CASE DIGEST : Sanidad Vs Comelec

G.R. No. L-44640 October 12, 1976 PABLO C. SANIDAD and PABLITO V. SANIDAD, petitioner,  vs.
HONORABLE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and HONORABLE NATIONAL TREASURER,
respondents. G.R. No. L-44684. October 12,1976 VICENTE M. GUZMAN, petitioner,  vs. COMMISSION
ELECTIONS, respondent. G.R. No. L-44714. October 12,1976 RAUL M. GONZALES, RAUL T.
GONZALES, JR., and ALFREDO SALAPANTAN, petitioners,  vs. HONORABLE COMMISSION ON
SELECTIONS and HONORABLE NATIONAL TREASURER, respondents. MARTIN, J,:

Facts: On October 23, 1989, Republic Act No. 6766, entitled "AN ACT PROVIDING FOR AN ORGANIC
ACT FOR THE CORDILLERA AUTONOMOUS REGION" was enacted into law. The Commission on
Elections, by virtue of the power vested by the 1987 Constitution, the Omnibus Election Code (BP 881),
said R.A. 6766 and other pertinent election laws, promulgated Resolution No. 2167, to govern the
conduct of the plebiscite on the said Organic Act for the Cordillera Autonomous Region. In a petition
dated November 20, 1989, herein petitioner Pablito V. Sanidad, who claims to be a newspaper columnist
of the "OVERVIEW" for the BAGUIO MIDLAND COURIER, a weekly newspaper circulated in the City of
Baguio and the Cordilleras, assailed the constitutionality of Section 19 of Comelec Resolution No. 2167,
which provides: Section 19. Prohibition on columnists, commentators or announcers. — During the
plebiscite campaign period, on the day before and on the plebiscite day, no mass media columnist,
commentator, announcer or personality shall use his column or radio or television time to campaign for or
against the plebiscite issues It is alleged by petitioner that said provision is void and unconstitutional
because it violates the constitutional guarantees of the freedom of expression and of the press enshrined
in the Constitution.

Issue : WON the said Section 19 of resolution No 2167 is unconstitutional

Held: it is clear from Art. IX-C of the 1987 Constitution that what was granted to the Comelec was the
power to supervise and regulate the use and enjoyment of franchises, permits or other grants issued for
the operation of transportation or other public utilities, media of communication or information to the end
that equal opportunity, time and space, and the right to reply, including reasonable, equal rates therefor,
for public information campaigns and forums among candidates are ensured Neither Article IX-C of the
Constitution nor Section 11 (b), 2nd par. of R.A. 6646 can be construed to mean that the Comelec has
also been granted the right to supervise and regulate the exercise by media practitioners themselves of
their right to expression during plebiscite periods. Media practitioners exercising their freedom of
expression during plebiscite periods are neither the franchise holders nor the candidates. In fact, there
are no candidates involved in a plebiscite. Therefore, Section 19 of Comelec Resolution No. 2167 has no
statutory basis. While the limitation does not absolutely bar petitioner's freedom of expression, it is still a
restriction on his choice of the forum where he may express his view. No reason was advanced by
respondent to justify such abridgement. We hold that this form of regulation is tantamount to a restriction
of petitioner's freedom of expression for no justifiable reason. Plebiscite issues are matters of public
concern and importance. The people's right to be informed and to be able to freely and intelligently make
a decision would be better served by access to an unabridged discussion of the issues, including the
forum. The people affected by the issues presented in a plebiscite should not be unduly burdened by
restrictions on the forum where the right to expression may be exercised. Comelec spaces and Comelec
radio time may provide a forum for expression but they do not guarantee full dissemination of information
to the public concerned because they are limited to either specific portions in newspapers or to specific
radio or television times