G.R. No. L-32546 and L-32551, 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

The case involves a constitutional challenge to a specific provision of the 1971 Constitutional Convention Act. The petitioner, Anacleto D. Badoy, Jr., contests the constitutionality of Section 12(f) of the Act, which regulates political advertisements related to the election of delegates to the Constitutional Convention. The challenged provision makes it unlawful to print or publish any advertisement, paid comment, or paid article supporting or opposing a candidate for delegate, or mentioning a candidate’s name and candidacy, unless the names of all other candidates in the same district are also mentioned with equal prominence, outside of the designated Comelec space.

ISSUE

Whether Section 12(f) of the 1971 Constitutional Convention Act constitutes an unconstitutional abridgment of the freedom of speech and of the press as guaranteed by the Constitution.

RULING

The dissenting opinion of Justice Fernando argues that the challenged provision is unconstitutional. He contends that the provision, on its face, abridges press freedom by compelling a candidate who wishes to publish a paid political advertisement to include the names of all other candidates in the district, upon pain of being prohibited from such publicity. This restraint and compulsion violate the constitutional command against abridgment. While acknowledging that freedom of expression is not absolute and can be limited under the “clear and present danger” test, the dissent finds that this rigorous standard has not been met by the statute. The provision restricts the dissemination of political information, which enjoys a high degree of constitutional protection. The dissent emphasizes the indispensability of free speech and a free press to the political process and self-government, citing authoritative doctrines and juristic thought that advocate for a near-absolutist protection of political expression. Therefore, Justice Fernando concludes the provision is repugnant to the Constitution.