SANIDAD vs.

COMELEC Case Digest

SANIDAD vs. COMELEC
181 SCRA 529
Facts: On 23 October 1989, RA 6766 (Act
providing for an organic act for the Cordillera
Autonomous Region) was enacted into law. The
plebiscite was scheduled 30 January 1990. The
Comelec, by virtue of the power vested by the
1987 Constitution, the Omnibus Election Code
(BP 881), RA 6766 and other pertinent election
laws, promulgated Resolution 2167, to govern the
conduct of the plebiscite on the said Organic Act
for the Cordillera Autonomous Region. Pablito V.
Sanidad, a newspaper columnist of Overview
for the Baguio Midland Courier assailed the
constitutionality of Section 19 (Prohibition on
columnists, commentators or announcers) of the
said resolution, which provides During the
plebiscite campaign period, on the day before
and on plebiscite day, no mass media columnist,
commentator, announcer or personality shall use
his column or radio or television time to campaign
for or against the plebiscite issues.
Issue: Whether columnists are prohibited from
expressing their opinions, or should be under
Comelec regulation, during plebiscite periods.
Held: Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution that
what was granted to the Comelec was the power
to supervise and regulate the use and enjoyment
of franchises, permits or other grants issued for
the operation of transportation or other public
utilities, media of communication or information to
the end that equal opportunity, time and space,
and the right to reply, including reasonable, equal
rates therefor, for public information campaigns
and forums among candidates are ensured.
Neither Article IX-C of the Constitution nor
Section 11-b, 2nd paragraph of RA 6646 (a
columnist,
commentator,
announcer
or
personality, who is a candidate for any elective
office is required to take a leave of absence from
his work during the campaign period) can be
construed to mean that the Comelec has also
been granted the right to supervise and regulate
the exercise by media practitioners themselves of
their right to expression during plebiscite periods.
Media practitioners exercising their freedom of
expression during plebiscite periods are neither
the franchise holders nor the candidates. In fact,
there are no candidates involved in a plebiscite.
Therefore, Section 19 of Comelec Resolution
2167 has no statutory basis.

G.R. No. 103956 March 31, 1992

BLO UMPAR ADIONG vs. COMMISSION
ON
ELECTIONS
Facts:
Petitioner Blo Umpar Adiong, a senatorial
candidate in the May 11, 1992 elections now
assails the COMELEC's 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.
In addition, the petitioner believes that with the
ban on radio, television and print political
advertisements, he, being a neophyte in the field
of politics stands to suffer grave and irreparable
injury with this prohibition. The posting of decals
and stickers on cars and other moving vehicles
would be his last medium to inform the electorate
that he is a senatorial candidate in the May 11,
1992 elections. Finally, the petitioner states that
as of February 22, 1992 (the date of the petition)
he has not received any notice from any of the
Election Registrars in the entire country as to the
location of the supposed "Comelec Poster Areas."
Issue: Is the COMELEC Resolution prohibiting
the posting of decals and stickers except on
COMELEC authorized posting areas, valid and
constitutional?
Ruling:
No. The COMELEC's prohibition on posting of
decals and stickers on "mobile" places whether
public or private except in designated areas
provided for by the COMELEC itself is null and
void on constitutional grounds. The prohibition
unduly infringes on the citizen's fundamental
right of free speech enshrined in the Constitution
(Sec. 4, Article III). There is no public interest
substantial enough to warrant the kind of
restriction
involved
in
this
case.
The questioned prohibition premised on the
statute and as couched in the resolution is also
void for overbreadth. Section 11 of Rep. Act 6646
is so encompassing and invasive that it prohibits
the posting or display of election propaganda in
any place, whether public or private, except in the
common poster areas sanctioned by COMELEC.
Third, the constitutional objective to give a rich

candidate and a poor candidate equal

opportunity to inform the electorate as regards
their candidacies, mandated by Article II, Section
26 and Article XIII, section 1 in relation to Article
IX (c) Section 4 of the Constitution, is not
impaired by posting decals and stickers on cars
and other private vehicles. Compared to the
paramount interest of the State in guaranteeing
freedom
of
expression,
any
financial
considerations behind the regulation are of
marginal
significance.
In sum, the prohibition on posting of decals and
stickers on "mobile" places whether public or
private except in the authorized areas designated
by the COMELEC becomes censorship which
cannot be justified by the Constitution.
Election Law: Pilar vs COMELEC G.R. No.
115245 July 11, 1995
JUANITO
C.
PILAR,
petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent.
G.R.
No.
115245
July
11,
1995
Facts:
On March 22, 1992, petitioner Juanito C. Pilar
filed his certificate of candidacy for the position
of member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of
the Province of Isabela. Three days after, the
petitioner withdrew his certificate of candidacy.
In M.R. Nos. 93-2654 and 94-0065 dated
November 3, 1993 and February 13, 1994
respectively, the COMELEC imposed upon
petitioner the fine of Ten Thousand Pesos for
failure to file his statement of contributions and
expenditures.
Petitioner argues that he cannot be held liable
for failure to file a statement of contributions
and expenditures because he was a "noncandidate," having withdrawn his certificates of
candidacy three days after its filing. Petitioner
speculates that "it is . . . clear from the law that
candidate must have entered the political
contest, and should have either won or lost".
Issue:
Whether or not a candidate is excused in filing
his statement of contributions and expenditures
after he has withdrawn his certificate of
candidacy.
Held:

The petition is dismissed. The court ruled that

the filing or withdrawal of certificate of
candidacy shall not affect whatever civil,
criminal or administrative liabilities which a
candidate may have incurred. Petitioners
withdrawal of his candidacy did not extinguish
his liability for the administrative fine. It is not
improbable that a candidate who withdrew his
candidacy has accepted contributions and
incurred expenditures, even in the short span of
his campaign. The evil sought to be prevented
by the law is not all too remote. Courts have also
ruled that such provisions are mandatory as to
the requirement of filing.