Case Digest (G.R. No. L-6189) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Amelito R. Mutuc v. Commission on Elections, petitioner Amelito R. Mutuc, a resident of Arayat, Pampanga and a candidate for delegate to the 1971 Constitutional Convention, received a telegram from the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) around October 24, 1970, informing him that although his certificate of candidacy had been given due course, he was prohibited from using taped campaign jingles on his mobile sound units. Believing this directive to be a violation of his constitutional right to free speech, he filed on October 29, 1970 a special civil action for prohibition and prayed for a preliminary injunction, asserting that no adequate remedy at law existed. COMELEC’s answer, filed November 2, 1970, justified the ban under Section 12(E) of Republic Act No. 6132 (the Constitutional Convention Act of 1970), which outlaws the distribution of “electoral propaganda gadgets” and includes “and the like” in its enumeration. On November 3, 1970, after oral argument and in light of Case Digest (G.R. No. L-6189) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Background of the Controversy
- Petitioner Amelito R. Mutuc, a resident of Arayat, Pampanga, filed his certificate of candidacy for delegate to the 1971 Constitutional Convention.
- On October 24, 1970, the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) sent Mutuc a telegram informing him that his candidacy was in due course but prohibiting the use of taped campaign jingles on his mobile units equipped with loudspeakers.
- Procedural History
- On October 29, 1970, Mutuc filed a special civil action for prohibition (and prayed for a preliminary injunction) alleging that the ban violated his constitutional right to freedom of speech. He argued there was no express or implied power in the Constitutional Convention Act (Republic Act No. 6132) granting COMELEC authority to impose such a prohibition.
- COMELEC answered on November 2, 1970, invoking Section 12(E) of RA 6132, which bans “electoral propaganda gadgets” including pens, lighters, shirts, hats, matches, “and the like,” and asserted that a recorded jingle is a tangible gadget subject to confiscation.
- The Court heard oral arguments on November 3, 1970—the election being days away—and that same afternoon issued a minute resolution granting the writ of prohibition. The resolution permanently restrained COMELEC from enforcing or implementing the ban on taped jingles.
Issues:
- Statutory Authority
- Whether the Constitutional Convention Act (RA 6132) expressly or implicitly empowers COMELEC to prohibit the use of taped jingles in campaign mobile units.
- Whether the enumeration of “pens, lighters, … and the like” in Section 12(E) may, under ejusdem generis, be extended to mechanical campaign jingles.
- Constitutional Validity
- Whether a prohibition on taped campaign jingles constitutes an unconstitutional prior restraint on political speech.
- Whether COMELEC’s interpretation of its power conflicts with the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and press, especially in the electoral context.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)