1-United Transport Koalisyon (1-Utak), vs. Commission On Elections, Respondent

Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 9

1-UNITED TRANSPORT KOALISYON (1-UTAK),

Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.

G.R. No. 206020


April 14, 2015
Facts:
1. On January 15, 2013, the COMELEC promulgated Resolution No. 9615, which provided
for the rules implementing R.A. No. 9006 (or the “Fair Elections Act) in connection with
the May 13, 2013 national and local elections and subsequent elections.

2. Section 7 (f) of the promulgated Resolution enumerates the prohibited forms of


election such as posting, displaying or exhibiting any election campaign or propaganda
material outside of authorized common poster areas, in public places, or in private
properties without the consent of the owner thereof.

3. Section 7 (g) enumerates the public places referred to in subsection (f) as public utility
vehicles such as buses, jeepneys, trains, taxi cabs, ferries, pedicabs and tricycles,
whether motorized or not; and within the premises of public transport terminals,
such as bus terminals, airports, seaports, docks, piers, train stations, and the like.
Facts:

1. The petitioner sought clarification from the COMELEC of said provisions


and explained that these impede the right to free speech of the private
owners of PUVs and transport terminals. The petitioner then requested
the COMELEC to reconsider the implementation of the assailed provisions
but the COMELEC en banc denied it, hence, the instant petition.
Arguments of the Petitioner

1. The petitioner maintains that mentioned provisions violate the right


to free speech;
2. That it curtails their ideas of who should be voted by the public.
3. That the ownership of the PUVs per se, as well as the transport
terminals, remains private, hence, they could not be prohibited by the
COMELEC from expressing their political opinion.
Arguments of the COMELEC

1. The COMELEC posits that privately-owned PUVs and transport terminals


are public spaces that are subject to its regulation vested by the
Constitution.

2. that PUVs and private transport terminals hold a captive audience, who
have no choice but be subjected to the blare of political propaganda. Thus,
it is within its constitutional authority to prevent privately-owned PUVs and
transport terminals from concurrently serving campaign materials to the
captive audience that they transport.

3. that the regulation is an important and substantial governmental interest,


which is totally unrelated to the suppression of free expression.
Issue: Whether or not the said provisions of
Resolution No. 9615 are valid regulations.
Ruling:

1. NO. they are not valid regulations.


2. Section 7(g) items (5) and (6), in relation to Section 7(f), of Resolution
No. 9615 unduly infringe on the fundamental right of the people to
freedom of speech. Central to the prohibition is the freedom of the
owners of PUVs and private transport terminals, to express their
preference, through the posting of election campaign material in their
property, and convince others to agree with them.
3. Owners of PUVs and transport terminals are forcefully and effectively
inhibited from expressing their preferences under the pain of
indictment for an election offense and the revocation of their
franchise or permit to operate.
Ruling:

1. The said provisions are also content-neutral regulations and are not
within the constitutionally delegated power of the COMELEC under
Section 4, Article IX-C of the Constitution. Also, there is absolutely no
necessity to restrict the right to free speech of the owners of PUVs and
transport terminals.
2. 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.
Ruling:

3. Furthermore, the prohibitions are not only repugnant to the free


speech clause, but are also violative of the equal protection clause, as
there is no substantial distinction between owners of PUV s and
transport terminals and owners of private vehicles and other
properties.
4. The instant petition is GRANTED. Said provisions of Resolution No. 9615
are declared NULL and VOID.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

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

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy