Thursday, December 16, 2010

Mutuc vs. COMELEC

AMELITO R. MUTUC, petitioner, vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent.

G.R. NO. L-32717
November 26, 1970

FERNANDO, J.:

FACTS:

The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) prohibited petitioner Amelito Mutuc, a candidate for the position of a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, from using “jingles in his mobile units equipped with sound systems and loud speakers” on 22 October 1970. Petitioner impugned the act of respondent as violative of his right to free speech. Respondent however contended that the prohibition was premised on a provision of the Constitutional Convention Act, which made it 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 of domestic or foreign origin.” It was its contention that the jingle proposed to be used by petitioner is the recorded or taped voice of a singer and therefore a tangible propaganda material, under the phrase “and the like.”

ISSUE:
Whether “jingles” falls down on the prohibited electoral propaganda gadgets of R.A. No. 6132.

RULING:

For respondent Commission, the last three words sufficed to justify such an order. We view the matter differently. What was done cannot merit our approval under the well-known principle of ejusdem generis, the general words following any enumeration being applicable only to things of the same kind or class as those specifically referred to. It is quite apparent that what was contemplated in the Act was the distribution of gadgets of the kind referred to as means of inducement to obtain a favorable vote for the candidate responsible for distribution.

5 comments:

  1. yay! finally saw a case digest for this... thanks talaga... btw, im mitch... just started law school this year..i haven't been a student for 3 years so my brain had a difficult time adjusting.. haha! anywho, thanks talaga for this!

    btw, could u do a digest for Estrada vs. Sandigan Bayan 369 scra 394...nahihirapan akong idigest xa.. thanks! more power!

    oh yea, could u also post a topic about tips on how to easily digest cases? thanks! i think that could help us a lot... :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. You're welcome. I'll just post your requested case here. Is this for your Political/Constitutional Law subject?

    I don't know if this will work for you but what I do is, I read the case's full text. I determine the issue/s first (although the facts are already in my head), then I find the ruling in connection with the issue. Ruling/s is/are supposed to be written verbatim. So don't add words. But then again, that will depend on what your teacher told your class. S/he may have a recommended format for case digest. I write the facts, last.

    If the ruling is too long for you (e.g. repetition of the same thoughts within the same paragraph), you can shorten it by using 'xxx' then continue with the phrase you'd like to add. Check for any digest in this blog with that sign.

    Good luck on your studies! And welcome to the world of law School! :)

    ReplyDelete
  3. By the way Mitch, when do you need the case? Are you going to submit it? Or will you just use it as a reference?

    Should I call you ate? (assuming you're older) Hehe ;)

    ReplyDelete
  4. yay thanks! its just for reference kasi the full text of the case is waaaaay too long and the facts are getting me confused na.. hehe.. its like 3-4 pages long.. all i know is Estrada was convicted of plunder.. yun lng.. haha! naguguluhan din kmi ng mga classmates ko... thanks for the advice ate.. hehe.. im only 24 kaya... :)

    thanks for the advice... and i agree w/ u na the facts are in my head when i read the case.. its just difficult sometimes to summarize bcoz of the unnecessary details.. hehe! more power te! i'll post a case digest on my blog about villavicencio vs. lukban 39 Phil 778 sometime this week i think or later... can u check it kung tama? hehe.. thanks again! buti ka pa pol. sci under grad mo... :) it's going to be easy for u... ingat po! thanks again

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm 24, too.. I think I have a CD on the Villavicencio case. Is that the case with the prostitutes who were deported to Davao? Sorry, my memory is a little rusty.

    Anyway, it doesn't matter what your pre-bar course is. Just as long as you're dedicated, you'll get by just fine. What year are you in, anyway?

    I guess I have to post more cases. The freshies in our school also refer to this blog. Too bad my laptop got corrupted. I lost all my files (including all my CD's that I haven't posted yet) :(

    Anyway, you're welcome, ATE ;)

    ReplyDelete