Case Digest (G.R. No. L-27833)
Facts:
On July 22, 1967, petitioners Arsenio Gonzales and Felicisimo R. Cabigao, an incumbent Manila councilor and Nacionalista Party vice-mayoral candidate, filed before the Supreme Court a petition for declaratory relief with preliminary injunction against the Commission on Elections. They assailed Republic Act No. 4880, approved June 17, 1967, which amended the Revised Election Code by inserting Sections 50-A (prohibiting political parties, committees or groups from nominating candidates more than 150 days before a national election or 90 days before other elections) and 50-B (barring any person or association from engaging in election campaign or partisan political activity outside the 120-day or 90-day windows preceding an election). Although the proper remedy lay in prohibition before the Court of First Instance, this Court exercised its original jurisdiction in view of the urgency and gravity of the constitutional issues raised. After pleadings, memoranda, amicus curiae briefs f...Case Digest (G.R. No. L-27833)
Facts:
- Legislative Amendments
- On June 17, 1967, Congress approved Republic Act No. 4880, amending the Revised Election Code by inserting:
- Section 50-A – prohibits nominating candidates earlier than 150 days (national) or 90 days (local) before elections.
- Section 50-B – limits “election campaign” or “partisan political activity” to the 120-day (national) or 90-day (local) period before elections, defining covered acts (a–f) and providing two narrow exceptions.
- Petitioners and Claims
- Petitioners – Arsenio Gonzales (private citizen, Manila voter/leader) and Felicisimo R. Cabigao (incumbent Manila councilor, later Vice-Mayor).
- Allegation – RA 4880 unconstitutionally abridges:
- Freedom of speech and of the press.
- Freedom of assembly.
- Freedom of association.
- Procedural History
- Petition for declaratory relief with preliminary injunction filed July 22, 1967.
- COMELEC answered August 1, 1967, defending the Act as a valid exercise of police power.
- This Court treated the petition as one for prohibition, held hearings (Aug 3, Aug 9, oral arguments), and invited amici curiae.
- Deliberations continued amid diverging views on Sections 50-B(c),(d),(e).
Issues:
- Jurisdiction and Standing
- Was the petition a justiciable controversy or an impermissible advisory opinion?
- Did petitioners possess a substantial, direct interest to challenge RA 4880?
- Constitutionality of RA 4880
- Section 50-A – Does the nomination-timing ban infringe freedom of association or assembly?
- Section 50-B – Do limits on campaign-activity infringe:
- Freedom of speech and press?
- Freedom of assembly?
- Freedom of association?
- Standard of Review
- Which test governs limits on expression and assembly: “clear and present danger,” “dangerous tendency,” or a “balancing-of-interests” approach?
- Do drafting defects (vagueness, overbreadth) render any provision unconstitutional?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)