Scribd
Upload
1K views2 pages

Chavez v. Comelec

The Supreme Court ruled that billboards featuring a candidate's image that were put up as part of product endorsement agreements cannot be exempted from COMELEC Resolution No. 6520, which prohibits campaign materials for candidates prior to the official campaign period. The Court found that such billboards constitute "indirectly soliciting votes" and aim to promote a candidate. The Court also upheld the resolution as a valid exercise of police power, aiming to prohibit premature campaigning and level the playing field for all candidates.

Uploaded by

Kimberly Magno
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
1K views2 pages

Chavez v. Comelec

The Supreme Court ruled that billboards featuring a candidate's image that were put up as part of product endorsement agreements cannot be exempted from COMELEC Resolution No. 6520, which prohibits campaign materials for candidates prior to the official campaign period. The Court found that such billboards constitute "indirectly soliciting votes" and aim to promote a candidate. The Court also upheld the resolution as a valid exercise of police power, aiming to prohibit premature campaigning and level the playing field for all candidates.

Uploaded by

Kimberly Magno
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Chavez v.

Commission on Elections
G. R. No. 162777, August 31, 2004

FACTS: Petitioner Chavez, on various dates, entered into formal agreements with certain establishments
to endorse their products and pursuant to these agreements, three billboards were set up along the
Balintawak Interchange of the North Expressway. (These last two agreements were entered into on
October 14, 2003 and November 10, 2003, respectively.) On December 30, 2003, petitioner filed his
certificate of candidacy for the position of Senator under Alyansa ng Pag-asa. Thereafter, respondent
COMELEC issued a Resolution No. 6520 which contains Sec. 32 prohibiting all propaganda materials
showing the image or mentioning the name of a person, who subsequent to the placement thereof
becomes a candidate for public office. Petitioner was asked by the respondent to comply with the rule but
petitioner asked that he be exempted from said Resolution considering that the billboards mentioned
therein are mere product endorsement and cannot be construed as paraphernalia for premature
campaigning under the rules. COMELEC it ordered petitioner to remove or cause the removal of the
billboards, or to cover them from public view pending the approval of his request. Not agreeing with the
decision, petitioner Chavez asks the Supreme Court that the COMELEC be enjoined from enforcing the
assailed provision. Hence, the petition for prohibition with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
injunction.

ISSUES:
1) Whether or not the billboard mentioned therein are exempted from sec. 32 of resolution no. 6520 due
to the reason that it is purely product endorsement and do not announce or solicit any support for
petitioner's candidacy.
2) Whether or not Sec. 32 of Resolution 6520 is a valid exercise of police power.

HELD:
1) No, the Supreme Court held that the billboard mentioned therein should not be exempted from sec. 32
of resolution no. 6520. The Supreme Court held that Under the Omnibus Election Code, "election
campaign" or "partisan political activity" is defined as an act designed to promote the election or defeat of
a particular candidate or candidates to a public office. One of the activities included therein is "Directly or
indirectly soliciting votes, pledges or support for or against a candidate".
2) Yes, the Supreme Court held that Sec. 32 of resolution no. 6520 is a valid exercise of police power.
The Supreme Court said that A close examination of the assailed provision reveals that its primary
objectives are to prohibit premature campaigning and to level the playing field for candidates of public
office, to equalize the situation between popular or rich candidates, on one hand, and lesser-known or
poorer candidates, on the other, by preventing the former from enjoying undue advantage in exposure
and publicity on account of their resources and popularity. This is within the context of police power to
prescribe regulations to promote the health, morals, peace, education, good order, or safety, and the
general welfare of the people.

You might also like