[53] 1-UNITED TRANSPORT KOALISYON (1-UTAK) v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS 5.

Public utility vehicles such as buses, jeepneys, trains,

G.R. No. 206020 | April 14, 2015 | Reyes, J. taxi cabs, ferries, pedicabs and tricycles, whether
motorized or not;
SUMMARY: COMELEC promulgated Res. No. 9615, providing for the rules
implementing the Fair Elections Act. It provided a prohibition on posting, displaying, or 6. Within the premises of public transport terminals, such
exhibiting election campaigns or propaganda in public places, which includes public as bus terminals, airports, seaports, docks, piers, train
utility vehicles and public transport terminals. Violation of such prohibition shall be a stations, and the like.
cause for revocation of the public utility franchise and will make the owner and/or
operator of the transportation service and/or terminal liable for an election offense. 1- The violation of items [5 and 6] under subsection (g) shall be a
UTAK alleged that said prohibition violates PUVs’ and transport terminals’ private cause for the revocation of the public utility franchise and will make
owners’ right to free speech. COMELEC argues that, as per the Constitution, it has the the owner and/or operator of the transportation service and/or
power to regulate the enjoyment or utilization of all franchises and permits for the terminal liable for an election offense under Section 9 of Republic
operation of transportation utilities and that privately-owned PUVs and transport Act No. 9006 as implemented by Section 18 (n) of these Rules.”
terminals are public spaces, thus, are subject to its regulation. The Court held that the
provisions of the Resolution containing said prohibitions are null and void for being ● Petitioner 1-UTAK, through its president (Vargas), sought clarification from
unconstitutional; the prohibition is not within the COMELEC's constitutionally COMELEC on the application of Resolution No. 9615, particularly Section
delegated power of supervision or regulation for although it may regulate the 7(g) items (5) and (6), in relation to Section 7(f), vis-a-vis privately owned
franchise or permit to operate PUVs and transport terminals, it may not regulate public utility vehicles (PUVs) and transport terminals
ownership per se of such facilities. ● Petitioner alleges that the prohibition therein impedes the right to free
speech of the private owners of PUVs and transport terminals and thus
DOCTRINE: See highlighted portions requested COMELEC to reconsider the implementation of the assailed
provisions and allow private owners of PUVs and transport terminals to post
FACTS: election campaign materials on their vehicles and transport terminals
● February 12, 2001: RA 9006 or the "Fair Elections Act" was passed ● COMELEC en banc then issued Minute Resolution No. 13-0214, denying
● Sec. 9 thereof provided for the rules on posting of campaign materials: petitioner's request; said that the primary fact in consideration is whether 1-
UTAK or any other PUV owners in the same position possess a franchise
“Candidates may post any lawful propaganda material in private and/or certificate of public convenience and operate as a public utility. If yes,
places with the consent of the owner thereof, and in public places then its operations, pursuant to Section 4, Article IX-C of the Constitution, will
or property which shall be allocated equitably and impartially be placed directly under the supervision and regulation of the Commission
among the candidates.” for the duration of the election period to ensure equality of opportunity, time,
and space for all candidates in the placement of political advertisements
● January 15, 2013: COMELEC promulgated Resolution No. 9615 which ● Having placed their property for use by the general public and having
provided for the rules implementing RA 9006 in connection with the May 13, secured a license or permit to do so, 1-UTAK and other PUV owners, as well
2013 national and local elections and subsequent elections as transport terminal owners, cannot now complain that their property is
“Sec. 7. Prohibited Forms of Election Propaganda. - During the subject to regulation by the State
campaign period, it is unlawful: x x x x ● Securing a franchise or a certificate of public convenience in their favor does
not exempt them from the burdens imposed by the Constitution, RA 9006,
(f) To post, display or exhibit any election campaign or propaganda and other related statutes
material outside of authorized common poster areas, in public ● Section 6, Article XII of the Consti even commands that the use of property
places, or in private properties without the consent of the owner bears a social function and all economic agents shall contribute to the
thereof. common good and there is no higher Common good than that as espoused
in RA 9006 – the equalization of opportunities for all candidates for political
(g) Public places referred to in the previous subsection (f) include office during elections – which Res. No. 9615 merely implements
any of the following: x x x x ● Also, the prohibition furthers two important and substantial governmental
interests: (1) equalizing opportunity, time, and space for all candidates, and
 (2) putting to a stop excessive campaign spending. The regulation bears a substantial governmental interest, totally unrelated to the
clear and reasonable nexus with these Constitutionally- and statutorily- suppression of free expression
sanctioned objectives, and the infringement of freedom is merely incidental
and limited as to time ISSUES w/ HOLDING & RATIO:
● Exact purpose for placing political advertisements on a PUV or in transport [1] W/N the ownership of facilities is different and independent from the franchise or
terminals: it is public and can be seen by all; although private vehicles ply the operation of the public utility, the former being beyond the power of regulation by
same route as public vehicles, the exposure of a PUV servicing the general, the COMELEC – YES
riding public is much more compared to private vehicles, thus, categorizing ● The COMELEC may only regulate the franchise or permit to operate and not
PUVs and transport terminals as 'public places' under Section 7 (f) of Reso. the ownership per se of PUVs and transport terminals.
