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.
Title
Mutuc vs. COMELEC G.R. NO. L-32717 Nov. 26, 1970
Amelito R. Mutuc, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent
Facts
The petitioner, Amelito Mutuc was a candidate for delegate to the Constitutional Convention (1970).
His candidacy has been given due course by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) but the
commission prohibited the petitioner from using "taped jingles" in his mobile units for campaign
purposes because according to COMELEC, such act is a clear violation on the provision of the
Constitutional Convention Act, which made it unlawful for 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." It was COMELEC's argument that the jingle proposed
to be used by the petitioner is the recorded or taped voice of a singer and therefore a tangible propaganda
material, under the phrase "and the like". Mutuc protested and invoked his right to freedom of speech.
Issue
Whether or not the said rule which is "prohibiting the use of taped jingles" denied petitioner of his
freedom of speech.
Decision
Doctrinally, courts always ruled in favor of the freedom of expression. Moreover, any act that
restrains speech should be greeted with furrowed brows.
COMELEC shall not exercise any authority in conflict with the law. It must also be remembered that
there is no higher law than the Constitution.
Regarding the petitioner's invocation of his right to free speech, the Court has constantly held that this
preferred freedom calls all the more for the utmost respect. What respondent Commission did, in
effect, was to impose censorship on petitioner, an evil aginst which this constitutional right is
directed. Nor could respondent Commission justify its action by the assertion that petitioner, if he
would not resort to taped jingle, would be free, either by himself or through others, to use his mobile
units (loudspeakers). Precisely, the constitutional guarantee is not to be weakened by confining it to a
speaker having his say, but not perpetuating what is uttered by him through tape or other mechanical
contrivances. If courts were to sustain respondent Commission, then the effect would hardly be
distinguishable from a previous restraint. That cannot be validly done. It would negate indirectly what
the Constitution in express terms assures.
COMELEC is restrained and prohibited from enforcing such rule.
