Chavez v. Commission on Elections ( G.R. No.
only after the filing of a certificate of candidacy
162777 ) August 31, 2004 and before the campaign period.
Case Digest: G.R. No. 162777
Facts Chavez v. Commission on Elections ( G.R. No.
162777 ) August 31, 2004
• Francisco I. Chavez filed a petition for
prohibition with the Supreme Court to enjoin Case Summary: G.R. No. 162777
the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) from
In the case of Francisco I. Chavez vs. Commission on
enforcing Section 32 of its Resolution No. 6520.
Elections (COMELEC), the petitioner, Francisco I.
• Chavez had entered into agreements to Chavez, challenged the constitutionality of Section 32
endorse products for various companies, of COMELEC Resolution No. 6520. Chavez, a taxpayer
resulting in billboards featuring his image and and citizen, filed a petition for prohibition with a prayer
name. for a writ of preliminary injunction to prevent the
enforcement of the said resolution. Chavez had
• He subsequently filed his certificate of
entered into agreements to endorse products for
candidacy for Senator.
various companies, resulting in billboards featuring
• COMELEC Resolution No. 6520 required the his image and name being displayed prominently.
removal of propaganda materials, including
On December 30, 2003, Chavez filed his certificate of
billboards, within three days after the effectivity
candidacy for the position of Senator. Subsequently,
of the rules.
COMELEC issued Resolution No. 6520, which
• Chavez argued that the billboards were mere required candidates to remove any propaganda
product endorsements and not election materials, including billboards featuring their names
propaganda. and images, within three days of the resolution's
effectivity. Chavez argued that the billboards were
Issues
mere product endorsements and not election
• Whether Section 32 of COMELEC Resolution propaganda, and thus should not be subject to
No. 6520 is a valid exercise of police power. removal.
• Whether the provision violates the non- The Supreme Court examined whether Section 32 of
impairment clause. the resolution was a valid exercise of police power and
whether it violated the non-impairment clause,
• Whether the provision constitutes an ex post
constituted an ex-post facto law, or was contrary to
facto law.
the Fair Elections Act. The Court held that the
• Whether the provision is contrary to the Fair provision aimed to prevent premature campaigning
Elections Act. and to ensure equal opportunities for all candidates
• Whether the provision is invalid due to by regulating the use of propaganda materials. The
overbreadth. resolution was deemed necessary to maintain the
integrity and fairness of the electoral process.
Ruling/Ratio
Chavez's claims that the resolution was an ex-post
• The Supreme Court upheld the validity of facto law and violated the Fair Elections Act were
Section 32 of COMELEC Resolution No. 6520. dismissed. The Court noted that the resolution did not
• The Court ruled that the provision is a valid operate retroactively and that the regulation of
exercise of police power aimed at preventing billboards as election propaganda was within
premature campaigning and ensuring equality COMELEC's authority to ensure fair elections. The
among candidates. Court also upheld the resolution's validity, stating that
• The non-impairment clause must yield to the it did not constitute a blanket prohibition but rather
government's objective of promoting equal imposed reasonable limitations to prevent premature
opportunity for all candidates. campaigning.
• The provision does not operate retroactively
and does not constitute an ex post facto law. In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the
• The provision is not contrary to the Fair petition and declared Section 32 of COMELEC
Elections Act, as it regulates the use of Resolution No. 6520 as valid and constitutional. The
propaganda materials to prevent undue prayer for a Temporary Restraining Order and/or a Writ
advantage. of Preliminary Injunction was denied, upholding the
regulation of election propaganda to promote fair and
• The provision is not overbroad as it is limited in orderly elections.
scope and time, disallowing certain materials
