Adiong v. Comelec

FACTS:
On January 13, 1992, the COMELEC promulgated Resolution No. 2347 pursuant to its powers
granted by the Constitution, the Omnibus Election Code, Republic Acts Nos. 6646 and 7166
and other election laws.
Section 15(a) of the resolution provides:

Sec. 15. Lawful Election Propaganda. The following are lawful election
propaganda:
(a) Pamphlets, leaflets, cards, decals, stickers, handwritten or printed letters, or
other written or printed materials not more than eight and one-half (8-1/2) inches in
width and fourteen (14) inches in length. Provided, That decals and stickers may be
posted only in any of the authorized posting areas provided in paragraph (f) of
Section 21 hereof.
Section 21 (f) of the same resolution provides:
Sec. 21(f). Prohibited forms of election propaganda.
It is unlawful:
(f) To draw, paint, inscribe, post, display or publicly exhibit any election propaganda
in any place, whether public or private, mobile or stationary, except in the COMELEC
common posted areas and/or billboards, at the campaign headquarters of the
candidate or political party, organization or coalition, or at the candidate's own
residential house or one of his residential houses, if he has more than one: Provided,
that such posters or election propaganda shall not exceed two (2) feet by three (3)
feet in size. (Emphasis supplied)
Petitioner Blo Umpar Adiong, a senatorial candidate in the May 11, 1992 elections now assails
the COMELEC's Resolution insofar as it prohibits the posting of decals and stickers in "mobile"
places like cars and other moving vehicles.
According to him such prohibition is violative of Section 82 of the Omnibus Election Code and
Section 11(a) of Republic Act No. 6646.
In addition, the petitioner believes that with the ban on radio, television and print political
advertisements, he, being a neophyte in the field of politics stands to suffer grave and
irreparable injury with this prohibition.
The posting of decals and stickers on cars and other moving vehicles would be his last
medium to inform the electorate that he is a senatorial candidate in the May 11, 1992
elections.
Finally, the petitioner states that as of February 22, 1992 (the date of the petition) he has not
received any notice from any of the Election Registrars in the entire country as to the location
of the supposed "Comelec Poster Areas."
ISSUE: whether or not the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) may prohibit the posting of decals and
stickers on "mobile" places, public or private, and limit their location or publication to the authorized
posting areas that it fixes.
HELD: The petition is impressed with merit. The COMELEC's prohibition on posting of decals and
stickers on "mobile" places whether public or private except in designated areas provided for by the
COMELEC itself is null and void on constitutional grounds.
RATIO:
FIRST THE PROHIBITION UNDULY INFRINGES ON THE CITIZEN'S FUNDAMENTAL

RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH ENSHRINED IN THE CONSTITUTION (SEC. 4, ARTICLE III).
There is no public interest substantial enough to warrant the kind of restriction involved in
this case.
THE POSTING OF DECALS AND STICKERS IN MOBILE PLACES LIKE CARS AND OTHER
MOVING VEHICLES DOES NOT ENDANGER ANY SUBSTANTIAL GOVERNMENT
INTEREST. THERE IS NO CLEAR PUBLIC INTEREST THREATENED BY SUCH ACTIVITY
SO AS TO JUSTIFY THE CURTAILMENT OF THE CHERISHED CITIZEN'S RIGHT OF FREE
SPEECH AND EXPRESSION.
Under the clear and present danger rule not only must the danger be patently clear and
pressingly present but the evil sought to be avoided must be so substantive as to justify a
clamp over one's mouth or a writing instrument to be stilled; For these reasons any
attempt to restrict those liberties must be justified by clear public interest,
threatened not doubtfully or remotely, but by clear and present danger.
A sticker may be furnished by a candidate but once the car owner agrees to have it placed on
his private vehicle, the expression becomes a statement by the owner, primarily his own and
not of anybody else.
SECOND THE QUESTIONED PROHIBITION PREMISED ON THE STATUTE AND AS
COUCHED IN THE RESOLUTION IS VOID FOR OVERBREADTH.
A statute is considered void for overbreadth when "it offends the constitutional principle that
a governmental purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally subject to state
regulations may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby
invade the area of protected freedoms."
Verily, the restriction as to where the decals and stickers should be posted is so broad that it
encompasses even the citizen's private property, which in this case is a privately-owned
vehicle.

Adiong v. Comelec

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Adiong v. Comelec

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Adiong v. Comelec

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FACTS:

Section 15(a) of the resolution provides:

FIRST THE PROHIBITION UNDULY INFRINGES ON THE CITIZEN'S FUNDAMENTAL

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.