Case Digest (G.R. No. 103956)
Facts:
Blo Umpar Adiong v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 103956, March 31, 1992, the Supreme Court En Banc, Gutierrez, Jr., J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Blo Umpar Adiong, a first-time senatorial candidate in the May 11, 1992 elections, challenged portions of COMELEC Resolution No. 2347 (promulgated January 13, 1992) that restricted the posting of decals and stickers to authorized COMELEC posting areas. The resolution’s relevant provisions were Section 15(a) (defining lawful election propaganda and expressly providing that "decals and stickers may be posted only in any of the authorized posting areas provided in paragraph (f) of Section 21 hereof") and Section 21(f) (prohibiting election propaganda "in any place, whether public or private, mobile or stationary, except in the COMELEC common posted areas and/or billboards..." subject to size limits).
The COMELEC relied on statutory authorities including Section 82 of the Omnibus Election Code (defining lawful election propaganda) and Section 11(a) of Republic Act No. 6646 (proscribing posting of election propaganda except in common poster areas), asserting its constitutional and statutory regulatory powers over elections. Petitioner maintained that the prohibition of decals and stickers on "mobile" places (e.g., privately owned cars and other moving vehicles) contradicted those statutes and violated his and others’ constitutional rights to free speech and expression, and that, given bans on other paid media, decals/stickers were a necessary medium for his campaign; he also alleged that he had not been notified of COMELEC’s designated poster areas as of February 22, 1992.
No lower court adjudication is reported; the petition directly sought relief against ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May the Commission on Elections, pursuant to its constitutional and statutory powers, prohibit the posting of decals and stickers on "mobile" places such as privately owned vehicles?
- Does the COMELEC prohibition unconstitutionally abridge freedom of speech and expression protected by the Constitution (Article III, Sec. 4)?
- Is the COMELEC provision void for overbreadth and violative of property and due process protections, and can equal-opportunity...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)