## 402 UNIDO v.

COMELEC AUTHOR: Janet

TOPIC: Regulation of public utilities and media of Notes:
information
PONENTE: Barredo
CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:
o The Comelec has indeed the power to supervise and regulate the mass media in such respect,
but such authority arises only when there is a showing that any sector or member of the media
has denied to any party or person the right to which it or he is entitled.

Emergency Recit:
o UNIDO wanted to be granted the same media coverage as what was given the Pres. Marcos. The
Court ruled that The UNIDO or any of its leaders does not have the same constitutional prerogatives
vested in the President/Prime Minister as above discussed. As such, it has no right to 'demand' equal
coverage by media accorded President Marcos.

FACTS:
UNIDO is a political organization or aggrupation campaigning for "NO" votes to the amendments to the
Constitution of the Philippines of 1973 proposed by the Batasang Pambansa.

Respondent COMELEC issued three (3) Resolutions all dated March 5, 1981, to wit:
o Resolution No. 1467 providing for Rules and Regulations for 'equal opportunity' on public
discussions and debates on the plebiscite questions to be submitted to the people on April 7,
1981;
o Resolution No. 1468 providing 'equal time on the use of the broadcast media (radio and
television) in the plebiscite campaign'; and
o Resolution No. 1469 providing for 'equal space on the use of the print media in the 1981
plebiscite of April 7, 1981'.
On March 12, President Marcos utilized a number of TV and radio stations all over the country from
9:30 to 11:30 PM. The UNIDO requested to be given the same equal opportunity.
Respondent COMELEC issued its Resolution of March 18, 1981 quoting the above letters of petitioner
UNIDO, but held that they 'cannot be granted and the same is hereby denied.

ISSUE(S):

o Whether or not UNIDO has the right to 'demand' equal coverage by media accorded President Marcos.

RATIO:
No.
o When President Marcos conducted his 'pulong-pulong' or consultation with the people on March 12,
1981, he did so in his capacity as President/Prime Minister of the Philippines and not as the head of
any political party.
o Under the Constitution, the 'Prime Minister and the Cabinet shall be responsible . . . for the
program of government and shall determine the guidelines of national policy' (Art. IX, Sec. 2).
This Commission takes judicial notice of the fact that the proposed amendments, subject of the
President's remarks in the 'Pulong-Pulong Pambansa' last March 12, 1981, were initiated under the
leadership of Mr. Marcos as President/Prime Minister in the exercise of his constitutional
prerogative aforecited. In fact, it was President/Prime Minister Ferdinand E. Marcos who issued
the special call for the Batasang Pambansa to convene as a constituent assembly to propose
amendments to the Constitution

o It cannot be denied that seeking constitutional changes through the means sanctioned by the
Constitution constitutes a program of government imbued with the nature of highest importance. The
President/Prime Minister initiated this program of constitutional remaking. It is, therefore, his corollary
 prerogative to enlighten the people on the sense, significance, necessity and nuance of the
constitutional amendments which he wanted the people to support. It would be an idle, if not absurd
proposition, to declare that the President/Prime Minister is 'responsible for the program of
government and the guidelines of policy' and yet deprive him of the right and opportunity to
inform and enlighten the people of the rationale of such initiatives without at the same time
granting the same right to the opposition.

o The UNIDO or any of its leaders does not have the same constitutional prerogatives vested in the
President/Prime Minister as above discussed. As such, it has no right to 'demand' equal
coverage by media accorded President Marcos.
o The UNIDO, however, is free to enter into appropriate contracts with the TV or radio stations
concerned. This Commission, however, cannot direct these media to grant free use of their facilities.
First of all, the Comelec cannot assume dictatorial powers and secondly, the rule of equal time for
campaigning as to duration and quality is not applicable under the circumstances of this case, for the
reasons above-stated.

o The Comelec has indeed the power to supervise and regulate the mass media in such respect,
but such authority arises only when there is a showing that any sector or member of the media
has denied to any party or person the right to which it or he is entitled.

DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):