordinary citizens or non-candidates who also want to discuss their political preferences in the May 9 elections, according to veteran election lawyer Romulo Macalintal.
While such “Guidelines” do not include non-candidates who want to hold their own political activities, the Comelec still requires them to first get Comelec’s approval before they could get a mayor’s permit to conduct the said activities,
he noted.
This, Macalintal stressed, “is indeed a violation” of Comelec’s own “Guidelines” because under Section 22 of Resolution 10732, only a “candidate” or a “political party” or through their respective authorized representatives may apply before the Comelec for approval of the conduct of any election campaign activity. There is nothing in the resolution that requires non-candidates conducting such activities to get prior approval from Comelec, he pointed out.
Macalintal lamented: “What seems to be ‘Guidelines’ have suddenly become arbitrary restrictions imposed by Comelec without any basis in law and in fact.”
He called this “a flagrant violation of Section 87 of the Omnibus Election Code [OEC] and Batas Pambansa 880 or the Public Assembly Act which give sole authority to the mayors to issue such permit. Nothing in the law gives the Comelec to interfere in the issuance of such permit.”
Macalintal believes any private citizen or non-candidate or groups of non-candidates “should question any move or action by any agencies of the government prohibiting them from exercising their constitutional right to peaceably assemble and their right to freedom of expression.”
He stressed they do not need any “prior approval” from the Comelec to stage and conduct their own political rallies before they could secure a mayor’s permit. To require them to get “prior approval” from the Comelec would constitute prior censorship or prior restraint which is violative of a private citizen’s constitutional right to free speech.