"Will you marry me?"

In the world of unconventional marriage proposals, using huge streamers installed in public places, such as on the side of an overpass along a national road, would be in the class of bold public display of affection. Interestingly, it impacts not only the person being proposed to, but everyone who sees it. Women are moved even if they are not the ones being proposed to. And guys are envious of the guts and style because unlike public proposals which tend to be embarrassing, the person who installed the streamer has no face. Generically, it is an exercise of the freedom of expression, the torch bearer of all rights in a democratic society.

This Sunday’s topic springs from a question to ABC on whether the local government has the right to pull down such streamers and tarpaulins placed by residents in public places. In this particular case, a Filipino US Navy member put his own life on the line to save his crew mates from fire due to boiler explosions in the ship. His relatives sought to honor his memory and heroic achievement by hanging a tarpaulin on an arc structure separating two barangays, one of which was the place of his birth. The mayor brought down the tarpaulin.

For me, the contents of the medium in the above examples enjoy constitutional protection. The contents offer no “clear and present danger” to anyone. One inspires courage in expression of affection, and one inspires principles and selflessness. The issue is whether the manner by which these expressions were exercised should likewise be protected.

Can these tarpaulins be brought down if hung on public property? After all, public property for public use can be used by anyone.

This is not a case of first impression. It may both be surprising and enlightening that in the US, a country where flag burning is defended as a constitutional exercise of the freedom of expression, the police power of the state to preserve aesthetic value of the place is given much weight. This is especially true for election propaganda, where it was said that the local government has the right to stop “visual assault” on citizens presented by the accumulation of signs on public property. The point is, if one is allowed, others cannot be prohibited. And there are infinite ideas or expressions that can be posted on public property.

But setting aside the concept of aesthetic preservation, can the mayor pull down a harmless tarpaulin if it is on property for use of the public anyway?

A local Supreme Court case laid down a sound principle: even if property for public use can be used by anyone, even foreigners or strangers, it must be used in accordance with its nature or purpose.

A US case upheld the right of the airport authorities to send out of the airport premises people who were performing religious ceremonies and soliciting funds. Because the airport is not meant for that religious activity, it is meant for transportation.

In the same way, bus stop sheds are meant to be pick-up and unloading points for passengers, while foot bridges are to allow people to safely and conveniently get to the other side of the road. They are properties for public use, but not constructed for hanging streamers and tarpaulins, which in fact, if poorly placed can likewise be a health and security hazard.

Besides, not being able to express through tarpaulins does not curtail the freedom to express which can also be done, for instance, by handing out flyers communicating the same message within the vicinity.

To be fair, there are local governments with specific ordinances that designate specific places where the public can post bills. One city, for instance, allows the public to post bills only on street lamps. It is consistent with fairness, however, for all local governments to have ordinances to regulate or allow activities of expressions of the public they serve. In the case of the mayor who pulled down from the arc the picture of the barangay’s own hero, it would be ideal if the mayor did that on authority of an ordinance that was made public. Without such ordinance however, the mayor cannot impose any further penalty.Besides, it is penalty enough for the relatives and kin to be denied this avenue of expression. The act of the mayor may be legal but to his constituents, it is insensitive. The mayor could have reached out to the family of the barangay’s hero, and could have even created loyal supporters out of them.

Incidentally, the regulation of billboards and banners along national roads rests with the Department of Public Works and Highways, although it delegated this function to the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) for major and secondary roads within Metro Manila. The trick of the trade, however is, before posting tarpaulins, whether on public places or private property meant for ads, secure permits from the MMDA and the local government. There are fines for violation.

And to the man hatching a plan to put up a streamer on public property for public view to make a marriage proposal, I leave you with this thought: the cost of that public display of affection—fines computed per square foot of the tarpaulin. The euphoria for winning her adoration—priceless!