Abstract nito - Prohibition against certain election propaganda. Valid exercise of police power to prevent the perversion and prostitution of the electoral apparatus and denial of due process of law.

Election LawsBADOY vs. COMELEC (35 SCRA 285)“Campaign, A. Lawful / Prohibited Election Propaganda”Facts: Anacleto D. Badoy, Jr. avers that he is a candidate for delegate to theConstitutional Convention for the lone district of North Cotabato. He prays thatSection 12(F) of RA 6132 be declared unconstitutional as the same deniesindividuals, who are not candidates, their freedom of speech and of the press; andcandidates the right to speak and write, discuss and debate in favor of theircandidacies or against the candidacies of others. Section 12 (F) provides that theComelec “shall endeavor to obtain free space from newspapers, magazines andperiodicals which shall be known as Comelec space, and shall allocate this spaceequally and impartially among all candidates within the areas in which thenewspapers are circulated. Outside of said Comelec space, it shall be unlawful toprint or publish, or cause to be printed or published, any advertisement, paidcomment or paid article in furtherance of or in opposition to the candidacy of anyperson for delegate, or mentioning the name of any candidate and the fact of hiscandidacy, unless all the names of all other candidates in the district in which thecandidate is running are also mentioned with equal prominence.” ComelecResolution RR-724, as amended, merely restates the ban in Section 12 (F).Issue: Whether the ban in Section 12 (F) is valid or constitutional.Held: Under Section 12 (F), the moneyed candidate or individual who can afford topay for advertisements, comments or articles in favor of his candidacy or against thecandidacy of another or which mention his name and the fact of his candidacy, isrequired to mention all the other candidates in the same district with equalprominence, to exempt him from the penal sanction of the law. The evident purposeof the limitation is to give the poor candidates a fighting chance in the election. Therestriction is only one of the measures devised by the law to preserve suffrage pureand undefiled and to achieve the desired equality of chances among all thecandidates. Considering the foregoing limitation in Section 12(F) in the light of theother provisions of RA 6132 designed to maximize, if not approximate, equality ofchances among the various candidates in the same district, the said restriction on thefreedom of expression appears too insignificant to create any appreciable dent on theindividual’s liberty of expression. It should be noted that Section 8(a) of the same law,prohibiting political parties from aiding candidates and thus was more restrictive thanSection 12(F), was previously upheld to be valid. The limitation in Section 12(F) is areasoned and reasonable judgment on the part of Congress. It is not unconstitutional.