1-UTAK (1-United Transport Koalisyon) v.

COMELEC in relation to Section 7 (f), vis-à-vis privately owned public utility vehicles
April 14, 2015 | J. Reyes (PUVs) and transport terminals.
o 1-UTAK argues that the Resolution impedes the right to free speech of
Nature of Case: Petition for certiorari (Rule 65) private owners of PUVs and transport terminals. They requested the
Digest maker: Avs Salugsugan COMELEC to reconsider the implementation of the assailed
SUMMARY: COMELEC released a regulation that prohibited privately owned provisions and allow private owners of PUVs and transport
public utility vehicles (PUVs) and transport terminals from posting election terminals to post election campaign materials on their vehicles and
propaganda on their vehicles, pursuant to RA 9006 or the Fair Election Act. 1- transport terminals.
UTAK Partylist questioned this regulation and asked COMELEC to reconsider the  COMELEC en banc issued Minute Resolution No. 13-0214, DENYING 1-
implementation, but COMELEC denied their request. Hence, they came to the SC UTAK’s request to reconsider.
through a Rule 65 petition. The SC GRANTED certiorari and declared the assailed
provisions null and void for being prior restraints on free speech. ISSUE/S & RATIO:
DOCTRINE: COMELEC may only regulate the franchise and permit to operate 1. W/N the assailed provisions which prohibit the posting of any election
transportation and other public utilities and not the ownership thereof. The campaign or propaganda material in PUVs and public transport terminals
assailed provisions are regulations on the very ownership of PUV’s and privately- are valid regulations – NO
owned public transportation terminals because they regulate extraneous
circumstances (the posting of election propaganda) that are not related to a. The assailed provisions are PRIOR RESTRAINTS on free speech.
considerations affecting the operation of these public utilities.  Prior restraint refers to official governmental restrictions on the
press or other forms of expression in advance of actual
FACTS: publication or dissemination.
 Feb 21, 2001 – RA 9006 or the “Fair Election Act” was passed. Section 9  Application in the case: Section 7(g) items (5) and (6), in relation
seeks to regulate the posting of campaign materials and prescribes their to Section 7(f), of Resolution No. 9615 unduly infringe on the
allowed size and location. fundamental right of the people to freedom of speech. It restrains
 Jan 15, 2013 - COMELEC promulgated Resolution No. 9615 pursuant to RA the freedom of individuals, i.e., the owners of PUVs and private
9006. Section 7 of this resolution enumerates the prohibited forms of election transport terminals, to express their preference, through the
propaganda, namely: posting of election campaign material in their property.
o “Sec 7. Prohibited Forms of Election Propaganda. –During the o A restraint on free speech may be allowed if it is
campaign period, it is unlawful: content-neutral regulation which only regulates the
 (f) To post, display or exhibit any election campaign or incidents of free speech. The assailed provisions do not
propaganda material outside of authorized common poster satisfy the requisites for a valid content-neutral
areas, in public places, or in private properties without the regulation, because the regulation is NOT within the
consent of the owner thereof. constitutionally-delegated power of COMELEC to
 (g) Public places referred to in the previous subsection (f) promulgate. [See Notes]
include any of the following:
 5. Public utility vehicles such as buses, jeepneys, b. The assailed provisions are not within the constitutionally-delegated
trains, taxi cabs, ferries, pedicabs and tricycles, power of COMELEC to promulgate: The constitutional grant of
whether motorized of not; supervisory and regulatory powers to the COMELEC over franchises and
 6. Within the premises of public transport permits to operate (Art. IX-C, Sec. 4, 1987 Consti) though seemingly
terminals, such as bus terminals, airports, unrestrained, has its limits.
seaports, docks, piers, train stations, and the like.  Adiong v. COMELEC - Such supervisory power does not extend to
o The violation of items 5 and 6 under subsection (g) shall be a cause the very freedom of an individual to express his preference of
for the revocation of the public utility franchise and will make the candidates in an election by placing election campaign stickers on
owner and/or operator of the transportation service and/or his vehicle.
terminal liable for an election offense under Section 9 of Republic  Application in the case: Section 4, Article IX-C only grants
Act No. 9006 as implemented by Section 18(n) of these Rules.” COMELEC supervisory and regulatory powers over the enjoyment
 Petitioner 1-UTAK sought for clarification from COMELEC regarding he or utilization “of all franchises or permits for the operation” of
application of Resolution No. 9615 particularly Section 7(g) items (5) and (6), transportation and other public utilities.
  It does not extend to the ownership per se of PUVs and NULL and VOID for being repugnant to Sections 1 and 4, Article III of the 1987
transport terminals, but only to the franchise or permit to Constitution. SO ORDERED.
operate the same.
NOTES
c. The assailed provisions are NOT merely regulations on the franchise or  On valid content-neutral regulation: A content-neutral regulation which is
permit to operate, but are regulations on the VERY OWNERSHIP of the merely concerned with the incidents of the speech, or one that merely
vehicle: A franchise or permit to operate transportation utilities pertains controls the time, place or manner, and under well-defined standards, is
to considerations affecting the operation of the PUV (e.g., safety of the constitutionally permissible, even if it restricts the right to free speech,
passengers, routes or zones of operation, maintenance of the vehicle, of provided that the following requisites concur:
reasonable fares, rates, and other charges, or, in certain cases, nationality). o (1) the government regulation is within the constitutional power of
 Application in the case: A government issuance which seeks to the Government;
regulate a franchise or permit to operate PUVs, must pertain to the o (2) it furthers an important or substantial governmental interest;
considerations affecting its operation as such. Otherwise, it becomes o (3) the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free
a regulation or supervision not on the franchise or permit to expression; and
operate, but on the very ownership of the vehicle used for public o (4) the incidental restriction on freedom of expression is no greater
transport. than is essential to the furtherance of that interest.
 The expression of ideas or opinion of an owner of a PUV,
through the posting of election campaign materials on
the vehicle, does not affect considerations pertinent to
the operation of the PUV.
 Regulating the expression of ideas or opinion in a PUV
through posting an election campaign material thereon,
is not a regulation of the franchise or permit to operate,
but a regulation on the very ownership of the vehicle.
 The same logic applies to privately-owned public transport
terminals. COMELEC does not have the power to regulate the
ownership of these terminals.

d. The assailed provisions are not justified under the captive-audience

doctrine: The captive-audience doctrine states that when a listener cannot,
as a practical matter, escape from intrusive speech, the speech can be
restricted. Such selective restrictions have been upheld only when the
speaker intrudes on the privacy of the home or the degree of captivity
makes it either impossible or impractical for the unwilling viewer or
auditor to avoid exposure.
 Application in the case: Even under the captive-audience doctrine,
the assailed provisions cannot be upheld because commuters are
not forced or compelled to read the election campaign materials
posted on PUVs and transport terminals. Nor are they incapable of
declining to receive the messages contained in the posted election
campaign materials since they may simply avert their eyes if they
find the same unbearably intrusive.

RULING: WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing disquisitions, the instant petition is

hereby GRANTED. Section 7(g) items (5) and (6), in relation to Section 7(f), of
Resolution No. 9615 issued by the Commission on Elections are hereby declared