Scribd
Upload
299 views1 page

1 Utak Vs Comelec

The COMELEC promulgated a resolution prohibiting the posting of election materials in public utility vehicles and transport terminals during campaigns. 1 UTAK questioned this, arguing it infringes on free speech rights. The Supreme Court agreed with 1 UTAK for three reasons: 1) COMELEC's regulatory power does not extend to ownership of private vehicles and terminals. 2) The "captive audience" doctrine does not apply since commuters can avert their eyes. 3) The prohibition constitutes unlawful prior restraint on political expression and speech.

Uploaded by

Harold Estacio
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
299 views1 page

1 Utak Vs Comelec

The COMELEC promulgated a resolution prohibiting the posting of election materials in public utility vehicles and transport terminals during campaigns. 1 UTAK questioned this, arguing it infringes on free speech rights. The Supreme Court agreed with 1 UTAK for three reasons: 1) COMELEC's regulatory power does not extend to ownership of private vehicles and terminals. 2) The "captive audience" doctrine does not apply since commuters can avert their eyes. 3) The prohibition constitutes unlawful prior restraint on political expression and speech.

Uploaded by

Harold Estacio
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/ 1

1 Utak vs CoMELEC

Case Digest: GR 206020 April 14 2015


Facts:
In 2013, the COMELEC promulgated Resolution 9615 providing rules that would implement Sec 9
of RA 9006 or the Fair Elections Act. One of the provisions of the Resolution provide that the
posting of any election propaganda or materials during the campaign period shall be prohibited
in public utility vehicles (PUV) and within the premises of public transport terminals. 1 UTAK, a
party-list organization, questioned the prohibition as it impedes the right to free speech of the
private owners of PUVs and transport terminals.
Issue 1: W/N the COMELEC may impose the prohibition on PUVs and public transport terminals
during the election pursuant to its regulatory powers delegated under Art IX-C, Sec 4 of the
Constitution
No. The COMELEC may only regulate the franchise or permit to operate and not the ownership
per se of PUVs and transport terminals. The posting of election campaign material on vehicles
used for public transport or on transport terminals is not only a form of political expression, but
also an act of ownership it has nothing to do with the franchise or permit to operate the PUV or
transport terminal.
Issue 2: W/N the regulation is justified by the captive audience doctrine
No. A government regulation based on the captive-audience doctrine may not be justified if the
supposed captive audience may avoid exposure to the otherwise intrusive speech. Here, the
commuters are not forced or compelled to read the election campaign materials posted on PUVs
and transport terminals. Nor are they incapable of declining to receive the messages contained
in the posted election campaign materials since they may simply avert their eyes if they find the
same unbearably intrusive. Hence, the doctrine is not applicable.
Issue 3: W/N the regulation constitutes prior restraints on free speech
Yes. It unduly infringes on the fundamental right of the people to freedom of speech. Central to
the prohibition is the freedom of individuals such as the owners of PUVs and private transport
terminals to express their preference, through the posting of election campaign material in their
property, and convince others to agree with them.
Issue 4: W/N the regulation is a valid content-neutral regulation
No. The prohibition under the certain provisions of RA 9615 are content-neutral regulations
since they merely control the place where election campaign materials may be posted, but the
prohibition is repugnant to the free speech clause as it fails to satisfy all of the requisites for
a valid content-neutral regulation.
The restriction on free speech of owners of PUVs and transport terminals is not necessary to a
stated governmental interest. First, while Resolution 9615 was promulgated by the COMELEC to
implement the provisions of Fair Elections Act, the prohibition on posting of election campaign
materials on PUVs and transport terminals was not provided for therein. Second, there are more
than sufficient provisions in our present election laws that would ensure equal time, space, and
opportunity to candidates in elections. Hence, one of the requisites of a valid content-neutral
regulation was not satisfied.

You might also like