MANILA, Philippines—A party-list group claiming to represent transport workers has asked the Commission on Elections to reconsider its ban on the posting of campaign materials on public utility vehicles (PUVs) and terminals during the campaign season.
Melencio Vargas, president of 1-United Transport Koalisyon (1-Utak), said the Comelec prohibition violated the right to free expression of PUV owners, particularly their freedom to express support for their favored candidates in the May 2013 elections.
“We seek the honorable commission to reconsider and take a second look at the questioned provisions and allow PUVs and transport terminal owners that are privately-owned to post, install and display campaign materials on their vehicles and other private property,” Vargas said in a letter to the Comelec.
“To prohibit the owner from doing so curtails his constitutional right to free speech and expression. The posting of the decals and stickers on cars, kalesas, tricycles, pedicabs and other moving vehicles need the consent of the owner of the vehicle,” he added.
Vargas pointed out that political ads are allowed on other forms of private property but not on PUVs. He added that the Supreme Court had ruled that the right to operate a public utility may exist independently and separately from the ownership of the facilities.
“One can own said facilities without operating them as a public utility or conversely, one may operate a public utility without owning the facilities used to serve the public. While the facility, which is private property is developed for public use, it is the operation of the utility, rather than the facilities, which is regulated by the state,” Vargas said.
“This places PUVs in a peculiar situation, for while the posting of political advertisements is allowed in private properties provided the owner consents, the same is prohibited in the case of the PUVs,” he added.
However, Comelec spokesperson James Jimenez said that while PUVs may be privately owned, the state can regulate their “public” operation.
“They are the holder of the franchise and a franchise is a grant by Congress. That, essentially makes the vehicle, while in ownership is private, certainly in character public,” Jimenez said.
“That is used for the public and that is taking advantage from a grant from the government. Therefore, we believe that it is within the scope of our power to regulate,” he added.