GONZALES vs. COMELEC (27 SCRA 835) G.R. No.

L-27833 April 18, 1969

FACTS: RA 4880 which took effect on June 17, 1967 , prohibits the too early nomination of candidates and
limiting the period of election campaign or partisan political activity. Then the acts were specified. There
is a proviso that simple expression of opinion and thoughts concerning the election shall not be considered
as part of an election campaign. There is the further proviso that nothing stated in the Act "shall be
understood to prevent any person from expressing his views on current political problems or issues, or
from mentioning the names of the candidates for public office whom he supports. Petitioner Cabigao was,
at the time of the filing of the petition, an incumbent councilor in the 4th District of Manila and the
Nacionalista Party official candidate for Vice-Mayor of Manila to which he was subsequently elected on
November 11, 1967; petitioner Gonzales, on the other hand, is a private individual, a registered voter in
the City of Manila and a political leader of his co-petitioner. It is their claim that "the enforcement of said
Republic Act No. 4880 in question [would] prejudice [their] basic rights..., such as their freedom of speech,
their freedom of assembly and their right to form associations or societies for purpose not contrary to
law, guaranteed under the Philippine Constitution," and that therefore said act is unconstitutional.

ISSUE: Whether R.A. 4880 is unconstitutional.

HELD: No, because the required 2/3 vote was not obtained to declare it unconstitutional. However, the
majority of the Court is thus of the belief that the solicitation or undertaking of any campaign or
propaganda whether directly or indirectly, by an individual, the making of speeches, announcements or
commentaries or holding interview for or against the election for any party or candidate for public office,
or the publication or distribution of campaign literature or materials, suffer from the corrosion of
invalidity. It lacks however one more affirmative vote to call for a declaration of unconstitutionality.
The challenged statute could have been more narrowly drawn and the practices prohibited more precisely
delineated to satisfy the constitutional requirements as to a valid limitation under the clear and present
danger doctrine.

Note:
A brief resume of the basic rights on which petitioners premise their stand that the act is unconstitutional
may prove illuminating. The primacy, the high estate accorded freedom of expression is of course a
fundamental postulate of our constitutional system. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of
speech or of the press .... 13 What does it embrace? At the very least, free speech and free press may be
identified with the liberty to discuss publicly and truthfully any matter of public interest without
censorship or punishment. 14 There is to be then no previous restraint on the communication of views or
subsequent liability whether in libel suits, 15 prosecution for sedition,16 or action for damages, 17 or
contempt proceedings 18 unless there be a clear and present danger of substantive evil that Congress has
a right to prevent.