CASE DIGEST : Adiong vs.
COMELEC speak or convince or persuade is denied or
FACTS:
In January 1992, petitioner Adiong filed a petition
questioning the validity of the prohibition mandated
in COMELEC Resolution No. 2347 relative to the
posting of election campaign decals and stickers in
“mobile” places like cars and other motor vehicles.
COMELEC Resolution No. 2347 provides that the
lawful election propaganda campaign materials,
including decals and stickers, may be posted only in
authorized places fixed by the COMELEC and not in
any other places, whether public or private, mobile or
stationary.
Adiong contended that the prohibition as enshrined in
the promulgated Resolution of COMELEC, aside from
being violative of the Omnibus Election Code and RA
6646, it will also impress upon him and to other
neophyte candidates in the field of politics grave and
irreparable injury because it will infringe their
freedom of speech and expression to inform the
electorate that they are candidates for the election.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the prohibition as provided in
COMELEC Resolution No. 2347 relative to the posting
of election campaign decals and stickers in mobile
places is valid?
RULING:
The Court ruled that NO, the prohibition is invalid,
thus, null and void, due to the following grounds:
1. The prohibition of posting the decals and
stickers in mobile places like cars and other
motor vehicles is invalid for unduly infringing
the freedom of speech and expression of the
candidate and the owner of the private
property as enshrined in our constitution.
The freedom of speech has been accorded to
become a preferred freedom in our Bill of
Rights. Such freedom is considered to be an
indispensable condition in every freedom in
the Constitution. The other provisions in the
Bill of rights and the right to free election
may not be guaranteed if the freedom to
taken away.
Too much restriction in the dissemination of
information will deny the people of their right
to free election. The Court recognized that
although the COMELEC has been granted
regulatory powers during election period,
such power of the Government is not without
limit especially when the basic freedom of
people is affected. The so called balancing of
interest, individual freedom and substantial
public interest, must be made.
A government regulation is sufficiently
justified when it is within the constitutional
power and if such regulation passes the clear
and present danger rule. (In clear and present
danger rule, the danger is patently clear,
present and so substantive so as to justify the
regulation of one’s freedom). The said posting
of decals and stickers does not present a clear
and present danger to substantial
governmental interest, thus, the curtailment
of one’s freedom of speech is not justified.
The freedom of expression infringed in this
case is not so much of the candidate but that
of the owner of the motor vehicle who
chooses to post the said sticker or decal of a
candidate expressing his own preference and
thus making a statement for himself.
2. The prohibition is void for overbreadth. A
statute is void for overbreadth when the
language used in the statute is so broad that
it unnecessarily interferes with the exercise
of constitutional rights. Here, the restriction
imposed as to the posting is so broad as it
encompasses even the citizen’s liberty to use
of the private property and their freedom of
speech and expression.
3. The equal opportunity for the rich and the
poor is not impaired. The essential part of
posting the stickers and decals in one’s own
vehicle is the owner’s preference and not
based on financial resources. Though the
candidate may be rich and election materials
may be overflowing, it is still the owner’s
choice to post it in his car. The posting
becomes the statement of the owner.