Philippine Press Institute vs.

COMELEC
244 SCRA 272

Facts:

On March 2, 1995, COMELEC promulgated Resolution No. 2772, procuring free print space of
not less than one half page in at least one newspaper of general circulation in every province or
city for use as Comelec Space.

The Philippine Press Institute, Inc. (PPI) filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition, assailing
the constitutionality of Resolution No. 2772. PPI contained that Resolution No. 2772 violates the
prohibition imposed by the Constitution upon the government, and any of its agencies, against
the taking of private property for public use without just compensation; that the 22 March 1995
letter directives of Comelec requiring publishers to give free "Comelec Space" and at the same
time process raw data to make it camera-ready, constitute impositions of involuntary servitude,
contrary to the provisions of Section 18 (2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution; and that Section
8 of Comelec Resolution No. 2772 is violative of the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of
speech, of the press and of expression.

On 20 April 1995, this Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining Comelec from
enforcing and implementing Section 2 of Resolution No. 2772, as well as the Comelec directives
addressed to various print media enterprises

The Office of the Solicitor General filed its Comment on behalf of respondent Comelec alleging
that Comelec Resolution No. 2772 does not impose upon the publishers any obligation to
provide free print space in the newspapers as it does not provide any criminal or administrative
sanction for non-compliance with that Resolution; and that even if the questioned Resolution
and its implementing letter directives are viewed as mandatory, the same would nevertheless be
valid as an exercise of the police power of the State.

Issue:

Whether or not Comelec Resolution No. 2772 is unconstitutional.

Ruling:

Comelec Resolution No. 2772 is unconstitutional. To compel print media companies to

donate "Comelec-space" of the dimensions specified in Section 2 of Resolution No. 2772
amounts to "taking" of private personal property for public use or purposes.

The requisites for a lawful taking of private property for public use are: (1)is the necessity for the
taking; (2)the legal authority to effect the taking. The element of necessity for the taking has not
been shown by respondent Comelec.
The taking of private property for public use is authorized by the Constitution, but not without
payment of "just compensation". Therefore Section 2 does not constitute a valid exercise of the
power of eminent domain; neither does it constitute a valid exercise of the police power, for
there was no attempt to demonstrate the urgent necessity for the taking of the print space