Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 3



G.R. No. 132922

April 21, 1998

Facts: TELEBAP, an organization of lawyers of radio and television broadcasting companies,

was declared without legal standing to sue as it was not able to show that it suffered from actual
or threatened injury as the result of the subject law. On the other hand, GMA Network had the
requisite standing to bring the constitutional challenge, as it operates radio and television
broadcast stations in the Philippines affected by the enforcement of Section 92, B.P. No. 881.
Petitioners challenged the validity of Section 92, B.P. No. 881, known as the COMELEC
Time since it has taken properties without due process of law and without just compensation.
Next, it denied the radio and television broadcast companies the equal protection of the laws.
Lastly, that it is in excess of the power given to the COMELEC to regulate the operation of
media communication or information during election period.

Whether or not Section 92 of B.P. No. 881 denies radio and television broadcast

companies the equal protection of the laws.

Petitioners Argument is without merit. All broadcasting, whether radio or television, is
licensed by the government. Radio and television broadcasting companies are merely given the
temporary privilege to use the airwaves and frequencies through which they transmit signals and
images. Thus, such exercise of the privilege may reasonably be burdened with the performance
by the grantee of some form of public service. In granting the privilege to operate broadcast
stations, the state spends considerate public funds in licensing and supervising them.

Biraogo vs. Philippine Truth Commission of 2010 G.R. No. 192935

December 07, 2010

Facts: Petitioner Biraogo instituted a special civil action for prohibition, in his capacity as a
citizen and taxpayer. Biraogo assails E.O. No. 1, entitled, Creating the Philippine Truth
Commission of 2010, for being violative of the legislative power of Congress under Section 1,
Article VI of the Constitution as it usurps the constitutional authority of the legislature to create a
public office and to appropriate funds therefore. The petitioner also asked the Court to declare it
unconstitutional and to enjoin the PTC from performing its functions. To specify, Petitioner
alleged that E.O. No.1 violates the equal protection clause as it selectively targets for
investigation and prosecution, officials and personnel of the previous administration as if
corruption is their peculiar species even as it excludes those of the other administrations, past and
present, who may be indictable. The OSG argues that the PTC does not violate the equal
protection clause because it was validly created for laudable purposes.
Issue: Whether or not E.O. No. 1violates the equal protection clause.
Ruling: Yes, although the purpose of the PTC falls within the investigative power of the
president, the Court finds difficulty in upholding the constitutionality of E.O. No. 1 in view of
its apparent transgression of the equal protection clause enshrined in Section 1 Article III of the

The intent to single out the previous administration is a plain and patent

manifestation that the equal protection clause is indeed violated. It should be borne in mind that
the Arroyo administration is but just a member of a class of past administrations. Not a class of
its own. Not to include past administrations similarly situated constitutes arbitrariness which the
equal protection clause cannot sanction.

A Compilation of Digested Cases

For Constitutional Law II

Submitted to:
Atty. Jose Edmund Guillen, LL.B, LL.M.
College of Law
Central Philippine University

Submitted by:
Dianah Jane L. Huele

November 22, 2010