Anda di halaman 1dari 4

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I-The Constitutional Commissions-The Commission on Elections-Extraordinary Powers-Art.

IX-C, §4

National Press Club v. COMELEC • The statutory text the P want to strike down as
207 SCRA 1-March 5, 1992 unconstitutional is §11(b) of RA 6646, aka the Electoral Reforms Law
Ponente: Feliciano of 1987
Section 11. Prohibited Forms of Election Propaganda-in addition to the
Case: 3 consolidated petitions, with the common question: the constitutionality of forms of election propaganda prohibited under Section 85 of Batas Pambansa Blg.
§11(b), of RA6646 881, it shall be unlawful;
Petitoners: representatives of mass media which are prevented from selling (b) for any newspapers, radio broadcasting or television station,
or donating space and time for political advertisements; 2 candidates for office (1 other mass media, or any person making use of the mass media to sell or to give
national, 1 provincial) in the coming May 1992 elections; taxpayers and voters who free of charge print space or air time for campaign or other political purposes
claim that their right to be informed of election issues and of credentials of the except to the Commission as provided under Sections 90 and 92 of Batas
candidates is being curtailed. (I will refer to these folks as Petitoners (P)) Pambansa Blg. 881. Any mass media columnist, commentator, announcer, or
personality who is candidate for any elective public office shall take a leave of
Facts: Petitioners’ argument: absence from his work as such during the campaign period.
• That §11(b), of RA6646 invades and violated the
constitutional guarantees comprising freedom of expression; • §11(b) of RA 6646 should be taken together with
• That the prohibition imposed by §11(b) amounts to Sections 90 & 92 of BP 881 aka Omnibus Election Code of the
censorship, because it selects and singles out for suppression and Philippines. (for the full text, see p. 7)
repression with criminal sanctions, only publications of a particular §90 refers to the “Comelec space”- space in the newspaper to be
content, namely, media-based election or political propaganda during allocated equally and impartially to all the candidates within the area of coverage,
the election pd. of 1992; free of charge
• That the prohibition is in derogation of media’s role, §92 refers to the “Comelec time” air time in radio and tv to be allocated
function and duty to provide adequate channels of public information equally and impartially to all the candidates within the area of coverage, free of
and public opinion relevant to election issues; charge.
• That §11(b) abridges the freedom of speech of
candidates, and that the suppression of media-based campaign or Objective of the statute
political propaganda except those appearing in the Comelec space of • Objective of §11(b)-to equalize, as far as practicable,
the newspapers and on Comelec time of radio and tv broadcasts, the situations of rich and poor candidates by preventing the rich
would bring about a substantial reduction in the quantity or volume of from enjoying undue advantage offered by huge campaign “war
info concerning candidates and issues in the election, thereby chests.”
curtailing and limiting the right of voters to info and opinion. • It prohibits the sale or donation of print space and air
time “for campaign or other political purposes” except to Comelec.
Issue: WON §11(b) of RA 6646 has gone beyond the permissible supervision or • §90&92 of the OEC on the other hand, require the
regulation of media operations so as to constitute unconstitutional repression of Comelec to procure Comelec space and Comelec time to be allocated
freedom of speech & freedom of the press to all candidates for free.
SC says: Nope. It has not gone outside the permissible bounds of supervision or • No one seriously disputes the legitimacy or the
regulation of media operations during election periods. importance of the objective sought to be secured by §11(b) of RA
6646 in relation to §90&92 of the OEC.
Ratio: • The objective is of special importance and urgency in a
The assailed statute country which, like ours, is characterized by extreme disparity in
income distribution between the economic elite and the rest of the • In our own society, equal opportunity to proffer
society. oneself for public office, without regard to one’s financial capacity,
• It is important to note, that the objective, is not only a is clearly an important value.
legitimate one, it has also been given constitutional status by the • One of the basic state policies given constitutional rank
terms of Art. IX(C)(4) of the 1987 Consti. by Art. II, §26, Consti, is the egalitarian demand that “the State
shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service and
prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.
Art. IX-C, Section 4. The Commission may, during the election period, • The technical effect of Art. IX(C)(4) of the Consti, may
supervise or regulate the enjoyment or utilization of all franchises or be seen to be that no presumption of invalidity arises in respect of
permits for the operation of transportation and other public utilities, exercises of supervisory or regulatory authority on the part of the
media of communication or information, all grants, special privileges, or Comelec for the purpose of securing equal opportunity among
concessions granted by the Government or any subdivision, agency, or candidates for political office, although such supervision or
instrumentality thereof, including any government-owned or controlled regulation may result in some limitation of the rights of free speech
corporation or its subsidiary. Such supervision or regulation shall aim to and free press.
ensure equal opportunity, and equal rates therefor, for public information • Supervision and regulation of the operations of media
campaigns and forums among candidates in connection with the objective enterprises is scarcely conceivable without accompanying limitations.
of holding free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections. • Thus the time-honored rule: A statute is presumed to
be constitutional and that the party asserting its unconstitutionality
Anent Constitutionality of §11(b) must discharge the burden of clearly and convincingly proving that
• The Comelec has been expressly authorized by the assertion.
