Case: Mutuc vs COMELEC GR No L-32717 November 26 1970

Topic: Freedom of Expression, Assembly and Petition

Subtopic: Freedom from censorship or prior restraint

AMELITO R. MUTUC, petitioner,

vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent.

Amelito R. Mutuc in his own behalf.

Romulo C. Felizmena for respondent.

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.

Issue:

1. WoN COMELEC’s contention is correct.

2. WoN 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.

WHEREFORE, as set forth in our resolution of November 3, 1970, 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. Without pronouncement as to costs.