G.R. No. L-32546 and L-32551, October 17, 1970.
ANACLETO D. BADOY, JR., petitioner, vs. JAIME N. FERRER, Chairman, CESAR MIRAFLOR, and LINO M. PATAJO, Members, Commission on Elections, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Anacleto D. Badoy, Jr., a candidate for delegate to the Constitutional Convention for North Cotabato, filed two petitions. In G.R. No. L-32546, he sought to declare Section 12(F) of Republic Act No. 6132 unconstitutional for allegedly denying individuals (non-candidates) their freedom of speech and of the press, and denying candidates the right to speak, write, discuss, and debate for or against candidacies. In G.R. No. L-32551, he prayed for Section 12(F) to be construed as allowing the printing and publication of unpaid comments or articles for or against a candidate without requiring the names of all other candidates to be mentioned with equal prominence, and to declare COMELEC Resolution No. RR-724 unconstitutional insofar as it prohibited such publications without equal prominence. After the petitions were filed, COMELEC amended Resolution No. RR-724 through Resolution No. RR-739, limiting the prohibition to paid comments or articles, thereby rendering the petition in G.R. No. L-32551 moot and academic.

ISSUE

Whether Section 12(F) of R.A. No. 6132 is unconstitutional for unduly abridging the freedom of expression.

RULING

The Supreme Court declared Section 12(F) of R.A. No. 6132 valid and constitutional. The Court ruled that freedom of expression is not immune to regulation by the State in the exercise of its police power. The validity of such regulation is gauged by the extent of its inroad into the liberty of speech and of the press, using the clear-and-present-danger rule or the balancing-of-interests test. The restriction under Section 12(F) is narrow and the basic liberty remains. The provision requires that any paid advertisement, comment, or article in furtherance of or in opposition to a candidacy, or mentioning a candidate’s name and candidacy, must also mention the names of all other candidates in the district with equal prominence. This limitation aims to give poor candidates a fighting chance against wealthy opponents by discouraging paid campaign advertisements that favor only one candidate or by ensuring exposure for all candidates if such an advertisement is published. The Court found this restriction insignificant compared to the numerous facilities and forms of assistance provided by R.A. No. 6132 that enable full exercise of freedom of expression, such as free Comelec space and time, allowances for personal campaign staff, and permission for public meetings. Therefore, the petitions were denied.