AMELITO R. MUTUC VS.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

Facts: Petitioner Amelito Mutuc, candidate for delegate to the Constitutional Convention, invokes his right to free speech against the rulings of the Commission on Election banning candidates in using taped jingle materials for campaign purposes. The petitioner objected to such prohibition, and prayed for preliminary injunction from the court, and also argued that said prohibition by the respondent is "violative of (his) Constitutional right...freedom of speech." The respondent however contended that the prohibition was within the tenets of the provisions in the Constitutional Convention Act which made it unlawful for candidates "to purchase, produce, request, distribute sample ballots, or electoral propaganda gadgets such as pens, lighters, fans (of whatever nature), flashlights, aesthetic goods or material, wallets, bandanas, shirts, hats, watches, cigarettes, and the like, whether domestic or foreign origin." The said prohibition by the respondent was said to be contained in the last three words "and the like" applying the principle of ejusdem generis and as such those taped jingles will be subject for confiscation. Issue: Whether or not the taped jingle produced by the petitioner is included in the prohibitions stated in Constitutional Convention Act provisions. Decision: The court ruled that in as far as ejusdem generis is concerned, the herein debated material is not included in the prohibitions contained in the provisions of Constitutional Convention Act. It also favored the contention of the petitioner that such prohibition to use taped jingles is "violative of Constitutional rights...freedom of speech" it upheld the decision by issuing permanent restraining order towards the respondent in enforcing or implementing or demanding compliance with its aforesaid banning the use of political taped jingles.