Facts:
Petitioner Amelito Mutuc was a
candidate for the position of delegate to the Constitutional Convention. He
alleged that respondent Commission on Elections gave his certificate of
candidacy due course but prohibited him from using jingles in his mobile units
equipped with sound system and loud speakers. According to him, this violated
his constitutional right to freedom of speech. Petitioner filed a case against
Commission on elections seeking a writ of prohibition and at the same time
praying for a preliminary injunction. The respondent argued that this authority
was granted by the Constitutional Convention Act.
Issues:
Was the prohibition imposed by respondent a violation of the right to freedom of speech of the petitioner?
Ruling:
Supreme Court ruled that there
was absence of statutory authority on the part of respondent to impose such ban
in the light of the doctine of ejusdem generis. The respondent commission
failed to manifest fealty to a cardinal principle of construction that a
statute should be interpreted to assure its being consonance with, rather than
repugnant to, any constitutional command or prescription. The Constitution
prohibits abridgement of free speech or a free press. According to the Supreme
Court, this preferred freedom calls all the more for the utmost respect when
what may be curtailed is the dissemination of information to make more
meaningful the equally vital right of suffrage. What the respondent Commission
did was to impose censorship on petitioner, an evil against which this
constitutional right is directed.
The respondent Commission is permanently
restrained and prohibited from enforcing or implementing or demanding
compliance with its aforesaid order banning the use of political taped jingles.
No comments:
Post a Comment