Case Summary (G.R. No. 206020)
Procedural History
1-UTAK wrote COMELEC seeking to allow private PUV and terminal owners to post campaign materials. COMELEC denied reconsideration, citing its supervisory power under Art. IX-C §4 to regulate franchises and ensure equal campaign opportunity and spending restraint. 1-UTAK filed a certiorari petition under Rules 64 and 65.
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The prohibition infringes owners’ freedom of speech and property rights.
- No substantial public interest is threatened by allowing political advertising on private PUVs and terminals.
- Any restriction on speech is overbroad relative to the goal of equalizing candidate opportunities.
COMELEC’s Arguments
- Privately owned PUVs and terminals are “public places” subject to regulation under Art. IX-C §4.
- The ban is a valid content-neutral regulation to guarantee equal time, space, and opportunity, and to protect a captive audience of commuters.
- Regulation is unrelated to suppressing speech and is no greater than essential for election integrity.
Issues Presented
- Whether Resolution No. 9615 §7(g)(5)–(6), in relation to §7(f), violates owners’ free speech.
- Whether it fails the O’Brien test for content-neutral restrictions.
- Whether equal opportunity objectives are impaired by allowing such postings.
- Whether COMELEC may regulate ownership versus franchise or operation of public utilities.
Court’s Rationale on Prior Restraint
The prohibition constitutes a prior restraint on speech, triggering a heavy presumption of invalidity. Freedom to express political preference via one’s property is central to free speech (Adiong v. COMELEC). The rule effectively chills owners from posting campaign materials under threat of franchise revocation and criminal penalty.
Content-Neutral Regulation Analysis
Though content-neutral (time-place-manner), the ban fails the O’Brien test:
- It exceeds COMELEC’s constitutional power (Art. IX-C §4 applies only to franchises and permits, not ownership).
- It is not essential (less restrictive measures exist).
Scope of COMELEC’s Regulatory Power
Art. IX-C §4 permits supervision of “franchises or permits” for public-utility operation but does not extend to private ownership or property rights (Tatad v. Garcia Jr.). Posting campaign decals does not affect PUV operation, safety, routes, fares, or other franchise-related concerns.
Necessity of Restriction
Existing statutes (RA 9006 §§6, 9; RA 7166 §§13, 14) already secure equal media time, space, and spending limits. No additional speech curtailment of PUV or terminal owners is necessary to achieve election-integrity objectives.
Captive-Audience Doctrine
The claimed “captive audience” is insufficient to justify censorship. Commuters may avert their eyes or ignore posted materials. U.S. precedents (Consolidated Edison; Erznoznik) reject bans where avoidance is practical. Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights is inapp
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 206020)
Facts
- Republic Act No. 9006 (“Fair Elections Act”) was enacted on February 12, 2001. Section 9 authorizes the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to allocate common poster areas for candidates in public places and to require equitable allocation of campaign materials in public or private venues.
- On January 15, 2013, COMELEC issued Resolution No. 9615, implementing RA 9006 for the May 13, 2013 elections. Section 7(f) prohibited posting campaign materials outside authorized common poster areas or on private property without consent.
- Section 7(g) defined “public places” to include, inter alia:
- item (5): Public utility vehicles (PUVs) such as buses, jeepneys, trains, taxis, ferries, pedicabs, and tricycles.
- item (6): Premises of public transport terminals (bus terminals, airports, seaports, docks, piers, train stations).
- Violation of items (5) and (6) carried penalties of public utility franchise revocation and liability for election offenses under RA 9006.
Procedural History
- January 30, 2013: Petitioner 1-UTAK, a party-list organization owning PUVs and terminals, petitioned COMELEC for clarification, arguing that the prohibition impinged on the owners’ free speech and property rights.
- February 5, 2013: COMELEC en banc denied the request by Minute Resolution No. 13-0214, holding that PUVs and transport terminals with franchises are public utilities subject to regulation under Section 4, Article IX-C of the Constitution; prohibitions further equal opportunity and curb excessive campaign spending.
- April 14, 2015: The Supreme Court, En Banc, resolved the certiorari petition under Rules 64 and 65 (G.R. No. 206020).
Arguments of the Petitioner
- Section 7(g)(5) and (6), in relation to 7(f), of Resolution 9615 infringe the owners’ freedom of speech by prohibiting them from expressing political preferences on their own property.
- No substantial governmental interest is threatened by posting political advertisements on privately owned PUVs or terminals.
- Owners re