BADOY vs.

COMELEC
35 SCRA 285
Facts: Anacleto D. Badoy, Jr. avers that he is a candidate for delegate to the Constitutional Convention for
the lone district of North Cotabato. He prays that Section 12(F) of RA 6132 be declared unconstitutional
as the same denies individuals, who are not candidates, their freedom of speech and of the press; and
candidates the right to speak and write, discuss and debate in favor of their candidacies or against the
candidacies of others. Section 12 (F) provides that the Comelec shall endeavor to obtain free space from
newspapers, magazines and periodicals which shall be known as Comelec space, and shall allocate this
space equally and impartially among all candidates within the areas in which the newspapers are
circulated. Outside of said Comelec space, it shall be unlawful to print or publish, or cause to be printed
or published, any advertisement, paid comment or paid article in furtherance of or in opposition to the
candidacy of any person for delegate, or mentioning the name of any candidate and the fact of his
candidacy, unless all the names of all other candidates in the district in which the candidate is running are
also mentioned with equal prominence. Comelec Resolution RR-724, as amended, merely restates the
ban in Section 12 (F).
Issue: Whether the ban in Section 12 (F) is valid or constitutional.
Held: Under Section 12 (F), the moneyed candidate or individual who can afford to pay for
advertisements, comments or articles in favor of his candidacy or against the candidacy of another or
which mention his name and the fact of his candidacy, is required to mention all the other candidates in
the same district with equal prominence, to exempt him from the penal sanction of the law. The evident
purpose of the limitation is to give the poor candidates a fighting chance in the election. The restriction is
only one of the measures devised by the law to preserve suffrage pure and undefiled and to achieve the
desired equality of chances among all the candidates. Considering the foregoing limitation in Section
12(F) in the light of the other provisions of RA 6132 designed to maximize, if not approximate, equality
of chances among the various candidates in the same district, the said restriction on the freedom of
expression appears too insignificant to create any appreciable dent on the individuals liberty of
expression. It should be noted that Section 8(a) of the same law, prohibiting political parties from aiding
candidates and thus was more restrictive than Section 12(F), was previously upheld to be valid. The
limitation in Section 12(F) is a reasoned and reasonable judgment on the part of Congress. It is not
unconstitutional.