Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 141 views

    Adiong Vs Comelec

    Uploaded by

    May Marie Ann Aragon-Jimenez WESTERN MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY, COLLEGE OF LAW
    The petitioner, a senatorial candidate, challenged a COMELEC resolution prohibiting the posting of campaign decals and stickers on public or private vehicles and limiting their placement to authorized areas. The petitioner argued this ban was his last medium to inform voters given restrictions on other forms of political advertising. The Supreme Court ruled the resolution unconstitutional, finding no substantial public interest to warrant prohibiting decals and stickers on mobile places as it amounted to censorship.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Adiong Vs Comelec

    Uploaded by

    May Marie Ann Aragon-Jimenez WESTERN MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY, COLLEGE OF LAW
    141 views1 page
    The petitioner, a senatorial candidate, challenged a COMELEC resolution prohibiting the posting of campaign decals and stickers on public or private vehicles and limiting their placement to authorized areas. The petitioner argued this ban was his last medium to inform voters given restrictions on other forms of political advertising. The Supreme Court ruled the resolution unconstitutional, finding no substantial public interest to warrant prohibiting decals and stickers on mobile places as it amounted to censorship.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Adiong vs comelec

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The petitioner, a senatorial candidate, challenged a COMELEC resolution prohibiting the posting of campaign decals and stickers on public or private vehicles and limiting their placement to authorized areas. The petitioner argued this ban was his last medium to inform voters given restrictions on other forms of political advertising. The Supreme Court ruled the resolution unconstitutional, finding no substantial public interest to warrant prohibiting decals and stickers on mobile places as it amounted to censorship.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    141 views1 page

    Adiong Vs Comelec

    Uploaded by

    May Marie Ann Aragon-Jimenez WESTERN MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY, COLLEGE OF LAW
    The petitioner, a senatorial candidate, challenged a COMELEC resolution prohibiting the posting of campaign decals and stickers on public or private vehicles and limiting their placement to authorized areas. The petitioner argued this ban was his last medium to inform voters given restrictions on other forms of political advertising. The Supreme Court ruled the resolution unconstitutional, finding no substantial public interest to warrant prohibiting decals and stickers on mobile places as it amounted to censorship.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Adiong vs. Comelec, G.R. NO.

    103956; 31 MAR 1992; 207 SCRA 713


    (Constitutional Law Right to Free Press) FACTS: Public respondent promulgated a resolution prohibiting the posting of decals and stickers on mobile places, public or private, and limit their location or publication to the authorized posting areas that COMELEC fixes. Petitioner senatorial candidate assails said resolution insofar as it prohibits the posting of decals and stickers in mobile places like cars and other moving vehicles, wherein it is his last medium to inform the electorate that he is a senatorial candidate, due to the ban on radio, tv and print political advertisements. ISSUE: WON a resolution prohibiting posting of decals and stickers is constitutional. HELD: No. The prohibition on posting of decals and stickers on mobileplaces whether public or private except in the authorized areas designated by the COMELEC becomes censorship which is unconstitutional. There is no public interest substantial enough to warrant the prohibition.

    You might also like