Case #55 EJUSDEM GENERIS ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA vs.

SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION Facts: Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila, thru counsel, filed a request with the respondent Social Security Commission a request that they be exempted from coverage of RA No. 1161, otherwise known as the Social Security Law of 1954 because said act is a labor law and does not cover religious and charitable institutions. Appellant contends that the term "employer" as defined in the law should following the principle of ejusdem generis be limited to those who carry on "undertakings or activities which have the element of profit or gain, or which are pursued for profit or gain," because the phrase ,activity of any kind" in the definition is preceded by the words "any trade, business, industry, undertaking." Respondent denied the request and the petitioners motion for reconsideration. Act provides in the System shall be compulsory upon all members between the age of sixteen and sixty years inclusive, if they have been for at least six months at the service of an employer who is a member of the System, Provided, that the Commission may not compel any employer to become member of the System unless he shall have been in operation for at least two years and has at the time of admission, if admitted for membership during the first year of the System's operation at least fifty employees, and if admitted for membership the following year of operation and thereafter, at least six employees employer any person, natural or juridical, domestic or foreign, who carries in the Philippines any trade, business, industry, undertaking, or activity of any kind and uses the services of another person who is under his orders as regards the employment, except the Government and any of its political subdivisions, branches or instrumentalities, including corporations owned or controlled by the Government" (par. [c], see. 8) employee any person who performs services for an 'employer' in which either or both mental and physical efforts are used and who receives compensation for such services" (par. [d], see. 8). Employment covers any service performed by an employer except those expressly enumerated thereunder, like employment under the Government, or any of its political subdivisions, branches or instrumentalities including corporations owned and controlled by the Government, domestic service in a private home, employment purely casual, etc. (paragraph [i] of said section 8) Issue: Whether or not the term employer following the principle of ejusdem generis be limited to those who carry on activities for gain. Held: No Ratio: ejusdem generis applies only where there is uncertainty. It is not controlling where the plain purpose and intent of the Legislature would thereby be hindered and defeated. Contributions are intended for the protection of said employees against the hazards of disability, sickness, old age and death in line with the constitutional mandate to promote social justice to insure the well-being and economic security of all the people. The law explicitly states those which are not covered by the contribution and the petitioner is not among those cited. significant to note that when Republic Act No. 1161 was enacted, services performed in the employ of institutions organized for religious or charitable purposes were by express provisions of said Act excluded from coverage thereof (sec. 8, par. [j] subpars. 7 and 8). That portion of the law, however, has been deleted by express provision of Republic Act No. 1792, which took effect in 1957. This is clear indication that the Legislature intended to include charitable and religious institutions within the scope of the law.

Case #56 EJUSDEM GENERIS Mutuc, Amelito v COMELEC The Case: invocation of right to free speech by petitioner, Amelito Mutuc (Mutuc) Facts Mutuc was a candidate to be a delegate of the constitutional convention. Comelec through a telegram informed him that his certificate of candidacy was given due course but prohibited him from using jingles in his mobile units equipped with sound systems and loud speakers Amelito Mutuc invoked his right to free speech. He filed a special civil action for prohibition to assail the validity of a ruling of respondent Comelec and preliminary injunction. Comelec didnt deny the allegation and justified that the prohibition was premised on a provision of the Constitutional Convention Act (CCA). That CCA made it unlawful for candidates 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 domestic or foreign origin. Comelec argued that the jingle proposed to be used by the petitioner is the recorded or taped voice of a singer and therefore a tangible propaganda material, under the statute and subject to confiscation Issue: Whether or not the tangible propaganda material prohibition includes recorded or taped voice. Decision: Petition prayed for is granted. Respondent Commission on Election is permanently restrained and prohibited from enforcing or implementing or demanding compliance with its aforesaid order banning the use of political jingles by candidate. Ratio: Comelec had not authority on the part of respondent to impose such band in the light of the doctrine of EJUSDEM GENERIS as well as the principle that construction placed on the statute by Comelec would raise serious doubts about its validity, considering the infringement of the right of free speech of petitioner a. b. c. d. e. EJUSDEM GENERIS refers to the general words following any enumeration being applicable only to things of the same kind or class as those specifically referred to. and the like at the end of the statute is clear that what was referred to in the Act was the distribution of gadgets or means to induce favorable vote for the candidate. Comelec also failed to apply the cardinal principle of construction that a statute should be interpreted to assure its being in consonance with, rather than repugnant to, any constitutional command or prescription. Free speech should be upheld against the censorship imposed by Comelec through the ban. Comelec cant exercise any authority in conflict with or outside of the law, there is no higher law than the Constitution.

Separate Concurring (J. Teehankee): Jingle (recorded disc or tape) is not similar to a streamer or poster. Using recorded tape is an efficient way of disseminating information than the candidate repeating and singing his jingle every time. Such ban violates basic freedom of speech and expression and cant pass constitutional test of reasonableness