Case Digest (G.R. No. 205357)
Facts:
GMA Network, Inc. v. Commission on Elections, G.R. Nos. 205357, 205374, 205592, 205852 and 206360, September 02, 2014, Supreme Court En Banc, Peralta, J., writing for the Court.The consolidated petitions were filed by broadcast companies and their association—ABS‑CBN Corporation, ABC Development Corporation, GMA Network, Inc., Manila Broadcasting Company, Inc., Newsounds Broadcasting Network, Inc., Radio Mindanao Network, Inc., and the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas (KBP)—challenging rules issued by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) (Resolution No. 9615 dated January 15, 2013, as amended by Resolution No. 9631 dated February 1, 2013) implementing Section 6 of Republic Act No. 9006 (the Fair Election Act). Senator Alan Peter C. Cayetano intervened as a petitioner‑intervenor. Petitioners sought injunctive and declaratory relief and assailed several provisions, most centrally COMELEC’s interpretation in Section 9(a) that airtime limits (120 minutes TV / 180 minutes radio for national candidates) are to be computed on an aggregate basis across all stations rather than per station.
Petitioners also challenged: Section 7(d) (penalties including suspension or revocation of franchise/permit and criminal liability for broadcasters who sell airtime in excess of authorized limits); Section 14 (the right to reply procedure); and certain definitional and penal provisions (Section 1(4), Section 35) as vague, overbroad, prior restraint, violative of freedom of the press and the people’s right to information, and issued without adequate public participation and without reasonable basis. COMELEC defended the resolutions as a valid exercise of its constitutional powers under Article IX‑C (notably Sec. 4) and as faithful implementation or amplification of RA 9006. COMELEC argued petitioners lacked proper remedy and, alternatively, locus standi.
After public hearings (including a post‑promulgation hearing on January 31, 2013), multiple pleadings and supplemental oppositions, and petitioners’ pleadings (GMA’s Reply filed April 2, 2013 among others), the Supreme Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order on April 16, 2013 enjoining implementation. The petitions were consolidated by the Court (see resolution consolidating RMN’s petition with the others). The Court entertained t...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Are the petitions justiciable and maintainable despite COMELEC’s contention that certiorari/prohibition is not the proper remedy and that petitioners lack locus standi?
- Did the COMELEC exceed its authority or commit grave abuse of discretion in changing the computation of allowable campaign airtime from a per‑station basis to an aggregate (per‑candidate) basis by Resolution No. 9615 (as amended)?
- Does Section 9(a) of COMELEC Resolution No. 9615 (aggregate airtime rule) violate the constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and of the press, and the people’s right to suffrage and information, and is it supported by RA 9006?
- Were the COMELEC’s procedures adequate—specifically, did the COMELEC commit a due process defect by issuing the aggregate rule without prior notice and hearing?
- Are the remaining challenged provisions—Section 7(d) (sanctions), the reporting/notice requirement for guestings, and Section 14 (righ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)