Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 104 views

    Gonzales v. Comelec

    Uploaded by

    Renz Factuar
    This case involved a challenge to provisions in the Revised Election Code that prohibited campaigning or partisan political activity outside of the official campaign period. The Supreme Court found that while freedom of expression is constitutionally protected, it is not absolute and can be limited. The Court upheld some restrictions but believed others went too far, though it did not have enough votes to declare those parts unconstitutional. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the case and ruled that the Revised Election Code could not be declared unconstitutional in its entirety.

    Copyright:

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

    Gonzales v. Comelec

    Uploaded by

    Renz Factuar
    104 views2 pages
    This case involved a challenge to provisions in the Revised Election Code that prohibited campaigning or partisan political activity outside of the official campaign period. The Supreme Court found that while freedom of expression is constitutionally protected, it is not absolute and can be limited. The Court upheld some restrictions but believed others went too far, though it did not have enough votes to declare those parts unconstitutional. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the case and ruled that the Revised Election Code could not be declared unconstitutional in its entirety.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involved a challenge to provisions in the Revised Election Code that prohibited campaigning or partisan political activity outside of the official campaign period. The Supreme Court found that while freedom of expression is constitutionally protected, it is not absolute and can be limited. The Court upheld some restrictions but believed others went too far, though it did not have enough votes to declare those parts unconstitutional. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the case and ruled that the Revised Election Code could not be declared unconstitutional in its entirety.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    104 views2 pages

    Gonzales v. Comelec

    Uploaded by

    Renz Factuar
    This case involved a challenge to provisions in the Revised Election Code that prohibited campaigning or partisan political activity outside of the official campaign period. The Supreme Court found that while freedom of expression is constitutionally protected, it is not absolute and can be limited. The Court upheld some restrictions but believed others went too far, though it did not have enough votes to declare those parts unconstitutional. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the case and ruled that the Revised Election Code could not be declared unconstitutional in its entirety.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    USA College of Law

    Palomaria
    Case Name Gonzales vs. COMELEC
    Topic Freedom of Expression

    Case No. | Date G.R. No. L-27833 | April 18, 1969

    Ponente Fernando, J.

    Freedom of expression is not an absolute.


    Doctrine

    RELEVANT FACTS
    • Two new sections were included in the Revised Election Code, under Republic Act 4880, which was
    approved and took effect on 17 June 1967, prohibiting the too early nomination of candidates and limiting
    the period of election campaign or partisan political activity.

    • On 22 July 1967, Arsenio Gonzales and Felicisimo R. Cabigao filed an action entitled "Declaratory Relief
    with Preliminary Injunction," a proceeding that should have been started in the Court of First Instance, but
    treated by the Supreme Court as one of prohibition in view of the seriousness and the urgency of the
    constitutional issue raised.

    • Gonzales and Cabigao alleged that the enforcement of said RA 4880 would prejudice their basic rights,
    such as their freedom of speech, their freedom of assembly and their right to form associations or societies
    for purposes not contrary to law, guaranteed under the Philippine Constitution," and that therefore said act
    is unconstitutional.

    • Cabigao was, at the time of the filing of the petition, an incumbent councilor in the 4th District of Manila
    and the Nacionalista Party official candidate for Vice-Mayor of Manila to which he was subsequently
    elected on 11 November 1967; while Gonzales is a private individual, a registered voter in the City of
    Manila and a political leader of his co-petitioner.

    ISSUE: Whether or not the freedom of expression may be limited. YES


    USA College of Law
    Palomaria

    From the language of the specific constitutional provision, it would appear that the right is not
    susceptible of any limitation. No law may be passed abridging the freedom of speech and of the
    press. The realities of life in a complex society preclude however a literal interpretation. Freedom
    of expression is not an absolute.

    The Court is of the view that no unconstitutional infringement exists insofar as the formation of
    organizations, associations, clubs, committees, or other groups of persons for the purpose of
    soliciting votes or undertaking any campaign or propaganda or both for or against a candidate or
    party is restricted and that the prohibition against giving, soliciting, or receiving contribution for
    election purposes, either directly or indirectly, is equally free from constitutional infirmity. The
    restriction on freedom of assembly as confined to holding political conventions, caucuses,
    conferences, meetings, rallies, parades or other similar assemblies for the purpose of soliciting
    votes or undertaking any campaign or propaganda or both for or against a candidate or party,
    leaving untouched all other legitimate exercise of such poses a more difficult question.
    Nevertheless, after a thorough consideration, it should not be annulled. The other acts, likewise
    deemed included in "election campaign" or "partisan political activity" tax to the utmost the
    judicial predisposition to view with sympathy legislative efforts to regulate election practices
    deemed inimical, because of their collision with the preferred right of freedom of expression. The
    scope of the curtailment to which freedom of expression may be subjected is not foreclosed by the
    recognition of the existence of a clear and present danger of a substantive evil, the debasement of
    the electoral process.

    The majority of the Court is of the belief that the ban on the solicitation or undertaking of any
    campaign or propaganda, whether directly or indirectly, by an individual, the making of
    speeches, announcements or commentaries or holding interview for or against the election for
    any party or candidate for public office, or the publication or distribution of campaign literature
    or materials, suffers from the corrosion of invalidity. It lacks however one more affirmative vote
    to call for a declaration of unconstitutionality. The necessary 2/3 vote, however, not being
    obtained, there is no occasion for the power to annul statutes to come into play. Such being the
    case, it is the judgment of the Court that RA 4880 cannot be declared unconstitutional.

    RULING
    PeGGon DISMISSED

    You might also like