GR 162777; (August, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 162777 ; August 31, 2004
FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, represented by its Chairman, BENJAMIN S. ABALOS, ESMERALDA AMORA-LADRA, in her capacity as Acting Director IV, National Capital Judicial Region, Commission on Elections, and the SOLICITOR GENERAL, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Francisco I. Chavez, prior to becoming a candidate, entered into commercial endorsement agreements with various corporations. Pursuant to these agreements, several billboards featuring his name and image were erected to promote products such as clothing, plastics, and amusement services. On December 30, 2003, Chavez filed his certificate of candidacy for Senator. Subsequently, on January 6, 2004, the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) issued Resolution No. 6520. Section 32 of this resolution mandated the removal within three days of any propaganda material showing a person’s name or image, if that person later becomes a candidate, failing which it would create a presumption of premature campaigning under the Omnibus Election Code. The COMELEC directed Chavez to comply, but he requested an exemption, arguing the billboards were purely commercial endorsements and not election propaganda.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether Section 32 of COMELEC Resolution No. 6520 constitutes a valid exercise of police power, or if it is an unconstitutional infringement for being overbroad, an invalid impairment of contracts, an ex-post facto law, or contrary to the Fair Elections Act.
RULING
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Section 32 as a constitutional exercise of police power. The Court clarified that police power requires that the measure aims to promote public welfare and that the means employed are reasonably necessary and not unduly oppressive. The assailed provision serves the compelling state interests of prohibiting premature campaigning and leveling the electoral playing field. It prevents wealthy or popular individuals from gaining an undue advantage by exploiting pre-existing publicity, which is a legitimate concern given the socio-economic disparities in the Philippines, as recognized in precedents like National Press Club v. COMELEC.
The Court rejected the claim that the billboards were purely commercial, noting that the definition of “election campaign” under the Omnibus Election Code includes acts designed to promote a candidate’s election. Once a person becomes a candidate, the continued display of materials bearing their name and image can reasonably be perceived as contributing to name recall and electoral advantage, thus falling within the regulatory ambit. The provision is not overbroad, as it is narrowly tailored to cover only materials showing a candidate’s name or image and only for a specific period—after candidacy is declared but before the campaign period. It does not impose a blanket prohibition. The Court also found no merit in the other constitutional challenges. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.