CASE DIGEST

#1. Facts only.issue and held copy from your research

ERNESTO B. FRANCISCO, JR. vs. THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
G.R. No. 160261. November 10, 2003.

Facts: On July 22, 2002, the House of Representatives adopted a Resolution

which directed the Committee on Justice to conduct an investigation, in aid of
legislation, on the manner of disbursements and expenditures by the Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court of the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF). On
June 2, 2003, former President Joseph Estrada filed an impeachment
complaint against Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. and seven Associate Justices.
The complaint was endorsed and was referred to the House Committee in
accordance with Section 3(2) of Article XI of the Constitution.
The House Committee on Justice ruled on October 13, 2003 that the first
impeachment complaint was sufficient in form, but voted to dismiss the same
on October 22, 2003 for being insufficient in substance. On October 23, 2003,
a second impeachment complaint was filed against Chief Justice Hilario G.
Davide, Jr., founded on the alleged results of the legislative inquiry initiated by
above-mentioned House Resolution. This second impeachment complaint was
accompanied by a Resolution of Endorsement/Impeachment signed by at
least one-third (1/3) of all the Members of the House of Representatives.

#2. Facts, issue and held..incomplete in the notes.

G.R. No. L-32717 November 26, 1970
AMELITO R. MUTUC vs. COMELEC

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 used 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.

HELD:
The Court held that the general words following any enumeration being applicable only to
things of the same kind or class as those specifically referred to. The COMELECs contention
that a candidates jingle form part of the prohibition, categorized under the phrase and the like,
could not merit the courts approval by principle of Ejusdem Generis. It is quite apparent that
what was contemplated in the Act was the distribution of gadgets of the kind referred to as a
means of inducement to obtain a favorable vote for the candidate responsible for its distribution.

Furthermore, the COMELEC failed to observe construction of the statute which should be in
consonance to the express terms of the constitution. The intent of the COMELEC for the
prohibition may be laudable but it should not be sought at the cost of the candidates
constitutional rights.
#3