Chavez v. Commission on Elections G. R. No. 162777, August 31, 2004
AC!"# Petitioner AC!"# Petitioner Chavez, on various dates, e ntered into formal agreements with certain establishments to endorse their products and pursuant to these agreements, three billboards were set up along the Balintawak Interchange of the North Expresswa! "#hese last two agreements were entered into on $ctober %&, '(() and November %(, '((), respectivel!* $n +ecember )(, '((), petitioner filed his certificate of candidac for the position of enator under -lansa ng Pag.asa! #hereafter, respondent C$/E0EC issued a 1esolution No! 23'( which contains ec! )' prohibiting all propaganda materials showing the image or mentioning the name of a person, who subse4uent to the placement thereof becomes a candidate for public office! Petitioner was asked b the respondent to compl with the rule but petitioner asked that he be exempted from said 1esolution considering that the billboards mentioned therei therein n are mere mere produc productt endors endorseme ement nt and cannot cannot be constru construed ed as paraph paraphern ernali alia a for premat premature ure campaigning under the rules! C$/E0EC it ordered petitioner to remove or cause the removal of the billboards, or to cover them from public view pending the approval of his re4uest! Not agreeing with the decision, petitioner Chavez asks the upreme Court that the C$/E0EC be en5oined from enforcing the assailed provision! 6ence, the petition for prohibition with praer for the issuance of a writ of preliminar in5unction!
$""%E"# %* 7hether or not the billboard mentioned therein are exempted from sec! )' of resolution no! 23'( due to the reason that it is purel product endorsement and do not announce or solicit an support for petitioner8s candidac! '* 7hether or not ec! )' of 1esolution 23'( is a valid exercise of police power!
&E'(# %* No, the upreme Court held that the billboard mentioned therein should not be exempted from sec! )' of resolu resolutio tion n no! 23'(! 23'(! #he #he uprem upreme e Court Court held held that that 9nder 9nder the $mnib $mnibus us Elect Election ion Code, Code, :elect :election ion campaign: or :partisan political activit: is defined as an act designed to promote the election or defeat of a particular candidate or candidates to a public office! $ne of the activities included therein is :+irectl or indirectl soliciting votes, pledges or support for or against a candidate:! '* ;es, the upreme Court held that ec! )' of resolution no! 23'( is a valid exercise of police power! #he upreme Court said that - close examination of the assailed provision reveals that its primar ob5ective ob5ectives s are to prohibit prohibit premature premature campaigni campaigning ng and to level the plaing plaing field for candidates candidates of public office, to e4ualize the situation between popular or rich candidates, on one hand, and lesser.known or poorer poorer candidates candidates,, on the other, b preventin preventing g the former from en5oing en5oing undue advantage advantage in exposure exposure and publicit on account of their resources and popularit! #his is within the context of police power to prescribe regulations to promote the health, morals, peace, education, good order, or safet, and the general welfare of the people!
