Tirol

4. Pilar v. COMELEC
JUANITO C. PILAR, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent.
DOCTRINE:
Facts: Petitioner Juanito C. Pilar filed his certificate of candidacy for the position of member of
the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province of Isabela.
Petitioner withdrew his certificate of candidacy.
The COMELEC imposed upon petitioner the fine of P10,000.00 for failure to file his statement of
contributions and expenditures. The COMELEC then denied the motion for reconsideration of
petitioner and deemed final the aforementioned imposition.
Petitioner went to the COMELEC En Banc, which denied the petition.
Hence, this petition for certiorari.
Issue: Did Petitioner's withdrawal of his candidacy extinguish his liability for the administrative
fine.
Ruling: No. Section 14 of R.A. No. 7166 (An Act Providing for Synchronized National and Local
Elections and for Electoral Reforms, Authorizing Appropriations Therefor, and for Other Purposes)
states that "every candidate" has the obligation to file his statement of contributions and
expenditures.
Where the law does not distinguish, courts should not distinguish. No distinction is to be made in
the application of a law where none is indicated.
In this case, as the law makes no distinction or qualification as to whether the candidate pursued
his candidacy or withdrew the same, the term "every candidate" must be deemed to refer not only
to a candidate who pursued his campaign, but also to one who withdrew his candidacy.
The COMELEC, the body tasked with the enforcement and administration of all laws and
regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and recall
(Constitution, Art. IX(C), Sec. 2[1]), issued Resolution No. 2348 in implementation or interpretation
of the provisions of Republic Act No. 7166 on election contributions and expenditures. Section 13
of Resolution No. 2348 categorically refers to "all candidates who filed their certificates of
candidacy."
Furthermore, Section 14 of the law uses the word "shall." As a general rule, the use of the word
"shall" in a statute implies that the statute is mandatory, and imposes a duty which may be
enforced, particularly if public policy is in favor of this meaning or where public interest is involved.
We apply the general rule.
The state has an interest in seeing that the electoral process is clean, and ultimately expressive
of the true will of the electorate. One way of attaining such objective is to pass legislation
regulating contributions and expenditures of candidates, and compelling the publication of the
same. Admittedly, contributions and expenditures are made for the purpose of influencing the
results of the elections. Thus, laws and regulations prescribe what contributions are prohibited,
or unlawful, and what expenditures are authorized or lawful.

Such statutes are not peculiar to the Philippines. In "corrupt and illegal practices acts" of several
states in the United States, as well as in federal statutes, expenditures of candidates are regulated
by requiring the filing of statements of expenses and by limiting the amount of money that may be
spent by a candidate. Some statutes also regulate the solicitation of campaign contributions.
These laws are designed to compel publicity with respect to matters contained in the statements
and to prevent, by such publicity, the improper use of moneys devoted by candidates to the
furtherance of their ambitions. These statutes also enable voters to evaluate the influences
exerted on behalf of candidates by the contributors, and to furnish evidence of corrupt practices
for annulment of elections.
State courts have also ruled that such provisions are mandatory as to the requirement of filing.
It is not improbable that a candidate who withdrew his candidacy has accepted contributions and
incurred expenditures, even in the short span of his campaign. The evil sought to be prevented
by the law is not all too remote.
Resolution No. 2348 even contemplates the situation where a candidate may not have received
any contribution or made any expenditure. Such a candidate is not excused from filing a
statement, and is in fact required to file a statement to that effect. Under Section 15 of Resolution
No. 2348, it is provided that "if a candidate or treasurer of the party has received no contribution,
made no expenditure, or has no pending obligation, the statement shall reflect such fact."
Lastly, we note that under the fourth paragraph of Section 73 of the B.P. Blg. 881 or the Omnibus
Election Code of the Philippines, it is provided that "the filing or withdrawal of certificate of
candidacy shall not affect whatever civil, criminal or administrative liabilities which a candidate
may have incurred." Petitioner's withdrawal of his candidacy did not extinguish his liability for the
administrative fine.
Dispositive: WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.

Balboa
6. 1-UTAK v COMELEC
1-UNITED TRANSPORT KOALISYON (1-UTAK), Petitioner, v.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.

