Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

GONZALES

VS.
COMELEC
[27
SCRA
835;
G.R.
L-27833;
18
APR
1969]
Facts: RA 4880 which took effect on June 17, 1967, prohibiting the too early nomination of
candidates and limiting the period of election campaign or partisan political activity was
challenged on constitutional grounds. More precisely, the basic liberties of free speech and free
press, freedom of assembly and freedom of association are invoked to nullify the act. Petitioner
Cabigao was, at the time of the filing the petition, an incumbent councilor in the 4th District of
Manila and the Nacionalista Party official candidate for Vice-Mayor of Manila to which he was
subsequently elected on November 11, 1967; petitioner Gonzales, on the other hand, is a
private individual, a registered voter in the City of Manila and a political leader of his copetitioner. There was the further allegation that the nomination of a candidate and the fixing of
period of election campaign are matters of political expediency and convenience which
only political parties can regulate or curtail by and among themselves through self-restraint or
mutual understanding or agreement and that the regulation and limitation of these political
matters invoking the police power, in the absence of clear and present danger to the state,
would render the constitutional rights of petitioners meaningless and without effect. Senator
Lorenzo M. Taada was asked to appear as amicus curiae, and elucidated that Act No. 4880
could indeed be looked upon as a limitation on the preferred rights of speech and press, of
assembly and of association. He did justify its enactment however under the clear and present
danger doctrine, there being the substantive evil of elections, whether for national or local
officials, being debased and degraded by unrestricted campaigning, excess of partisanship and
undue concentration in politics with the loss not only of efficiency in government but of lives as
well. The Philippine Bar Association, the Civil Liberties Union, the U.P. Law Centerand the U.P.
Women Lawyers' Circle were requested to give their opinions. Respondents contend that the
act
was
based
on
the
police
power
of
the
state.
Issue: Whether

or

Not

RA

4880

unconstitutional.

Held: Yes. As held in Cabansag v. Fernandez there are two tests that may supply an acceptable
criterion for permissible restriction on freedom of speech. These are the clear and present
danger rule and the 'dangerous tendency' rule. The first, means that the evil consequence of
the comment or utterance must be extremely serious and the degree of imminence extremely
high before the utterance can be punished. The danger to be guarded against is the
'substantive evil' sought to be prevented. It has the advantage of establishing according to the
above decision a definite rule in constitutional law. It provides the criterion as to what words
may be publicly established. The "dangerous tendency rule" is such that If the words uttered
create a dangerous tendency which the state has a right to prevent, then such words are
punishable. It is not necessary that some definite or immediate acts of force, violence, or
unlawfulness be advocated. It is sufficient that such acts be advocated in general terms. Nor is
it necessary that the language used be reasonably calculated to incite persons to acts of force,
violence, or unlawfulness. It is sufficient if the natural tendency and probable effect of the
utterance be to bring about the substantive evil which the legislative body seeks to prevent.
The challenged statute could have been more narrowly drawn and the practices
prohibited more precisely delineated to satisfy the constitutional requirements as to a valid
limitation under the clear and present danger doctrine. As the author Taada clearly explained,
such provisions were deemed by the legislative body to be part and parcel of the necessary
and appropriate response not merely to a clear and present danger but to the actual existence
of a grave and substantive evil of excessive partisanship, dishonesty and corruption as well as
violence that of late has invariably marred election campaigns and partisan political activities
in
this
country.
The very idea of a government, republican in form, implies a right on the part of its
citizens to meet peaceably for consultation in respect to public affairs and to petition for
redress of grievances. As in the case of freedom of expression, this right is not to be limited,
much less denied, except on a showing of a clear and present danger of a substantive evil
that Congresshas
a
right
to
prevent.
The prohibition of any speeches, announcements or commentaries, or the holding of interviews
for or against the election of any party or candidate for public office and the prohibition of the
publication or distribution of campaign literature or materials, against the solicitation of votes
whether directly or indirectly, or the undertaking of any campaign literature or propaganda for
or against any candidate or party is repugnant to a constitutional command.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen