MUTUC v.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
NO. L-32717
DIGEST BY: Ella Saldua
Fernando, J.:
FACTS OF THE CASE:
On Oct. 29, 1970, petitioner Amelito Mutuc, then a candidate for delegate to the Constitutional
Convention, alleged that respondent, Commission on Elections, sent him a telegram five days
earlier informing 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.
Mutuc claimed that the prohibition violates his constitutional of freedom of speech. COMELEC
answered that it does not deny the factual allegations in the petition but it justified its prohibition
that it is premised on the provision of the Constitutional Convention Act (CCA). COMELEC
contends that the jingle proposed to be used by the petitioner is a recorded voice of a singer and
thus a tangible propaganda material under the CCA subject to confiscation.
The Court issued a minute resolution granting the writ of prohibition (prayed for by the
petitioner) on the ground of the lack of statutory authority to impose such a ban on the part of
COMELEC in the light of the doctrine of ejusdem generis, and that it is an infringement on the
right of free speech of the petitioner.
ISSUE:
Whether or not recorded or taped jingle is classified as an electoral propaganda gadgets similar
to the enumerated items banned by the Constitutional Convention Act.
HELD:
No. It is not classified as an electoral propaganda similar to the banned enumerated items.
1. Following the well-known principle of ejusdem generis, the general words following any
enumerated being applicable only to things of the same kind or class as those specifically
referred to. What was contemplated in the Act was the distribution of gadgets of the kind
referred to as a means of inducement to obtain a favourable vote for the candidate
responsible for its distribution. Also, the enumerated items were more tangible than a
campaign jingle such as flashlights, wallets, bandanas, shirts, hats, matches and
cigarettes.
Respondent is also in violation of a cardinal principle of construction that a statute be
interpreted in a way that is in harmony with the Constitution. The objective is to reach an
interpretation that is free from constitutional defects.
2. In its prohibition, COMELEC, in effect, imposed censorship on the petitioner. Following
respondents prohibition on taped jingles would negate indirectly what the Constitution
expressly guarantees/assures i.e. Free speech/free press. Taped jingles during campaigns

is tantamount to freedom of dissemination of information which makes more meaningful

the equally vital right of suffrage.
3. The power of decision of COMELEC is limited to purely administrative questions.
Thus, COMELEC cannot exercise any authority in conflict with or outside of the law,
and there is no higher law than the Constitution.
IMPORTANT LAWS/STATUTES/PROVISIONS/SECTIONS
Constitutional Convention Act makes 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.