ATTY GALLANT SORIANO

1. Yra V Abano 52 Phil 380

2. Akbayan youth v COMELEC 147066 March 26, 2001
3. Makalintal v COMELEC July 3, 2016
4. Utatalum v COMELEC 181 SCRA 335
5. Frivaldo v COMELEC
6. Labo v Comelec
7. Villaber v Comelec gr no. 148326
8. Dela Torre v Comelec 258 s 483
9. Moreno v Comelec 168550, Aug 10, 2006
10. Caasi v Comelec 191 SCRA 229
11. Grego v Comelec 125955, Jun 19, 1997
12. Reyes v Comelec 254 s 514
13. Mercado v Manzano 307 SCRA 630
14. Lopez v Comelec 182701 July 23, 2008
15. Rodriguez v Comelec
16. Romualdez- Marcos v Comelec 258 s 499
17. Aquino v Comelec 248 s 400
18. De Guzman v Board of Canvassers 48 Phil 211
19. Jurilla v Comelec gr no 105436 June 2, 1994
20. PNOC-EDC v NLRC GR 100947 May 1993
21. Quinto v Comelec 613 SCRA 385, Feb 22, 2010
22. Loreto- go v Comelec gr no. 147741 May 10, 2001
23. Luna v Comelec gr no 165983 April 2007
24. Monsale v Nico 83 Phil 758
25. Cipriano v Comelec 158830 August 10, 2004
26. Abcede v imperial Gr L-13001
27. Salih v Comelec gr no 122872, September 10, 1997
28. Loong v Comelec 216 SCRA 760
29. Garvida V Sales
30. Lanot V Comelec Gr No 164858, Nov 16, 2006
31. Adiong V Comelec 207 S 712
32. ABS CBN V Comelec Gr 133486, Jan 28, 2000
33. SWS V Comelec Gr 147571, May 5, 2001
34. Chavez V Comelec Gr 162777, Aug 31, 2004
35. Pilar V Comelec 245 S 759

Lanot v. COMELEC
G.R. No. 164858, November 16, 2006
FACTS: Petitioners filed a petition for disqualification under Sections
68 and 80 of the Omnibus Election Code against Eusebio before the
COMELEC stating that the latter engaged in an election campaign in
various forms on various occasions outside of the designated
campaign period, such as (1) addressing a large group of people
during a medical mission sponsored by the Pasig City government;
(2) uttering defamatory statements against Lanot; (3) causing the
publication of a press release predicting his victory; (4) installing
billboards, streamers, posters, and stickers printed with his surname
across Pasig City; and (5) distributing shoes to schoolchildren in
Pasig public schools to induce their parents to vote for him. Eusebio
won the election and any other complaints was dismissed by the
COMELEC.
ISSUE: Whether or not there is a pre-campaign offense committed by
Eusebio.
RULING: There is no dispute that Eusebios acts of election
campaigning or partisan political activities were committed outside of
the campaign period. The only question is whether Eusebio, who filed
his certificate of candidacy on 29 December 2003, was a "candidate"
when he committed those acts before the start of the campaign
period on 24 March 2004. Under Section 11 of RA 8436, Eusebio
became a "candidate," for purposes of Section 80 of the Omnibus
Election Code, only on 23 March 2004, the last day for filing
certificates of candidacy. Applying the facts - as found by Director
Ladra and affirmed by the COMELEC First Division - to Section 11 of
RA 8436, Eusebio clearly did not violate Section 80 of the Omnibus
Election Code which requires the existence of a "candidate," one who
has filed his certificate of candidacy, during the commission of the
questioned acts.

Adiong Vs Comelec
ADIONG
v.
COMELEC
G.R.
No.
103956
March 31, 1992
FACTS: On January 13, 1992, the COMELEC promulgated
Resolution No. 2347 pursuant to its powers granted by the
Constitution, the Omnibus Election Code, Republic Acts Nos. 6646
and 7166 and other election laws. Section 15(a) of the resolution
provides:
Sec. 15. Lawful Election Propaganda. The following are lawful
election propaganda:
(a) Pamphlets, leaflets, cards, decals Provided, That decals and
stickers may be posted only in any of the authorized posting areas
provided in paragraph (f) of Section 21 hereof.
Section 21 (f) of the same resolution provides:
Sec. 21(f). Prohibited forms of election propaganda.
It is unlawful:
(f) To draw, paint, inscribe, post, display or publicly exhibit any
election propaganda in any place, whether public or private, mobile or
stationary, except in the COMELEC common posted areas and/or
billboards
Petitioner Blo Umpar Adiong, a senatorial candidate in the May 11,
1992 elections assails the COMELECs Resolution insofar as it
prohibits the posting of decals and stickers in mobile places like
cars and other moving vehicles. According to him such prohibition is
violative of Section 82 of the Omnibus Election Code and Section
11(a) of Republic Act No. 6646.
ISSUE: Whether or not the COMELEC may prohibit the posting of
decals and stickers on mobile places, public or private, and limit
their location or publication to the authorized posting areas that it
fixes.
HELD: The petition is hereby GRANTED. The portion of Section 15
(a) of Resolution No. 2347 of the COMELEC providing that decals
and stickers may be posted only in any of the authorized posting
areas provided in paragraph (f) of Section 21 hereof is DECLARED
NULL and VOID. The COMELECs prohibition on posting of decals

