G.R. No. L-27113 - Basa vs. FOITAF

Two petitions were filed by petitioner Anacleto D. Badoy, Jr. in separate cases (G.R. Nos. L-32546 and L-32551) concerning his candidacy as delegate to the Constitutional Convention representing North Cotabato.
The petitioner challenged the provisions of Republic Act No. 6132, particularly Section 12(F), on the ground that it unduly abridges freedom of expression.
The petitions specifically objected to the requirement that paid advertisements, comments, or articles printed outside of the Comelec space must mention with equal prominence the names of all candidates in the relevant district.

Section 12(F) of R.A. No. 6132 mandates that any paid advertisement (or commentary/article) in furtherance of or opposition to a candidate’s campaign, if not published within the designated "Comelec space," must include the names of all other candidates in the same district with equal prominence.
For unpaid comments or articles posted by natural persons, the requirement to mention all the other candidates does not apply.
The law provides a range of facilities to enhance electoral fairness and equal opportunity, including:

Allocation of free Comelec space in newspapers, magazines, and periodicals (if obtainable).
Regulation of campaign expenditures with a set spending limit of thirty-two thousand pesos (P32,000.00).
Other measures to ensure that the poorer or less resourceful candidates have a fighting chance despite the financial advantage of wealthier candidates.

Originally, the petitioner in G.R. No. L-32551 appealed for a construction of Section 12(F) that would also permit the printing of unpaid comments or articles without the equal prominence requirement.
After the filing of the petitions, the Commission on Elections (Comelec) amended paragraph 6 of its Resolution No. RR-724 by promulgating Resolution No. RR-739, which limited the prohibition to paid materials only.
As the amendment clarified that unpaid comments or articles are not subject to the equal prominence requirement, the petition in G.R. No. L-32551 became moot and academic.

The challenged provision is part of a wider regulatory framework intended to preserve the purity of the ballot and ensure equality of opportunity among candidates.
The law also contains numerous provisions penalizing political party or organized group support, misuse of governmental influence, and other irregularities to prevent undue domination in elections.
The legislative policy aims at both restraining excessive campaign spending and ensuring a level playing field by forcing candidates who purchase paid media to also provide space for their opponents.

Whether the mandatory equal prominence requirement for paid campaign materials, as contained in Section 12(F), constitutes an unconstitutional abridgment of the freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
Whether the provision, in its design and application, excessively restricts a candidate’s ability to communicate his qualifications and proposals, and thus impairs the electorate’s right to be fully informed.

Whether the regulation, when measured against the state’s interest in safeguarding the integrity of the electoral process and equalizing the chances among candidates, justifiably restricts the freedom of expression.
The issue of whether the statute’s narrow limitation is acceptable in light of the broader measures provided to facilitate campaign activities both individually and through institutional support.

For G.R. No. L-32551, whether the amendment (Resolution No. RR-739) removing the prohibition on unpaid campaign materials renders the petition moot.
The broader question of whether the regulation unduly affects the free expression rights of both candidates and non-candidates under the guise of preventing “organized group support.”