1 UTAK V COMELEC

1-UNITED TRANSPORT KOALISYON (1-UTAK),
Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, Respondent.
G.R. No. 206020, April 14, 2015
REYES, J.
FACTS:
On January 15, 2013, the COMELEC promulgated Resolution No. 9615, which provided for the rules
implementing R.A. No. 9006 in connection with the May 13, 2013 national and local elections and
subsequent elections. Section 7 thereof, which enumerates the prohibited forms of election
propaganda
The violation of items [5 and 6] under subsection (g) shall be a cause for the revocation of the public
utility franchise and will make the owner and/or operator of the transportation service and/or
terminal liable for an election offense under Section 9 of Republic Act No. 9006 as implemented by
Section 18 (n) of these Rules.
Petitioner sought for clarification from COMELEC as regards the application of Resolution No. 9615
particularly Section 7(g) items (5) and (6), in relation to Section 7(f), vis-à-vis privately owned public
utility vehicles (PUVs) and transport terminals. The petitioner then requested the COMELEC to
reconsider the implementation of the assailed provisions and allow private owners of PUVs and
transport terminals to post election campaign materials on their vehicles and transport terminals.
The COMELEC En Banc issued Minute Resolution No. 13-0214, which denied the petitioner’s
request to reconsider the implementation of Section 7(g) items (5) and (6), in relation to Section 7(f),
of Resolution No. 9615.
ISSUE:
Whether the COMELEC may validly impose the prohibition on PUVs and public transport terminals
during the election pursuant to its regulatory powers delegated under Art IX-C Sec 4 of the
Constitution.
RULING:
No. The COMELEC may not impose such prohibition.
Section 7(g) items (5) and (6) of Resolution No. 9615 are NOT within the constitutionally delegated
power of the COMELEC to supervise or regulate the franchise or permit to operate of transportation
utilities.
As worded, Section 4, Article IX-C of the Constitution only grants COMELEC supervisory and
regulatory powers over the enjoyment or utilization “of all franchises or permits for the operation,”
inter alia, of transportation and other public utilities. The COMELEC’s constitutionally delegated
powers of supervision and regulation do not extend to the ownership per se of PUVs and transport
terminals, but only to the franchise or permit to operate the same.
The posting of election campaign material on vehicles used for public transport or on transport
terminals is not only a form of political expression, but also an act of ownership — it has nothing to
do with the franchise or permit to operate the PUV or transport terminal. Court citing the case of
Tatad v. Garcia, Jr. explained the difference between the franchise or permit to operate
transportation for the use of the public and the ownership per se of the vehicles. In that case, the
Court ruled that
"The right to operate a public utility may exist independently and separately from the ownership of
the facilities thereof. One can own said facilities without operating them as a public utility, or
conversely, one may operate a public utility without owning the facilities used to serve the public. "
The franchise or permit to operate transportation utilities is a privilege granted to certain persons to
engage in the business of transporting people or goods; it does not refer to the ownership of the
vehicle per se. What the Constitution mandates to be within the supervisory and regulatory power of
the COMELEC is only the former.
Surely, the expression of ideas or opinion of an owner of a PUV, through the posting of election
campaign materials on the vehicle, does not affect considerations pertinent to the operation of the
PUV. Thus, regulating the expression of ideas or opinion in a PUV, through the posting of an election
campaign material thereon, is not a regulation of the franchise or permit to operate, but a regulation
on the very ownership of the vehicle.
Court also ruled that the prohibition constitutes an invalid prior restraint on free speech, a violation
of the equal protection clause and is therefore, unconstitutional.

1 UTAK V COMELEC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 UTAK V COMELEC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

1 UTAK V COMELEC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1-UNITED TRANSPORT KOALISYON (1-UTAK),

You might also like

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