No. 9615 is logical ● The prohibition under Section 7(g) items (5) and (6), in relation to Section
● Thus, this case 7(f), of Resolution No. 9615 is not within the COMELEC's constitutionally
● Petitioner’s arguments: delegated power of supervision or regulation.
○ The provisions violate the right to free speech of the owners of ● COMELEC has the power to supervise or regulate the enjoyment or
PUVs and transport terminals utilization of all franchises or permits for the operation of transportation
○ There is no substantial public interest threatened by the posting of utilities during an election period, as provided in Section 4, Article IX-C of the
political advertisements on PUVs and transport terminals to Constitution, to ensure equal opportunity, time, and space, and the right to
warrant the prohibition imposed by COMELEC reply, including reasonable, equal rates therefor, for public information
○ Assuming that substantial public interest exists, curtailment of the campaigns and forums among candidates in connection with the objective
right to free speech is much greater than is necessary to achieve of holding free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections
the desired governmental purpose of ensuring equality of ● HOWEVER, the constitutional grant of supervisory and regulatory powers to
opportunity to all candidates in elective office the COMELEC over franchises and permits to operate has its limits
○ The ownership of the PUVs per se, as well as the transport ● The Court previously set out the limitations on COMELEC’s said power:
terminals, remains private thus, the owners could not be prohibited ○ Adiong: while COMELEC has supervisory power vis-a-vis the
by COMELEC from expressing their political opinion lest their conduct and manner of elections under Section 4, Article IX-C of the
property rights be unduly intruded upon Constitution, such supervisory power does not extend to the very
● COMELEC’s arguments: freedom of an individual to express his preference of candidates in
○ Privately-owned PUVs and transport terminals are public spaces an election by placing election campaign stickers on his vehicle
that are subject to its regulation. ○ National Press Club v. COMELEC: the grant of supervisory and
○ Under the Constitution, COMELEC has the power to enforce and regulatory powers to the COMELEC under Section 4, Article IX-C of
administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an the Constitution is limited to ensuring equal opportunity, time,
election, including the power to regulate the enjoyment or utilization space, and the right to reply among candidates
of all franchises and permits for the operation of transportation ● COMELEC's constitutionally delegated powers of supervision and regulation
utilities do not extend to the ownership per se of PUVs and transport terminals, but
○ PUVs and private transport terminals hold a captive audience - the only to the franchise or permit to operate the same.
commuters, who have no choice but be subjected to the blare of ● There is a marked difference between the franchise or permit to operate
political propaganda, thus, it is within its constitutional authority to transportation for the use of the public and the ownership per se of the
prevent privately-owned PUVs and transport terminals from vehicles used for public transport
concurrently serving campaign materials to the captive audience ○ Tatad v. Garcia, Jr.: “What private respondent owns are the rail
that they transport tracks, rolling stocks like the coaches, rail stations, terminals and
○ Resolution No. 9615 is a valid content-neutral regulation and, thus, the power plant, not a public utility. While a franchise is needed to
does not impinge on the constitutional right to freedom of speech operate these facilities to serve the public, they do not by
○ The assailed regulation is within the constitutional power of the themselves constitute a public utility. What constitutes a public
COMELEC pursuant to Section 4, Article IX-C of the Constitution utility is not their ownership but their use to serve the public x x x.
○ The regulation simply aims to ensure equal campaign opportunity,
time, and space for all candidates which is an important and
 The Constitution, in no uncertain terms, requires a franchise for the ● Here, the expression of ideas or opinion of an owner of a PUV, through the
operation of a public utility. However, it does not require a posting of election campaign materials on the vehicle, does not affect
franchise before one can own the facilities needed to operate a considerations pertinent to the operation of the PUV. Posting a decal
public utility so long as it does not operate them to serve the public. expressing support for a certain candidate in an election will not in any
xxxx manner affect the operation of the PUV as such.
