G.R. No. L-27833, April 18, 1969.
IN THE MATTER OF PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF RE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF REPUBLIC ACT 4880. ARSENIO GONZALES and FELICISIMO R. CABIGAO, petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioners Arsenio Gonzales (a private individual, registered voter, and political leader) and Felicisimo R. Cabigao (then an incumbent councilor and official Nacionalista Party candidate for Vice-Mayor of Manila) filed a petition challenging the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 4880 , which amended the Revised Election Code. The Act, effective June 17, 1967, prohibited the too early nomination of candidates and limited the period of election campaign or partisan political activity, defining terms like “candidate” and “election campaign.” Petitioners claimed the Act’s enforcement would prejudice their constitutional rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly, and association. They argued that regulating nomination and campaign periods was a matter for political parties and that the law, absent a clear and present danger, was an abridgment of fundamental liberties. The Supreme Court treated the petition for declaratory relief as one for prohibition due to the seriousness and urgency of the constitutional issue.

ISSUE

Whether Republic Act No. 4880 is unconstitutional for infringing upon the fundamental rights of free speech, free press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of association.

RULING

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 4880 . The Court reconciled the cherished freedoms of expression with the state’s interest in safeguarding the right of suffrage through the regulation of the electoral process. The law was sustained as a valid exercise of police power, designed to maintain the purity and integrity of elections by addressing the serious evils of prolonged political campaigns, such as increasing costs and bitter rivalries. The Court found that the limitations imposed were reasonable and did not constitute a total suppression of speech, as the law contained provisos protecting the simple expression of opinions and views on political issues. The divergence of views among the Justices on specific paragraphs did not result in a declaration of unconstitutionality, as the required two-thirds concurrence was not met. The procedural objections regarding the nature of the petition and standing were overcome due to the paramount public interest and the imminence of national elections.