Scribd
Upload
33 views

Mutuc v. COMELEC - Case Digest

Petitioner Mutuc challenged the Commission on Elections' (COMELEC) prohibition on his use of jingles in his campaign mobile units. COMELEC justified the ban under a statute prohibiting campaign materials like pens and lighters. However, the Supreme Court ruled the jingles were a form of free speech and not covered by the statute, citing the importance of free expression in meaningful elections. The Court found COMELEC overstepped its authority by effectively censoring the petitioner.

Uploaded by

Fatimah Sahara Balindong
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
33 views

Mutuc v. COMELEC - Case Digest

Petitioner Mutuc challenged the Commission on Elections' (COMELEC) prohibition on his use of jingles in his campaign mobile units. COMELEC justified the ban under a statute prohibiting campaign materials like pens and lighters. However, the Supreme Court ruled the jingles were a form of free speech and not covered by the statute, citing the importance of free expression in meaningful elections. The Court found COMELEC overstepped its authority by effectively censoring the petitioner.

Uploaded by

Fatimah Sahara Balindong
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Amelito R. Mutuc v.

Commission on Elections
G.R. No. L-32717, November 26, 1970

FACTS: Petitioner Mutuc was a candidate for delegate to the Constitutional


Convention. He filed a special civil action against the respondent COMELEC when the
latter informed him through a telegram that his certificate of candidacy was given
due course but he was prohibited from using jingles in his mobile units equipped with
sound systems and loud speakers. The petitioner accorded the order to be violative
of his constitutional right to freedom of speech.

COMELEC justified its prohibition on the premise that the Constitutional


Convention Act provided that it is unlawful for the candidates “to purchase, produce,
request or distribute sample ballots, or electoral propaganda gadgets such as pens,
lighters, fans (of whatever nature), flashlights, athletic goods or materials, wallets,
bandanas, shirts, hats, matches, cigarettes, and the like, whether of domestic or
foreign origin.” COMELEC contended that the jingle or the recorded or taped voice of
the singer issued by petitioner was a tangible propaganda material and was, under
the above statute, subject to confiscation.

ISSUE: Whether or not the usage of the jingle by the petitioner form part of the
prohibition invoked by the COMELEC.

RULING: No. The Court ruled that there was absence of statutory authority on the
part of respondent to impose such ban in the light of the doctrine of ejusdem generis.
The respondent Commission failed to manifest fealty to a cardinal principle of
construction that a statute should be interpreted to assure its being consonance with,
rather than repugnant to, any constitutional command or prescription. The
Constitution prohibits abridgement of free speech or a free press. According to the
Supreme Court, this preferred freedom calls all the more for the utmost respect when
what may be curtailed is the dissemination of information to make more meaningful
the equally vital right of suffrage. What the respondent Commission did was to
impose censorship on petitioner, an evil against which this constitutional right is
directed.

You might also like