● Thus, regulating the expression of ideas or opinion in a PUV, through the
In law, there is a clear distinction between the "operation" of a posting of an election campaign material thereon, is not a regulation of the
public utility and the ownership of the facilities and equipment franchise or permit to operate, but a regulation on the very ownership of the
used to serve the public. x x x x vehicle
● Example of dichotomy between the regulation of the franchise or permit to
The right to operate a public utility may exist independently and operate of a PUV and that of the very ownership thereof: commercial
separately from the ownership of the facilities thereof. One can advertisements posted on the vehicle.
own said facilities without operating them as a public utility, or ● A prohibition on the posting of commercial advertisements on a PUV is
conversely, one may operate a public utility without owning the considered a regulation on the ownership of the vehicle per se. The
facilities used to serve the public. The devotion of property to serve restriction on the enjoyment of the ownership of the vehicle does not have
the public may be done by the owner or by the person in control any relation to its operation as a PUV.
thereof who may not necessarily be the owner thereof.” ● On the other hand, prohibitions on the posting of commercial
advertisements on windows of buses, because it hinders police authorities
The franchise or permit to operate transportation utilities is a from seeing whether the passengers inside are safe, is a regulation on the
privilege granted to certain persons to engage in the business of franchise or permit to operate. It has a direct relation to the operation of the
transporting people or goods; it does not refer to the ownership of vehicle as a PUV which is the safety of the passengers
the vehicle per se. ● COMELEC also does not have the constitutional power to regulate public
transport terminals owned by private persons. The ownership of transport
● Ownership is a relation in private law by virtue of which a thing pertaining to terminals, even if made available for use by the public commuters, likewise
one person is completely subjected to his will in everything not prohibited by remains private. Although owners of public transport terminals may be
public law or the concurrence with the rights of another. Thus, the owner of a required by local governments to obtain permits in order to operate, the
thing has the right to enjoy and dispose of a thing, without other limitations permit only pertains to circumstances affecting the operation of the
than those established by law. One such limitation as regards PUVs is the transport terminal as such.
franchise or permit to operate. However, a franchise or permit to operate a ● The regulation of such permit to operate should be limited to circumstances
PUV is a limitation only on certain aspects of the ownership of the vehicle affecting the operation of the transport terminal
pertinent to the franchise or permit granted, but not on the totality of the
rights of the owner over the vehicle. [2] W/N Section 7(g) items (5) and (6), in relation to Section 7(f), of Resolution No.
● A restriction on the franchise or permit to operate transportation utilities is 9615, which prohibits the posting of any election campaign or propaganda material,
necessarily a limitation on ownership, but a limitation on the rights of inter alia, in PUVs and public transport terminals are valid regulations – NO
ownership over the PUV is not necessarily a regulation on the franchise or ● Accordingly, Section 7(g) items (5) and (6) of Resolution No. 9615 are not
permit to operate the same within the constitutionally delegated power of the COMELEC to supervise or
● A franchise or permit to operate transportation utilities pertains to regulate the franchise or permit to operate of transportation utilities.
considerations affecting the operation of the PUV as such, e.g., safety of the ● The posting of election campaign material on vehicles used for public
passengers, routes or zones of operation, maintenance of the vehicle, of transport or on transport terminals is not only a form of political expression,
reasonable fares, rates, and other charges, or, in certain cases, nationality. but also an act of ownership which has nothing to do with the franchise or
Thus, a government issuance which purports to regulate a franchise or permit to operate the PUV or transport terminal
permit to operate PUVs must pertain to the considerations affecting its
operation as such. Otherwise, it becomes a regulation or supervision not on [OTHERS]
the franchise or permit to operate, but on the very ownership of the vehicle ● The assailed provisions of Resolution No. 9615 are prior restraints on
used for public transport. speech
 ● The assailed prohibition on posting election campaign materials is an invalid
content-neutral regulation repugnant to the free speech clause.
● The restriction on free speech of owners of PUVs and transport terminals is
not necessary to further the stated governmental interest.
● Section 7(g) items (5) and (6) of Resolution No. 9615 are not justified under
the captive-audience doctrine.
● Prohibiting owners of PUVs and transport terminals from posting election
campaign materials violates the equal protection clause

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
NULL and VOID for being repugnant to Sections 1 and 4, Article III of the 1987
Constitution.