Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 150 views

    Adiong Vs Comelec

    Uploaded by

    mayton30
    The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) prohibited the posting of campaign decals and stickers on mobile places like vehicles. A senatorial candidate challenged this, arguing it infringed on free speech rights. The Supreme Court ruled the prohibition was unconstitutional, as posting decals on mobile places did not meaningfully endanger government interests and promoted equal opportunity for rich and poor candidates to inform voters. The COMELEC's regulatory powers could not justify censorship of political speech.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Adiong Vs Comelec

    Uploaded by

    mayton30
    150 views1 page
    The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) prohibited the posting of campaign decals and stickers on mobile places like vehicles. A senatorial candidate challenged this, arguing it infringed on free speech rights. The Supreme Court ruled the prohibition was unconstitutional, as posting decals on mobile places did not meaningfully endanger government interests and promoted equal opportunity for rich and poor candidates to inform voters. The COMELEC's regulatory powers could not justify censorship of political speech.

    Original Description:

    Adiong vs Comelec digest, political law, constitutional law

    Original Title

    17. Adiong vs Comelec

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) prohibited the posting of campaign decals and stickers on mobile places like vehicles. A senatorial candidate challenged this, arguing it infringed on free speech rights. The Supreme Court ruled the prohibition was unconstitutional, as posting decals on mobile places did not meaningfully endanger government interests and promoted equal opportunity for rich and poor candidates to inform voters. The COMELEC's regulatory powers could not justify censorship of political speech.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    150 views1 page

    Adiong Vs Comelec

    Uploaded by

    mayton30
    The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) prohibited the posting of campaign decals and stickers on mobile places like vehicles. A senatorial candidate challenged this, arguing it infringed on free speech rights. The Supreme Court ruled the prohibition was unconstitutional, as posting decals on mobile places did not meaningfully endanger government interests and promoted equal opportunity for rich and poor candidates to inform voters. The COMELEC's regulatory powers could not justify censorship of political speech.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    BLO UMPAR ADIONG, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent.

    G.R. No. 103956, March 31, 1992

    FACTS:

    Petitioner Blo Umpar Adiong, a senatorial candidate in the May 11, 1992 elections

    assails the COMELEC's Resolution insofar as it prohibits the posting of decals and stickers in

    "mobile" places like cars and other moving vehicles.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not COMELEC may prohibit posting of decals and stickers on "mobile"

    places, public or private, and limit their location or publication to the authorized posting areas

    that it fixes.

    RULING:

    No. COMELEC's prohibition is null and void.

    Under Article IX(c) section 4, the COMELEC during the election period is granted

    regulatory powers vis-a-vis the conduct and manner of elections. However, a government

    regulation is sufficiently justified if it is within the constitutional power of the Government, if it

    furthers an important or substantial governmental interest; if the governmental interest is

    unrelated to the suppression of free expression; and if the incidental restriction on alleged First

    Amendment freedoms is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest.

    Posting of decals and stickers in mobile places does not endanger any substantial

    government interest. There is no clear public interest threatened by such activity so as to justify

    the curtailment of the cherished citizen's right of free speech and expression.

    The constitutional objective to give a rich candidate and a poor candidate equal

    opportunity to inform the electorate as regards their candidacies, mandated by Article II, Section

    26 and Article XIII, section 1 in relation to Article IX (c) Section 4 of the Constitution, is not

    impaired by posting decals and stickers on mobile places. Compared to the paramount interest of

    the State in guaranteeing freedom of expression, any financial considerations behind the

    regulation are of marginal significance.

    This prohibition therefore becomes censorship.

    You might also like