Cosnti to supervise or regulate the enjoyment or utilization of the
franchises or permits for the operation of media of communication • It is important to note that the restrictive impact upon
and info. freedom of speech and freedom of the press of §11(b) is
• The fundamental purpose of such “supervision or circumscribed by certain important limitations:
regulation” has been spelled out in the Consti as the ensuring of 1. §11(b) is limited in the duration of its applicability and
“equal opportunity, time, and space, and the right to reply,’ as well as enforceability. It is limited to election periods.
uniform and reasonable rates of charges for the use of such media 2. §11(b) is limited in its scope of application. Analysis shows that it
facilities, in connection with “public info campaigns and forums among purports to apply only to the purchase and sale, incl. purchase and sale disguised
candidates.” as a donation, of print space and air time for campaign purposes or other political
• It seems a modest proposition that the provision of the purposes.
Bill of Rights which enshrines the freedom of speech, freedom of a. It does not purport in any way to restrict reporting by
expression, and freedom of the press1, has to be taken in conjunction newspapers or radio or tv stations of news or newsworthy events relating to
with Art. IX (C) (4) which may be seen to be a special provision candidates, their qualifications, political parties and gov’t programs.
applicable during a specific limited period, i.e. during election pd. b. It does not restrict commentaries and expressions of belief
• The rights of free speech and free press are not or opinion by reporters, broadcasters, editors, etc. with respect to candidates,
unlimited rights for they are not the only important and relevant their qualifications, etc.
values even in the most democratic of polities. This is what distinguishes this case from Sanidad v. Comelec-
There, the provision prohibiting columnists, commentators or announcers from
1
Art. III, Section 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of campaigning for their candidate was declared by SC as unconstitutional because
expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition nothing in the consti gave Comelec the power to regulate their acts, as they are
the government for redress of grievances not franchise holders nor candidates.
c. It does not prohibit purchase by or donation to the Comelec • The right of the general listening and viewing public to
of print space or air time. And Comelec is required to allocate the same equally and be free form such intrusions and their subliminal effects is at least
impartially to all the candidates. as important as the right of the candidates to advertise themselves.
Re apprehension on possibility of abuse: Angara v. Electoral
Commission: the possibility of abuse is no argument against the concession of Held: Petitions DISMISSED for lack of merit.
power or authority involved, for there is no power or authority in human society
that is not susceptible of being abused. Davide, concurring
If the Comelec fails to do its duty (procure print space or air • Freedom of speech, the press and expression-not
time), then candidates can seek judicial relief. absolute.
• Freedom is not freedom from responsibility, but with
responsibility.
• Read Consti provisions together. Consti provides the
In Summary, §11(b) limitations to the rights it provides.
1. Does not cut off the flow of media reporting, opinion, or commentary
about candidates, their qualifications, and platforms and promises Padilla, concurring
2. Does not authorize any intervention and much less control on the • Fundamental that these freedoms are not immune to
content of the normal operations of the media regulation by the State in the legitimate exercise of its police power.
3. Does not prohibit Comelec from procuring print space and air time • Police power rests upon public necessity and upon the
for the candidates. right of the state and the public to self-protection. Thus, it is co-
extensive with the necessities of the case and the safeguards of
• Whatever limitation §11(b) entails bears a clear and public interest.
reasonable connection with the objective set out in Art. IX(C)(4) and • To tolerate overspending in print space or air time for
Art. II(26) of the Consti. campaign purposes would open the floodgates to corruption in public
office because a winning candidate who overspends during the
Anent Cruz’s assigned flaw-that it still does not restrict the rich candidate election pd., must recover his campaign expenses, by “hook or crook”.
from spending on other campaign activities. §11(b), would indirectly constitute a positive an defective
• A regulatory measure that is less than perfectly measure against corruption in public office.
comprehensive or which does not completely obliterate the evil
sought to be remedied, is not for that reason alone constitutionally Gutierrez, Jr., dissenting
infirm. • Deprivation of freedoms mentioned, plus right to be
• The Consti does not, and cannot exact perfection in informed in every way possible about the candidates
governmental regulation. • §11(b) will result in a gross inequality. Incumbent
• All it requires, in accepted doctrine, is that the
officials, celebrities, will have an unfair advantage over those
regulatory measure under challenge bear a reasobable nexus with the
lesser known.
constitutionality sanctioned objective.
• §11(b) is censorship, pure and simple
Anent invasion of privacy • Comelec has too much to do already
• Plus, super daming paid campaigns constitute invasion of • Existing restrictions are more than sufficient
privacy of the general electorate. Kaya daw ok lang to control
especially the rich who can afford to bombard the helpless Cruz, dissenting
electorate with paid advertisements.
• the end does not justify the means
• it is censorship
• Bantam Books v. Sullivan doctrine: “any system of prior
restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy
presumption against its validity”
• Problem not as bad . unlikely that a rich candidate would
or could buy all the print space or air time.
• For violating the “liberty to know, to utter, and to argue
freely according to conscience, above all liberties,” this must be
struck down

Paras, dissenting
• Grossly unfair, politically inept, eminently
unconstitutional

Anda mungkin juga menyukai