and stickers on mobile places whether public or private except in

designated areas provided for by the COMELEC itself is null and void
on constitutional grounds. The prohibition unduly infringes on the
citizens fundamental right of free speech enshrined in the
Constitution (Sec. 4, Article III). Significantly, the freedom of
expression curtailed by the questioned prohibition is not so much that
of the candidate or the political party. The regulation strikes at the
freedom of an individual to express his preference and, by displaying
it on his car, to convince others to agree with him.
Also, the questioned prohibition premised on the statute (RA 6646)
and as couched in the resolution is void for overbreadth. The
restriction as to where the decals and stickers should be posted is so
broad that it encompasses even the citizens private property, which
in this case is a privately-owned vehicle (The provisions allowing
regulation are so loosely worded that they include the posting of
decals or stickers in the privacy of ones living room or bedroom.) In
consequence of this prohibition, another cardinal rule prescribed by
the Constitution would be violated. Section 1, Article III of the Bill of
Rights provides that no person shall be deprived of his property
without due process of law. (The right to property may be subject to a
greater degree of regulation but when this right is joined by a liberty
interest, the burden of justification on the part of the Government
must be exceptionally convincing and irrefutable. The burden is not
met in this case.)
Additionally, the constitutional objective to give a rich candidate and a
poor candidate equal opportunity to inform the electorate as regards
their candidacies, mandated by Article II, Section 26 and Article XIII,
section 1 in relation to Article IX (c) Section 4 of the Constitution, is
not impaired by posting decals and stickers on cars and other private
vehicles. It is to be reiterated that the posting of decals and stickers
on cars, calesas, tricycles, pedicabs and other moving vehicles needs
the consent of the owner of the vehicle. Hence, the preference of the
citizen becomes crucial in this kind of election propaganda not the
financial resources of the candidate.
In sum, the prohibition on posting of decals and stickers on mobile
places whether public or private except in the authorized areas
designated by the COMELEC becomes censorship which cannot be
justified by the Constitution.

ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation v. Comelec

323 SCRA 811
FACTS: Comelec came up with a resolution prohibiting the conduct
of exit polls during elections for the reason that exit polls have the
tendency to cause confusion.
ABS- CBN argued that holding exit polls and nationwide reporting of
results are valid exercises of the freedoms of speech and of press.
COMELEC committed gad when issued such resolution.
Issue : Whether or not COMELEC in the exercise of its powers can
ban exit polls .
HELD: No, the measure is overbroad and unnecessarily restricts
fundamental rights of speech and of press. Conducting exit polls
and reporting their results are valid exercises of freedom of speech
and of the press. A limitation on them may be justified only by a
danger of such substantive character that the state has a right to
prevent. The concern of the Comelec cannot be justified since there
is no showing that exit polls cause chaos in voting centers.
SWS

vs

Comelec

Facts:
Petitioner SWS and KPC states that it wishes to conduct an election
survey throughout the period of the elections and release to the
media the results of such survey as well as publish them directly.
Petitioners argue that the restriction on the publication of election
survey results constitutes a prior restraint on the exercise of freedom
of speech without any clear and present danger to justify such
restraint.

Issue:
Are the Comelec Resolutions prohibiting the holding of pre-polls and
exit polls and the dissemination of their results through mass media,
valid
and
constitutional?
Ruling:
No. The Court held that Section (5)4 is invalid because (1) it imposes
a prior restraint on the freedom of expression, (2) it is a direct and
total suppression of a category of expression even though such
suppression is only for a limited period, and (3) the governmental
interest sought to be promoted can be achieved by means other than
suppression
of
freedom
of
expression.
It has been held that "[mere] legislative preferences or beliefs
respecting matters of public convenience may well support regulation
directed at other personal activities, but be insufficient to justify such
as diminishes the exercise of rights so vital to the maintenance of
democratic institutions.