G.R. No. 258805 -

Ruling

Accordingly, the case is ripe for adjudication and, as in Diocese of Bacolod , it would be "manifest injustice if the Court does not take jurisdiction over this case." [64] Diocese of Bacolod also provides guidance on the resolution of the substantive arguments raised by the parties. In that case, the Court decided in favor of petitioners, with the Court ruling that the COMELEC's regulation of the former's "Team Buhay" and "Team Patay" tarpaulin was unconstitutional. The Court found that their message was primarily an advocacy of a social issue, [65] as distinguished from election paraphernalia from candidates and political parties, which "are more declarative and descriptive and contain no sophisticated literary allusion to any social objective . . . [and] usually simply exhort the public to vote for a person with a brief description of the attributes of the candidate." [66] Accordingly, the Court held that "[r]egulation of speech in the context of electoral campaigns made by persons who are not candidates or who do not speak as members of a political party which are, taken as a whole, principally advocacies of a social issue that the public must consider during elections is unconstitutional." [67] While the Court found that the "Team Buhay" and "Team Patay" tarpaulin was not election paraphernalia and that the COMELEC's regulation of such material was therefore unconstitutional, the Court also clarified that there may be valid regulation of private speech that amounts to election paraphernalia . To determine whether such a regulation is valid, the Court provided the following test: This does not mean that there cannot be a specie of speech by a private citizen which will not amount to an election paraphernalia to be validly regulated by law . Regulation of election paraphernalia will still be constitutionally valid if it reaches into speech of persons who are not candidates or who do not speak as members of a political party if they are not candidates, only if what is regulated is declarative speech that, taken as a whole, has for its principal object the endorsement of a candidate only . The regulation (a) should be provided by law, (b) reasonable, (c) narrowly tailored to meet the objective of enhancing the opportunity of all candidates to be heard and considering the primacy of the guarantee of free expression, and (d) demonstrably the least restrictive means to achieve that object . The regulation must only be with respect to the time, place, and manner of the rendition of the message. In no situation may the speech be prohibited or censored on the basis of its content. For this purpose, it will not matter whether the speech is made with or on private property . [68] (Citations omitted; emphases and underscoring supplied) After providing the above test, the Court in Diocese of Bacolod held that the subject tarpaulin constituted social advocacy and not election paraphernalia, and that the size restriction under Section 3.3, Republic Act No.