AMELITO R. MUTUC vs.

COMELEC

FACTS:
 Petitioner Mutuc was a candidate for delegate to the Constitutional Convention.
 He filed a special civil action against the respondent COMELEC when the latter informed
him through a telegram that his certificate of candidacy was given due course but he
was prohibited from using jingles in his mobile units equipped with sound systems and
loud speakers.
 The petitioner accorded the order to be violative of his constitutional right to freedom of
speech.
 COMELEC justified its prohibition on the premise that the Constitutional Convention act
provided that it is unlawful for the candidates
“to purchase, produce, request or distribute sample ballots, or electoral propaganda gadgets
such as pens, lighters, fans (of whatever nature), flashlights, athletic goods or materials, wallets,
bandanas, shirts, hats, matches, cigarettes, and the like, whether of domestic or foreign origin.”

 COMELEC contended that the jingle or the recorded or taped voice of the singer used by
petitioner was a tangible propaganda material and was, under the above statute, subject
to confiscation.

ISSUE:
WON the usage of the jingle by the petitioner form part of the prohibition invoked by the
COMELEC.

HELD:
 The Court held that “the general words following any enumeration being applicable only
to things of the same kind or class as those specifically referred to”.
 The COMELEC’s contention that a candidate’s jingle form part of the prohibition,
categorized under the phrase “and the like”, could not merit the court’s approval by
principle of Ejusdem Generis.
 It is quite apparent that what was contemplated in the Act was the distribution of
gadgets of the kind referred to as a means of inducement to obtain a favorable vote for
the candidate responsible for its distribution.
Furthermore, the COMELEC failed to observe construction of the statute which should be in
consonance to the express terms of the constitution.

The intent of the COMELEC for the prohibition may be laudable but it should not be sought at
the cost of the candidate’s constitutional rights