Title
Mutuc vs. Commission on Elections
Case
G.R. No. L-32717
Decision Date
Nov 26, 1970
A candidate challenged COMELEC's ban on taped jingles, arguing it violated free speech. The Supreme Court ruled the prohibition unconstitutional, emphasizing electoral speech protection.

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-6189)
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)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.