Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Lanot v. COMELEC
G.R. No. 164858, November 16, 2006
FACTS: Petitioners filed a petition for disqualification under Sections
68 and 80 of the Omnibus Election Code against Eusebio before the
COMELEC stating that the latter engaged in an election campaign in
various forms on various occasions outside of the designated
campaign period, such as (1) addressing a large group of people
during a medical mission sponsored by the Pasig City government;
(2) uttering defamatory statements against Lanot; (3) causing the
publication of a press release predicting his victory; (4) installing
billboards, streamers, posters, and stickers printed with his surname
across Pasig City; and (5) distributing shoes to schoolchildren in
Pasig public schools to induce their parents to vote for him. Eusebio
won the election and any other complaints was dismissed by the
COMELEC.
ISSUE: Whether or not there is a pre-campaign offense committed by
Eusebio.
RULING: There is no dispute that Eusebios acts of election
campaigning or partisan political activities were committed outside of
the campaign period. The only question is whether Eusebio, who filed
his certificate of candidacy on 29 December 2003, was a "candidate"
when he committed those acts before the start of the campaign
period on 24 March 2004. Under Section 11 of RA 8436, Eusebio
became a "candidate," for purposes of Section 80 of the Omnibus
Election Code, only on 23 March 2004, the last day for filing
certificates of candidacy. Applying the facts - as found by Director
Ladra and affirmed by the COMELEC First Division - to Section 11 of
RA 8436, Eusebio clearly did not violate Section 80 of the Omnibus
Election Code which requires the existence of a "candidate," one who
has filed his certificate of candidacy, during the commission of the
questioned acts.
Adiong Vs Comelec
ADIONG
v.
COMELEC
G.R.
No.
103956
March 31, 1992
FACTS: On January 13, 1992, the COMELEC promulgated
Resolution No. 2347 pursuant to its powers granted by the
Constitution, the Omnibus Election Code, Republic Acts Nos. 6646
and 7166 and other election laws. Section 15(a) of the resolution
provides:
Sec. 15. Lawful Election Propaganda. The following are lawful
election propaganda:
(a) Pamphlets, leaflets, cards, decals Provided, That decals and
stickers may be posted only in any of the authorized posting areas
provided in paragraph (f) of Section 21 hereof.
Section 21 (f) of the same resolution provides:
Sec. 21(f). Prohibited forms of election propaganda.
It is unlawful:
(f) To draw, paint, inscribe, post, display or publicly exhibit any
election propaganda in any place, whether public or private, mobile or
stationary, except in the COMELEC common posted areas and/or
billboards
Petitioner Blo Umpar Adiong, a senatorial candidate in the May 11,
1992 elections assails the COMELECs Resolution insofar as it
prohibits the posting of decals and stickers in mobile places like
cars and other moving vehicles. According to him such prohibition is
violative of Section 82 of the Omnibus Election Code and Section
11(a) of Republic Act No. 6646.
ISSUE: Whether or not the COMELEC may prohibit the posting of
decals and stickers on mobile places, public or private, and limit
their location or publication to the authorized posting areas that it
fixes.
HELD: The petition is hereby GRANTED. The portion of Section 15
(a) of Resolution No. 2347 of the COMELEC providing that decals
and stickers may be posted only in any of the authorized posting
areas provided in paragraph (f) of Section 21 hereof is DECLARED
NULL and VOID. The COMELECs prohibition on posting of decals
vs
Comelec
Facts:
Petitioner SWS and KPC states that it wishes to conduct an election
survey throughout the period of the elections and release to the
media the results of such survey as well as publish them directly.
Petitioners argue that the restriction on the publication of election
survey results constitutes a prior restraint on the exercise of freedom
of speech without any clear and present danger to justify such
restraint.
Issue:
Are the Comelec Resolutions prohibiting the holding of pre-polls and
exit polls and the dissemination of their results through mass media,
valid
and
constitutional?
Ruling:
No. The Court held that Section (5)4 is invalid because (1) it imposes
a prior restraint on the freedom of expression, (2) it is a direct and
total suppression of a category of expression even though such
suppression is only for a limited period, and (3) the governmental
interest sought to be promoted can be achieved by means other than
suppression
of
freedom
of
expression.
It has been held that "[mere] legislative preferences or beliefs
respecting matters of public convenience may well support regulation
directed at other personal activities, but be insufficient to justify such
as diminishes the exercise of rights so vital to the maintenance of
democratic institutions.