Gonzales v.

Comelec
Section 4, Article III.
Early Nomination of Candidates
Prepared by: Daniel S. Hofilena

Facts:

This is a petition for Declaratory Relief with Preliminary Injunction filed by petitioner Cabigao,
who is the incumbent councilor of the 4th district of manila and the Nacionalista party candidate
for Vice-Mayor of Manila to which he was subsequently elected. Petitioner Gonzales is a private
individual and a political leader of Cabigao. The petition challenges RA 8440 which prohibits
too early nomination and limiting the period of election campaign or partisan political activity on
grounds that is violates the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press.

1.The law prohibits political parties to nominate candidates

- for any elective public office voted for at large 150 days preceding the election
- for any other elective office 90 days preceding the election.

2.The assailed law also prohibits any person or any association of persons, political or not
- to engage in an election campaign 120 days before the election (for offices voted at
large)
- and 90 days for any other elective office.

3. The law also defined election campaign or partisan political activity refers to acts
designed to have a candidate elected or not or promote the candidacy of a person or
persons to a public office (see separate opinion)

Issue:
W/N the prohibition on too early nomination is unconstitutional (NO)
W/N the limitation on the period of partisan political activity is unconstitutional (NO)

Held
1. No.
The court said that "The right of association is affected. Political parties have less freedom as to
the time during which they may nominate candidates; the curtailment is not such, however, as
to render meaningless such a basic right. Their scope of legitimate activities, save this one, is
not unduly narrowe d. Neither is there infringement of their freedom to assemble. They can do
so, but not for such a purpose. We sustain in validity. ". Hence there is no co nstitutional infirmity
in the assailed provision of the law.

The court took into account the purpose of the legislature that is clearly apparent in the proviso :

"that simple expressions of opinion and thoughts concerning the election shall not be
considered as part of an election campaign," and in the other proviso "that nothing herein
stated shall be understood to prevent any person from expressing his views on current
 political problems or issues, or from mentioning the names of the candidates for public
office whom he supports." Such limitations qualify the entire provision restricting the
period of an election campaign or partisan political activity.

2. No (but a very close fight)

The petitioners allege that the assailed provision is too va gue and sweeping as it includes acts of
free speech. The court, is of the view that the restriction on the formation of organizations and
associations for the purpose of soliciting votes is valid and that the prohibition against the
solicitation or receiving contribution for election purposes is likewise valid. The other acts,
likewise deemed included in "election campaign" or "partisan political activity" tax to the utmost
the judicial predisposition to view with sympathy legislative efforts to regulate election practices
are valid even though they collide with the preferred right of freedom of expression.

The majority of the court (anti-RA8440) believes that such limitation on the making of speeches,
announcements, or commentaries , or the distribution and publication of campaign materials
suffer from invalidity. The majority of the Court feels compelled to view the statutory provisions
in question as unconstitutional on their face inasmuch as they appear to range too widely and
indiscriminately across the fundamental liberties associated with freedom of the mind

However the court lacked one more vote to declare it as unconstitutional ( 2/3 vote is not
reached). This is because for the minority (pro-RA8440) they felt that the police power of the
state, and with the concern for general welfare and safe- guarding the right of suffrage, the
legislature felt impelled to regulate election activities. As said by the amicus curiae Senator
Tanada " it is an appropriate response not merely to a clear and present danger but to the actual
existence of a grave and substantive evil of excessive partisanship, dishonesty and corruption as
well as violence that of late has invariably marred election campaigns and partisan political
activities in this country. "

Hence it would be too premature for a of nullity of any provision found in Republic Act No.
4880 since the intent of the law is only to punish a "grave and substantive evil of excessive
partisanship". The need for adjudication arises only if in the implementation of the Act, there is
in fact an unconstitutional application of its provisions.

Notes:

Separate Opinion of Justice Sanchez

- partisan political activities as found in the law is NOT CLEARLY defined at all. For it
includes any kind of political discussion, such as making speeches, or mere debating about
political ideas. Hence it suffers from constitutional infirmity as a violation of the freed of speech
and the press.

Separate Opinion of Justice Castro

- There is a contradiction in the law for it allows parties to nominate 150 days before the
elections yet prohibits campaigning until 120 days immediately preceding the election. The
legislature did not take into account the fact that during nomination in the general assembly, it is
where the candidates present their political platforms and start campaigning.