CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I-The Constitutional Commissions-The Commission on Elections-Extraordinary Powers-Art. IX-C, 4National Press Club v.

COMELEC 207 SCRA 1-March 5, 1992Ponente: Feliciano Case: 3 consolidated petitions, with the common question: the constitutionality of11(b), of RA6646Petitoners: representatives of mass media which are prevented from sellingor donating space and time for political advertisements; 2 candidates for office (1national, 1 provincial) in the coming May 1992 elections; taxpayers and voters whoclaim that their right to be informed of election issues and of credentials of thecandidates is being curtailed. (I will refer to these folks as Petitoners (P)) Facts: Petitioners argument: T h a t 1 1 ( b ) , o f R A 6 6 4 6 i n v a d e s a n d v i o l a t e d t h e constitutional guarantees comprising freedom of expression; That the prohibition imposed by 11(b) amounts tocensorship, because it selects and singles out for suppression andrepression with criminal sanctions, only publications of a particularcontent, namely, media-based election or political propaganda duringthe election pd. of 1992; That the prohibition is in derogation of medi as r ole, function and duty to provide adequate channels of public informationand public opinion relevant to election issues; T h a t 1 1 ( b ) a b r i d g e s t h e f r e e d o m o f s p e e c h o f candidates, and that the suppression of media-based campaign orpolitical propaganda except those appearing in the Comelec space ofthe new spapers and on Come lec time of radio and tv bro adcasts, would bring about a substantial reduction in the quantity or volume ofinfo co ncerning can didate s and issues in the election, therebycurtailing and limiting the right of voters to info and opinion. Issue: WON 11(b) of RA 6646 has gone beyond the permissible supervision orregulation of media operations so as to constitute unconstitutional repression offreedom of speech & freedom of the press SC says: Nope. It has not gone outside the permissible bounds of supervision orregulation of media operations during election periods. Ratio: The assailed statute T h e s t a t u t o r y t e x t t h e P w a n t t o s t r i k e d o w n a s unconstitutional is 11(b) of RA 6646, aka the Electoral Reforms Lawof 1987Section 11. Prohibited Forms of Election Propaganda -in addition to theforms of election propaganda prohibited under Section 85 of Batas Pambansa Blg.881, it shall be unlawful;(b) for any newspapers, radio broadcasting or television station,other mass media, or any person making use of the mass media to sell or to give free of cha rge p rint space o r air time fo r cam paign or o ther politica l purposes e x c e p t t o t h e Commission as provided under Sections 90 and 92 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881. Any mass media columnist, commentator, announ cer, o rpersonality who is candidate for any elective public office shall take a leave ofabsence from his work as such during the campaign period. 11(b) of RA 6646 should be taken together withSections 90 & 92 of BP 881 aka Omnibus E l e c t i o n C o d e o f t h e Philippines. (for the full text, see p. 7) 90 refers to the Comele c space - space in the new spaper to beallocated equally and impartially to all the candidates within the area of coverage,free of charge 92 refers to the Comelec time air time in radio and tv to be allocatedequally and impartially to all the candidates within the area of coverage, free ofcharge. Objective of the statute Objective of 11(b)-to equalize, as far as practicable,the situations of rich and poor candidates by preventing the richfrom enjoying undue advantage offered by huge campaign w archests.

It prohibits the sale or donation of print space and airtime for campaign or other political purposes except to Comelec. 90&92 of the OEC on the other hand, require the Comelec to procure Comelec space and Comelec time to be allocatedto all candidates for free. N o o n e s e r i o u s l y d i s p u t e s t h e l e g i t i m a c y o r t h e importance of the objective sought to be secured by 11(b) of RA6646 in relation to 90&92 of the OEC. The objective is of special importance and urgency in acountry which, like ours, is characterized by extreme disparity in

income distribution between the economic elite and the rest of thesociety. It is important to note, that the objective, is not only alegitimate one, it has also been given constitutional s tatus by theterms of Art. IX(C)(4) of the 1987 Consti. Art. IX-C, Section 4. The Commission may, during the election period,supervise or regulate the enjoyment or utilization of all f ran chises orpermits for the operation of transportation and other public utilities,media of communication or information, all grants, special privileges, orconcessions granted by the Government or any subdivision, agency, orinstrumentality thereof, including any government-owned or controlledcorporation or its subsidiary. Such supervision or regulation shall aim toensure equal opportunity, and equal rates therefor, for public informationcampaigns and forums among candidates in connection with the objectiveof holding free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections. Anent Constitutionality of 11(b) The Comelec has been expressly authorized by theCosnti to supervise or regulate the enjoyment or utilization of thefranchises or permits for the operation of media of communicationand info. T h e f u n d a m e n t a l p u r p o s e o f s u c h s u p e r v i s i o n o r regulation has been spelled out in the Consti as the ensuring of equal opportunity, time, and space, and the right to reply, as well asuniform and reasonable rates of charges for the use of such mediafacilities, in connection with public info campaigns and forums amongcandidates. It seems a modest proposition that the provision of theBill of Rights which enshrines the freedom of speech, freedom ofexpression, and freedom of the press 1 ,has to be taken in conjunctionwith Art. IX (C) (4) w hich may be seen to be a special p rovision applicable during a specific limited period, i.e. during election pd. T h e r i g h t s o f f r e e s p e e c h a n d f r e e p r e s s a r e n o t unlimited rights for they are not the only important and relevant values even in the most democratic of polities. 1 Art. III, Section 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, ofexpression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petitionthe government for redress of grievances I n o u r o w n s o c i e t y , e q u a l o p p o r t u n i t y t o p r o f f e r oneself for public office, without regard to ones financial capacity,is clearly an important value. One of the basic state policies given constitutional rankby Art. II, 26, Consti, is the egalitarian demand that the Stateshall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service andprohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law. The technical effect of Art. IX(C)(4) of the Consti, maybe seen to be that no presumption of invalidity arises in respect ofexercises of supervisory or regulatory authority on the part of theC o m e l e c f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f s e c u r i n g e q u a l o p p o r t u n i t y a m o n g c a n d i d a t e s f o r p o l i t i c a l o f f i c e , a l t h o u g h s u c h s u p e r v i s i o n o r regulation may result in some limitation of the rights of free speechand free press.