DOCTRINE: In the same manner, the COMELEC does not have the constitutional power to
regulate public transport terminals owned by private persons. The ownership of transport
terminals, even if made available for use by the public commuters, likewise remains private.
Although owners of public transport terminals may be required by local governments to obtain
permits in order to operate, the permit only pertains to circumstances affecting the operation of
the transport terminal as such. The regulation of such permit to operate should similarly be limited
to circumstances affecting the operation of the transport terminal.
 FACTS: RA 9006 provided that COMELEC may authorize political parties and party-list groups
to erect common poster areas for their candidates in not more than 10 public places xx provided
that the size of the poster areas shall not exceed 12 by 16 feet. For independent candidates, 10
public areas with the size of 4 by 6 feet. Resolution No. 9615 was promulgated after, implementing
the rules for RA 9006. It provided,
SEC. 7. Prohibited Forms of Election Propaganda. - During the campaign period, it is unlawful:
xxxx
(f) To post, display or exhibit any election campaign or propaganda material outside of authorized
common poster areas, in public places, or in private properties without the consent of the owner
thereof.
(g) Public places referred to in the previous subsection (f) include any of the following:
xxxx
5. Public utility vehicles such as buses, jeepneys, trains, taxi cabs, ferries, pedicabs and tricycles,
whether motorized or not;
6. Within the premises of public transport terminals, such as bus terminals, airports, seaports,
docks, piers, train stations, and the like.
The violation of items [5 and 6] under subsection (g) shall be a cause for the 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 under Section 9 of Republic Act No. 9006 as
implemented by Section 18 (n) of these Rules.
Vargas, president of Utak sought clarification from the COMELEC as regards the application of
reso 9615. Vargas sought for the COMELEC to reconsider the above provisions. The petitioner
explained that the prohibition in the resolution impedes the right to free speech of the private
owners of PUVs and transport terminals. COMELEC denied petitioner’s request, contending that
to categorize PUVs and transport terminals as public places is reasonable. It further said that it
has the power to regulate the enjoyment or utilization of all franchises and permits for the
operation of transportation utilities. It contends that reso 9615 is a valid content neutral regulation.
ISSUE: whether resolution 9615 violates the right to free speech of the owners of PUVs and
transport terminals. YES
RULING: Resolution No. 9615, which was promulgated pursuant to Section 4, Article IX-C of the
Constitution and the provisions of R.A. No. 9006, lays down the administrative rules relative to
the COMELEC's exercise of its supervisory and regulatory powers over all franchises and permits
for the operation of transportation and other public utilities, media of communication or
information, and all grants, special privileges, or concessions granted by the Government. Prior
restraint refers to official governmental restrictions on the press or other forms of expression in
advance of actual publication or dissemination.
The abovementioned sections are prior restraints to on speech. Pursuant to the assailed
provisions of Resolution No. 9615, posting an election campaign material during an election
period in PUVs and transport terminals carries with it the penalty of revocation of the public utility
franchise and shall make the owner thereof liable for an election offense. Prohibition constitutes
clear prior restraint on the right to free expression of the owners of PUVs and transport terminals.
The assailed prohibition on posting election campaign materials is an invalid content-neutral
regulation repugnant to the free speech clause. A content-neutral regulation, i.e., which is merely
concerned with the incidents of the speech, or one that merely controls the time, place or manner,
and under well-defined standards, is constitutionally permissible, even if it restricts the right to
free speech, provided that the following requisites concur: first, the government regulation is within
the constitutional power of the Government; second, it furthers an important or substantial
governmental interest; third, the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free
expression; and fourth, the incidental restriction on freedom of expression is no greater than is
essential to the furtherance of that interest. The assailed provisions are not within the
constitutionally delegated power of the COMELEC. There is also no necessity to restrict the right
to free speech of the owners of the PUV.
Notwithstanding the ostensibly broad supervisory and regulatory powers granted to the
COMELEC during an election period under Section 4, Article IX-C of the Constitution, the Court
had previously set out the limitations thereon. In Adiong, the Court, while recognizing that the
COMELEC has supervisory power vis-a-vis the conduct and manner of elections under Section
4, Article IX-C of the Constitution, nevertheless held that such supervisory power does not extend
to the very freedom of an individual to express his preference of candidates in an election by
placing election campaign stickers on his vehicle.
The COMELEC's constitutionally delegated powers of supervision and regulation do not extend
to the ownership per se of PUVs and transport terminals, but only to the franchise or permit to
operate the same. In Tatad v Garcia Jr.,
In law, there is a clear distinction between the "operation" of a public utility and the ownership of
the facilities and equipment used to serve the public.
xxxx
The right to operate a public utility may exist independently and separately from the ownership of
the facilities thereof. One can own said facilities without operating them as a public utility, or
conversely, one may operate a public utility without owning the facilities used to serve the public.
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.
Surely, posting a decal expressing support for a certain candidate in an election will not in any
manner affect the operation of the PUV as such. Regulating the expression of ideas or opinion in
a PUV, through the posting of 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.
In the same manner, the COMELEC does not have the constitutional power to regulate public
transport terminals owned by private persons. The ownership of transport terminals, even if made
available for use by the public commuters, likewise remains private. Although owners of public
transport terminals may be required by local governments to obtain permits in order to operate,
the permit only pertains to circumstances affecting the operation of the transport terminal as such.
The regulation of such permit to operate should similarly be limited to circumstances affecting the
operation of the transport terminal.
The restriction on free speech of owners of PUVs and transport terminals is not necessary to
further the stated governmental interest.
First, while Resolution No. 9615 was promulgated by the COMELEC to implement the provisions
of R.A. No. 9006, the prohibition on posting of election campaign materials on PUVs and transport
terminals was not provided for therein.
Second, there are more than sufficient provisions in our present election laws that would ensure
equal time, space, and opportunity to candidates in elections.
The 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.[30] The "captive-audience" doctrine
recognizes that a listener has a right not to be exposed to an unwanted message in circumstances
in which the communication cannot be avoided.
A regulation based on the captive-audience doctrine is in the guise of censorship, which
undertakes selectively to shield the public from some kinds of speech on the ground that they are
more offensive than others. 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.
Prohibiting owners of PUVs and transport terminals from posting election campaign materials
violates the equal protection clause. Classifying owners of PUVs and transport terminals apart
from owners of private vehicles and other properties bears no relation to the stated purpose of
Section 7(g) items (5) and (6) of Resolution No. 9615, i.e., to provide equal time, space and
opportunity to candidates in elections. To stress, PUVs and transport terminals are private
properties. Indeed, the nexus between the restriction on the freedom of expression of owners of
PUVs and transport terminals and the government's interest in ensuring equal time, space, and
opportunity for candidates in elections was not established by the COMELEC.

DISPOSITIVE: 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.