AMELITO R. MUTUC vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (36 SCRA 228) Case Digest

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.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ANDRE MARTI (193 SCRA 57) Case Digest

Facts:

On August 14, 1987, the appellant and his common-law wife, Shirley Reyes went to Manila Packaging and Export Forwarders to send packages to Zurich, Switzerland. It was received by Anita Reyes and ask if she could inspect the packages. Shirley refused and eventually convinced Anita to seal the package making it ready for shipment. Before being sent out for delivery, Job Reyes, husband of Anita and proprietor of the courier company, conducted an inspection of the package as part of standard operating procedures. Upon opening the package, he noticed a suspicious odor which made him took sample of the substance he found inside. He reported this to the NBI and invited agents to his office to inspect the package. In the presence of the NBI agents, Job Reyes opened the suspicious package and found dried-marijuana leaves inside. A case was filed against Andre Marti in violation of R.A. 6425 and was found guilty by the court a quo. Andre filed an appeal in the Supreme Court claiming that his constitutional right of privacy was violated and that the evidence acquired from his package was inadmissible as evidence against him.

Issue:

Can the Constitutional Right of Privacy be enforced against private individuals?

Ruling:

The Supreme Court held based on the speech of Commissioner Bernas that the Bill of Rights governs the relationship between the individual and the state.

The constitutional proscription against unlawful searches and seizures therefore applies as a restraint directed only against the government and its agencies tasked with the enforcement of the law. It is not meant to be invoked against acts of private individuals. It will be recalled that Mr Job Reyes was the one who opened the box in the presence of the NBI agents in his place of business. The mere presence of the NBI agents did not convert the reasonable search effected by Mr. Reyes into a warrantless search and siezure proscribed by the constitution. Merely to observe and look at that which is in plain sight is not a search.

The judgement of conviction finding appeallant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged was AFFIRMED.