G.

R
No.
10395
6

Case Title
BLO UMPAR
ADIONG vs.
COMMISSION
ON
ELECTIONS

Issue/Doctrine/Principle
Whether or not the Commission
on Elections (COMELEC) may
prohibit the posting of decals and
stickers on "mobile" places,
public or private, and limit their
location or publication to the
authorized posting areas that it
fixes

SC Ruling
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
Sec. 4, Article III of the 1987
Constitution. It is difficult to
imagine how the other
provisions of the Bill of
Rights and the right to free
elections may be guaranteed
if the freedom to speak and to
convince or persuade is
denied and taken away. We
have also ruled that the
preferred freedom of
expression calls all the more
for the utmost respect when
what may be curtailed is the
dissemination of information
to make more meaningful the
equally vital right of suffrage.
There is another problem
involved. Considering that
the period of legitimate
campaign activity is fairly
limited and, in the opinion of
some, too short, it becomes
obvious that unduly
restrictive regulations may
prove unfair to affected
parties and the electorate.

10265
3

NATIONAL
PRESS CLUB
vs.
COMMISSION
ON
ELECTIONS

Whether Section 11 (b) of

Republic Act No. 6646 is
constitutional.

The posting of decals and

stickers in mobile places like
cars and other moving
vehicles does not endanger
any substantial government
interest. 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.
WHEREFORE, the petition
is hereby GRANTED. The
portion of Section 15 (a) of
Resolution No. 2347 of the
Commission on Elections
providing that "decals and
stickers may be posted only
in any of the authorized
posting areas provided in
paragraph (f) of Section 21
hereof" is DECLARED
NULL and VOID.
The Comelec has been
expressly authorized by the
Constitution to supervise or
regulate the enjoyment or
utilization of the franchises or
permits for the operation of
media of communication and
information. The fundamental
purpose of such "supervision
or regulation" has been
spelled out in the
Constitution as the ensuring
of "equal opportunity, time,
and space, and the right to
reply," as well as uniform and

reasonable rates of charges

for the use of such media
facilities, in connection with
"public information
campaigns and forums among
candidates." Finally, the
nature and characteristics of
modern mass media,
especially electronic media,
cannot be totally disregarded.
Realistically, the only
limitation upon the free
speech of candidates imposed
is on the right of candidates
to bombard the helpless
electorate with paid
advertisements commonly
repeated in the mass media ad
nauseam. Frequently, such
repetitive political
commercials when fed into
the electronic media
themselves constitute
invasions of the privacy of
the general electorate. It
might be supposed that it is
easy enough for a person at
home simply to flick off his
radio of television set. But it
is rarely that simple. For the
candidates with deep pockets
may purchase radio or
television time in many, if not
all, the major stations or
channels. Or they may
directly or indirectly own or
control the stations or
channels themselves. The
contemporary reality in the
Philippines is that, in a very

real sense, listeners and

viewers constitute a "captive
audience." The paid political
advertisement introjected into
the electronic media and
repeated with minddeadening frequency, are
commonly intended and
crafted, not so much to
inform and educate as to
condition and manipulate, not
so much to provoke rational
and objective appraisal of
candidates' qualifications or
programs as to appeal to the
non-intellective faculties of
the captive and passive
audience. The right of the
general listening and viewing
public to be free from such
intrusions and their
subliminal effects is at least
as important as the right of
candidates to advertise
themselves through modern
electronic media and the right
of media enterprises to
maximize their revenues from
the marketing of "packaged"
candidates. WHEREFORE,
the Petitions should be, as
they are hereby, DISMISSED
for lack of merit. No
pronouncement as to costs.