TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND BROADCAST ATTORNEYS OF THE

PHILIPPINES, INC. AND GMA NETWORK, INC., PETITIONERS,

VS. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RESPONDENT
G.R. No. 132922, April 21, 1998
MENDOZA, J. (En banc)
DOCTRINE
Equal protection
Important differences in the characteristics of two things being classified may
justify their differential treatment.
NATURE/FACTS
1. COMELEC Time (from Sec 92 of B.P. Blg. 881 or the Omnibus Election Code)
is part of a regulatory scheme designed to equalize the opportunity of
candidates in an election in regard to the use of mass media for political
campaigns.
2. The law prohibits mass media from selling or donating print space and air
time to the candidates and requires the COMELEC instead to procure print
space and air time for allocation to the candidates FREE OF CHARGE.
3. Petitioners TELEBAP and GMA Network assail the validity of 92 of B.P. Blg.
No. 881 against claims that the requirement that radio and television time
during the election period (to be used for candidates advertisements) be given
free takes property without due process of law. The Court ruled against
petitioners and upheld the constitutionality of said statute as the equal
protection does not prohibit classification when there is a valid and
reasonable .
ISSUE
1. WON petitioners have requisite standing NO for TELEBAP, YES for GMA
2. WON challenged statute is unconstitutional for taking property without due
process - NO
HELD
Petition dismissed
RATIO
1. Procedural
TELEBAP has in the past asserted their interest as citizens, taxpayer and
registered voters in previous cases in this Court. But in this instant case, the
Court rules that they have no standing, for the ff. reasons:
- The issue is not of transcendental importance (citizens)

- The issue at hand does not involve their right of suffrage (registered
voters)
- It does not involve the exercise by Congress of its taxing or spending
power (taxpayers)
GMA on the other hand, has standing because it claims of losses several
millions of pesos in providing COMELEC with free air time for the election
advertisements, not to mention upcoming losses in the next elections.
2. Substantive
A. Airing of COMELEC Time, a Reasonable Condition for Grant of Petitioners
Franchise
Petitioners: 92 of BP Blg. 881 violates the due process clause the eminent
domain provision of the Constitution by taking air time from radio and
television broadcasting stations without payment of just compensation.
Court: A franchise is a privilege granted to an entity, that any such franchise
or right granted . . . shall be subject to amendment, alteration or repeal by the
Congress when the common good so requires.1
These radio and television broadcasting companies, do not own the airwaves
and frequencies through which they transmit broadcast signals and images.
They are merely given the temporary privilege of using them. Since a franchise
is a mere privilege, the exercise of the privilege may reasonably be burdened
with the performance by the grantee of some form of public service.
As radio and television broadcast stations do not own the airwaves, no private
property is taken by the requirement that they provide air time to the
COMELEC.
B. Giving Free Air Time a Duty Assumed by Petitioner
Petitioner: although 5 of R.A. No. 7252 gives the government the power to
temporarily use and operate the stations of petitioner GMA Network or to
authorize such use and operation, the exercise of this right must be
compensated.

1 The idea that broadcast stations may be required to provide COMELEC Time free of
charge is not new. It goes back to the Election Code of 1971 (R.A. No. 6388). The said
provision was carried over with slight modification by the 1978 Election Code (P.D. No.
1296) and same provision is now embodied in 92 of B.P. Blg. 881.

Court: Basic flaw in petitioners argument is that it assumes that the provision
for COMELEC Time constitutes the use and operation of the stations of the GMA
Network, Inc. This is not so. Under 92 of B.P. Blg. 881, the COMELEC does not
take over the operation of radio and television stations but only the allocation
of air time
C. Differential Treatment of Broadcast Media Justified
There are important differences in the characteristics of the two media, which
justify their differential treatment for free speech purposes.
1. Because of the physical limitations of the broadcast spectrum, the
government must, of necessity, allocate broadcast frequencies to those wishing
to use them. There is no similar justification for government allocation and
regulation of the print media
2. From another point of view, because of the unique and pervasive influence
of the broadcast media, [n]ecessarily . . . the freedom of television and radio
broadcasting is somewhat lesser in scope than the freedom accorded to
newspaper and print media
D. Requirement of COMELEC Time, a Reasonable Exercise of the States Power
to Regulate Use of Franchises
Petitioner: The power to supervise or regulate given to the COMELEC under
Art. IX-C, 4 of the Constitution does not include the power to prohibit
Court: As was already state in Osmena v. COMELEC : There is no suppression
of political ads but only a regulation of the time and manner of advertising.