CASE NAME

DOCTRINE AND FACTS ISSUE RULING

Chavez v. DOCTRINE: Upon the filing of the certificate of 1. WON Sec. 32 is an 1. NO. A close examination of the assailed provision
COMELEC candidacy for Senator, the billboards featuring invalid exercise of reveals that its primary objectives are to prohibit
a candidate’s name and image assumed police power? premature campaigning and to level the playing
GR NO. partisan political character because the same 2. WON Sec. 32 is a field for candidates of public office, to equalize the
162777 indirectly promoted his candidacy. gross violation of situation between popular or rich candidates, on
31 August FACTS: Petitioner Chavez, on various dates, the non- one hand, and lesser-known or poorer candidates,
2004 impairment clause? on the other, by preventing the former from
August 18, 2003, October 14, 2003 and
3. WON Sec. 32 is in enjoying undue advantage in exposure and publicity
November 10, 2003, entered into formal
the nature of an on account of their resources and popularity. The
agreements with certain establishments to
ex-post facto law? latter is a valid reason for the exercise of police
KW: the endorse their products. Pursuant to these
4. WON Sec. 32 is power as held in National Press Club v. COMELEC,
COMELEC agreements, three billboards were set up along
contrary to the Fair wherein the petitioners questioned the
Rules of the Balintawak Interchange of the North
Elections Act? constitutionality of Section 11(b) of Republic Act
Procedure , Expressway. On December 30, 2003, petitioner
filed his certificate of candidacy for the 5. WON Sec. 32 is No. 6646, which prohibited the sale or donation of
liberal
position of Senator under Alyansa ng Pag-asa, invalid due to print space and air time "for campaigning or other
construction
a tripartite alliance of three political parties: overbreadth? political purposes," except to the COMELEC. The
PROMDI, REPORMA, and Aksyon obvious intention of this provision is to equalize, as
Demokratiko. far as practicable, the situations of rich and poor
candidates by preventing the former from enjoying
the undue advantage offered by huge campaign
On January 6, 2004, respondent COMELEC "war chests." This Court ruled therein that this
issued Resolution No. 6520, which contained objective is of special importance and urgency in a
Section 32, to wit: country which, like ours, is characterized by
extreme disparity in income distribution between
Section 32. All propaganda materials
the economic elite and the rest of society, and by
such as posters, streamers, stickers or
 paintings on walls and other the prevalence of poverty, with so many of our
materials showing the picture, image, population falling below the poverty line.
or name of a person, and all
advertisements on print, in radio or Moreover, petitioner cannot claim that the subject
on television showing the image or billboards are purely product endorsements and do
mentioning the name of a person, not announce nor solicit any support for his
who subsequent to the placement or
candidacy. Under the Omnibus Election Code,
display thereof becomes a candidate
"election campaign" or "partisan political activity" is
for public office shall be immediately
defined as an act designed to promote the election
removed by said candidate and radio
or defeat of a particular candidate or candidates to
station, print media or television
station within 3 days after the a public office. It is true that when petitioner
effectivity of these implementing entered into the contracts or agreements to
rules; otherwise, he and said radio endorse certain products, he acted as a private
station, print media or television individual and had all the right to lend his name and
station shall be presumed to have image to these products. However, when he filed
conducted premature campaigning in his certificate of candidacy for Senator, the
violation of Section 80 of the billboards featuring his name and image assumed
Omnibus Election Code. partisan political character because the same
indirectly promoted his candidacy. Therefore, the
He sent a letter dated February 23, 2004,
COMELEC was acting well within its scope of
asking the COMELEC that he be
exempted from the application of Section powers when it required petitioner to discontinue
32, considering that the billboards the display of the subject billboards.
adverted to are mere product 2. NO. The non-impairment clause of the Constitution
endorsements and cannot be construed as must yield to the loftier purposes targeted by the
paraphernalia for premature campaigning Government. Equal opportunity to proffer oneself
under the rules. Respondent COMELEC for public office, without regard to the level of
ordered him to remove or cause the financial resources one may have at his disposal, is
removal of the billboards. Feeling indeed of vital interest to the public. The State has
aggrieved, petitioner Chavez asks this the duty to enact and implement rules to safeguard
Court that the COMELEC be enjoined this interest. Time and again, this Court has said
from enforcing the assailed provision. He that contracts affecting public interest contain an
urges this Court to declare the assailed implied reservation of the police power as a
provision unconstitutional as the same is postulate of the existing legal order.
allegedly (1) a gross violation of the non- 3. NO. A close scrutiny of this rationale, however,
impairment clause; (2) an invalid demonstrates its lack of persuasiveness. Section 32,
exercise of police power; (3) in the
although not penal in nature, defines an offense
nature of an ex-post facto law; (4)
and prescribes a penalty for said offense. Laws of
contrary to the Fair Elections Act; and
this nature must operate prospectively, except
(5) invalid due to overbreadth.
when they are favorable to the accused. It should
be noted, however, that the offense defined in the
assailed provision is not the putting up of
"propaganda materials such as posters, streamers,
stickers or paintings on walls and other materials
showing the picture, image or name of a person,
and all advertisements on print, in radio or on
television showing the image or mentioning the
name of a person, who subsequent to the
placement or display thereof becomes a candidate
for public office." Nor does it prohibit or consider an
offense the entering of contracts for such
propaganda materials by an individual who
subsequently becomes a candidate for public office.
One definitely does not commit an offense by
entering into a contract with private parties to use
his name and image to endorse certain products
prior to his becoming a candidate for public office.
The offense, as expressly prescribed in the assailed
provision, is the non-removal of the described
 propaganda materials three (3) days after the
effectivity of COMELEC Resolution No. 6520. If the
candidate for public office fails to remove such
propaganda materials after the given period, he
shall be liable under Section 80 of the Omnibus
Election Code for premature campaigning. Indeed,
nowhere is it indicated in the assailed provision that
it shall operate retroactively. There is, therefore, no
ex post facto law in this case.
4. NO. The assailed provision does not prohibit
billboards as lawful election propaganda. It only
regulates their use to prevent premature
campaigning and to equalize, as much as
practicable, the situation of all candidates by
preventing popular and rich candidates from
gaining undue advantage in exposure and publicity
on account of their resources and popularity.11
Moreover, by regulating the use of such election
propaganda materials, the COMELEC is merely
doing its duty under the law. Under Sections 3 and
13 of the Fair Elections Act, all election propaganda
are subject to the supervision and regulation by the
COMELEC
5. NO. The provision in question is limited in its
operation both as to time and scope. It only
disallows the continued display of a person's
propaganda materials and advertisements after he
has filed a certificate of candidacy and before the
start of the campaign period. Said materials and
advertisements must also show his name and
image.There is no blanket prohibition of the use of
propaganda materials and advertisements