WHAT IS A CONTENT-NEUTRAL REGULATION?

Justice Carpio and Justice Perlas-Bernabe suggest that the provisions imposing a size limit for tarpaulins are content-neutral regulations as these "restrict the manner by which speech is relayed but not the content of what is conveyed."248

If we apply the test for content-neutral regulation, the questioned acts of COMELEC will not pass the three requirements for evaluating such restraints on freedom of speech.249 "When the speech restraints take the form of a content-neutral regulation, only a substantial governmental interest is required for its validity,"250 and it is subject only to the intermediate approach.251

This intermediate approach is based on the test that we have prescribed in several cases.252 

A content-neutral government regulation is sufficiently justified:

[1] if it is within the constitutional power of the Government; [2] if it furthers an important or substantial governmental interest;

[3] if the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression; and

 [4] if the incident restriction on alleged [freedom of speech & expression] is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest.253

On the first requisite, it is not within the constitutional powers of the COMELEC to regulate the tarpaulin. As discussed earlier, this is protected speech by petitioners who are non-candidates. On the second requirement, not only must the governmental interest be important or substantial, it must also be compelling as to justify the restrictions made.

Compelling governmental interest would include constitutionally declared principles. We have held, for example, that "the welfare of children and the State’s mandate to protect and care for them, as parens patriae,254 constitute a substantial and compelling government interest in regulating . . . utterances in TV broadcast."255