MUTUC VS.

COMELEC
G.R. No. L-32717. November 26, 1970

Fernando, J.

FACTS:

Petitioner Amelito Mutuc was a candidate for the position of delegate to the Constitutional Convention.
He alleged that respondent Commission on Elections gave his certificate of candidacy due course but
prohibited him from using jingles in his mobile units equipped with sound system and loud speakers.
According to him, this violated his constitutional right to freedom of speech. Petitioner filed a case
against Commission on elections seeking a writ of prohibition and at the same time praying for a
preliminary injunction. The respondent argued that this authority was granted by the Constitutional
Convention Act.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the prohibition imposed by respondent a violation of the right to freedom of speech of
the petitioner.

HELD:

Supreme Court ruled that there was absence of statutory authority on the part of respondent to impose
such ban in the light of the doctine of Ejusdem Generis. The respondent commission failed to manifest
fealty to a cardinal principle of construction that a statute should be interpreted to assure its being
consonance with, rather than repugnant to, any constitutional command or prescription. The
Constitution prohibits abridgement of free speech or a free press. According to the Supreme Court, this
preferred freedom calls all the more for the utmost respect when what may be curtailed is the
dissemination of information to make more meaningful the equally vital right of suffrage. What the
respondent Commission did was to impose censorship on petitioner, an evil against which this
constitutional right is directed.

The respondent Commission is permanently restrained and prohibited from enforcing or implementing
or demanding compliance with its aforesaid order banning the use of political taped jingles.
MUTUC VS. COMELEC
G.R. No. L-32717. November 26, 1970

Fernando, J.

FACTS:

Amelito Mutuc was a candidate for delegate to the Constitutional Convention (1970). His candidacy
was given due course by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) but he was prohibited from playing
his campaign jingle on his mobile units because that was an apparent violation of COMELEC’s ban
(via a COMELEC resolution) “to purchase, produce, request or distribute sample ballots, or electoral
propaganda gadgets such as pens, lighters, fans (of whatever nature), flashlights, athletic goods or
materials, wallets, bandanas, shirts, hats, matches, cigarettes, and the like, whether of domestic or
foreign origin.” It was COMELEC’s contention that the jingle proposed to be used by Mutuc is a
recorded or taped voice of a singer and therefore a tangible propaganda material (falling under and the
like’s category), and under the above COMELEC rule, the same is subject to confiscation.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not COMELEC’s contention is correct.

2. Whether or not the COMELEC ban is valid.

HELD:

1. No. By virtue of Ejusdem Generis, general words following any enumeration must be of the same
class as those specifically referred to. COMELEC contended that the ban makes unlawful the
distribution of electoral propaganda gadgets, mention being made of pens, lighters, fans, flashlights,
athletic goods or materials, wallets, bandanas, shirts, hats, matches, and cigarettes, and concluding
with the words “and the like.” For COMELEC, the last three words sufficed to justify such an order.
The Supreme Court did not agree. It is quite apparent that what was contemplated in the said law
violated by Mutuc was the distribution of gadgets of the kind referred to as a means of inducement
to obtain a favorable vote for the candidate responsible for its distribution. It does not include
campaign jingles for they are not gadgets as contemplated by the law.

2. No. This is a curtailment of Freedom of Expression. The Constitution prohibits the abridgment of
the freedom of speech.