G.R. No. L-32546, 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 1971 Constitutional Convention, challenged the constitutionality of Section 12(F) of Republic Act No. 6132 (the 1971 Constitutional Convention Act). The provision made it unlawful to print or publish any paid advertisement, comment, or article supporting or opposing a candidate’s candidacy, or mentioning a candidate’s name and candidacy, unless the names of all other candidates in the district were also mentioned with equal prominence. Violation was a serious election offense carrying penalties of imprisonment and disqualification. The petitioner, an unknown candidate without political party support, sought to use paid newspaper space within his means to make his candidacy and proposals known to voters. The Commission on Elections acknowledged that arrangements for free “Comelec space” for candidates had effectively failed, with newspapers only agreeing to publish candidate names “as often as they can.” The petitioner argued the provision, along with other restrictive provisions of the Act, abridged constitutional rights.

ISSUE

Whether Section 12(F) of Republic Act No. 6132 , which prohibits paid political advertisements unless all candidates in the district are mentioned with equal prominence, is constitutional.

RULING

The dissenting opinion of Justice Teehankee declares the challenged provision, along with other restrictive provisions of the Act, unconstitutional. The opinion holds that Section 12(F) stifles and curtails the people’s right to free political discussion and the constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression, freedom of the press, and freedom of association. It denies both candidates and voters due process and equal protection of the laws. The provision is deemed oppressive and unreasonable, as it prevents a candidate, especially one without means or party machinery, from using mass media to equalize electoral chances and inform the electorate. The other cited restrictions in the Act—such as bans on most propaganda, organized group support, and candidate appearances unless all are invited—are seen not as compensatory measures but as an unreasonable straitjacket that violates fundamental constitutional rights. The dissent concludes that the restrictions should be excluded from the statute.