 Supervision and regulation of the operations of mediaenterprises is scarcely conceivable without accompanying limitations. Thus the time-honored rule: A statute is presumed tobe constitutional and that the party asserting its unconstitutionalitymust discharge the burden of clearly and convincingly proving thatassertion. It is important to note that the restrictive impact uponf r e e d o m o f s p e e c h a n d f r e e d o m o f t h e p r e s s o f 1 1 ( b ) i s circumscribed by certain important limitations:1 . 1 1 ( b ) i s l i m i t e d i n t h e d u r a t i o n o f i t s a p p l i c a b i l i t y a n d enforceability. It is limited to election periods.2.11(b) is limited in its scope of application. Analysis show s that it purports to apply only to the purchase and sale, incl. purchase and sale disguisedas a donation, of print space and air time for campaign purposes or other politicalpurposes. a. It does n ot purport in any w ay to restr ict reporting bynew spapers or r adio or tv stations of news or new sw orthy events relating to candidates, their qualifications, political parties and govt programs. b. It does not restrict commentaries and expressions of beliefor opinion by reporters, broadcasters, editors, etc. with respect to candidates,their qualifications, etc.This is what distinguishes this case from Sanidad v. ComelecThere, the provision prohibiting columnists, commentators or an nounce rs fromcampaigning for their candidate was declared by SC as unconstitutional becausenothing in the consti gave Comelec the power to regulate their acts, as they arenot franchise holders nor candidates.

c. It does not prohibit purchase by or donation to the Comelecof print space or air time. And Comelec is required to allocate the same equally andimpartially to all the candidates.Re apprehension on possibility of abuse: Angara v. Electoral Commission: the possibility of abuse is no argument against the concession of power or authority involved, for there is no power or authority in human societythat is not susceptible of being abused.If the Comelec fails to do its duty (procure print space or airtime), then candidates can seek judicial relief. In Summary, 11(b) 1. Does not cut off the flow of media reporting, opinion, or commentaryabout candidates, their qualifications, and platforms and promises 2 . D o e s n o t a u t h o r i z e a n y i n t e r v e n t i o n a n d m u c h l e s s c o n t r o l o n t h e content of the normal operations of the media3.Does not prohibit Comele c from procuring print space and ai r time for the candidates. Whatever limitation 11(b) entails bears a clear and reasonable connection with the objective set out in Art. IX(C)(4) andArt. II(26) of the Consti. Anent Cruzs assigned flaw that it still does not restrict the rich can didate from spending on other campaign activities. A r e g u l a t o r y m e a s u r e t h a t i s l e s s t h a n p e r f e c t l y comprehensive or w hich does not comp letely obliterate the evilsought to be remedied, is not for that reason alone constitutionallyinfirm. The Consti does not, and cannot exact perfection in governmental regulation.

A l l i t r e q u i r e s , i n a c c e p t e d d o c t r i n e , i s t h a t t h e regulatory measure under challenge bear a reasobable nexus with theconstitutionality sanctioned objective. Anent invasion of privacy Plus, super daming paid campaigns constitute invasion ofprivacy of the general electorate. Kaya daw ok lang to contro le s p e c i a l l y t h e r i c h w h o c a n a f f o r d t o b o m b a r d t h e h e l p l e s s electorate with paid advertisements. The right of the general listening and viewing public tobe free form such intrusions and their subliminal effects is at leastas important as the right of the candidates to advertise themselves. Held : Petitions DISMISSED for lack of merit. Davide, concurring F r e e d o m o f s p e e c h , t h e p r e s s a n d e x p r e s s i o n - n o t absolute. Freedom is not freedom from responsibility, but with responsibility. Read Consti provisions together. Consti provides thelimitations to the rights it provides. Padilla, concurring Fundamental that these freedoms are not immune to regulation by the State in the legitimate exercise of its police power. Police power rests upon public necessity and upon theright of the state and the public to self-protection. Thus, it is coextensive w ith the necessities of the case and the safeguards of public interest. To tolerate overspending in print space or air time forcampaign purposes would open the floodgates to corruption in publicoffice because a w inning candi date w ho overspends during theelection pd., must recover his campaign expenses, by hook or crook. 11(b), w ould indirectly co n stitute a positive an defective measure against corruption in public office. Gutierrez, Jr., dissenting Deprivation of f reedoms m entioned, plus right to be informed in every way possible about the candidates 11(b) will result in a gross inequality. Incumbentofficials, celebrities, will have an unfair advantage over thoselesser known. 11(b) is censorship, pure and simple Comelec has too much to do already Existing restrictions are more than sufficient Cruz, dissenting

the end does not justify the means it is censorship Bantam Books v. Sullivan doctrine: any system of priorr e s t r a i n t s o f e x p r e s s i o n c o m e s t o t h i s C o u r t b e a r i n g a h e a v y presumption against its validity

 Problem not as bad . unlikely that a rich candidate wouldor could buy all the print space or air time. For violating the liberty to know, to utter, and to arguefreely accor ding to co nscience, above all liberties, this must bestruck down Paras, dissenting G r o s s l y u n f a i r , p o l i t i c a l l y i n e p t , e m i n e n t l y unconstitutiona