[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
158 views1 page

1-Utak Vs Comelec

The Supreme Court ruled that COMELEC's prohibition on posting campaign materials in public utility vehicles (PUVs) and transport terminals was invalid. The Court found that the restriction unduly infringed on the fundamental right to freedom of speech of PUV and terminal owners to express their political preferences on their private property. While COMELEC can regulate transportation franchises during elections, it cannot regulate ownership of PUVs and terminals through restricting political expression. Posting campaign materials does not affect a PUV's operations, so regulating such expression amounts to regulating ownership rather than just the franchise to operate.

Uploaded by

Justine Galandines
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
158 views1 page

1-Utak Vs Comelec

The Supreme Court ruled that COMELEC's prohibition on posting campaign materials in public utility vehicles (PUVs) and transport terminals was invalid. The Court found that the restriction unduly infringed on the fundamental right to freedom of speech of PUV and terminal owners to express their political preferences on their private property. While COMELEC can regulate transportation franchises during elections, it cannot regulate ownership of PUVs and terminals through restricting political expression. Posting campaign materials does not affect a PUV's operations, so regulating such expression amounts to regulating ownership rather than just the franchise to operate.

Uploaded by

Justine Galandines
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
April 14, 2015 / G.R. No. 206020

Facts: COMELEC promulgated Resolution No. 9615, providing for the implementing rules for the
Fair Election Act in connection with the May 2013 national and local elections, and subsequent
elections. Sec 7 enumerated prohibited forms of election propaganda, which included posting of
election propaganda outside of authorized common poster areas in public places. “Public places”
was defined to include public utility vehicles and the premises of public transport terminals.
Violation would result in revocation of the public utility franchise and make the owner liable for an
election offense. Petitioner challenged the Resolution as violative of the free speech and property
rights of the owners of PUVs and transport terminals.

Issue: Whether the prohibition of posting campaign materials in PUVs and transport terminals was
valid
Held: No. These restrictions unduly infringe on the fundamental right of the people to freedom of
speech, i.e. the freedom of 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. COMELEC may only regulate the franchise or permit to operate of
transportation utilities during an election period pursuant to Sec 4, Art IX-C of the Constitution; it
may not regulate the ownership per se of PUVs and transport terminals.

The expression of ideas of a PUV owner through posting election materials on the vehicle does not
affect considerations pertinent to the PUV’s operations; hence, regulating expression of ideas is in
such a manner not a regulation of the franchise or permit to operate, but a regulation on the very
ownership of the vehicle.

You might also like