Case Digest (G.R. No. 119694)
Facts:
Philippine Press Institute, Inc., for and in behalf of 139 members, represented by its president Amado P. Macasaet and its executive director Ermin F. Garcia, Jr., filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition (G.R. No. 119694) before the Supreme Court En Banc; the case was promulgated on May 22, 1995, with Feliciano, J., writing for the Court. The respondent is the Commission on Elections (Comelec).On March 2, 1995 Comelec issued Resolution No. 2772, requiring the Commission to “procure free print space” of not less than one-half page in at least one newspaper of general circulation in every province or city as “Comelec Space” (Sec. 2), prescribing its allocation among candidates (Secs. 3–4), and restricting “undue reference” to candidates or parties in newspapers (Sec. 8). Implementing the Resolution, Commissioner Regalado E. Maambong sent letters dated March 22, 1995 directing publishers (including members of PPI) to provide free print space and to process materials submitted by political parties and candidates.
PPI petitioned for certiorari and prohibition and sought a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), arguing that Section 2 and the March 22 letters effect an uncompensated taking of private property in violation of the Constitution, that the directives impose involuntary servitude in violation of Article III, Section 18(2), and that Section 8 infringes freedom of speech and of the press. On April 20, 1995 the Court granted a TRO enjoining Comelec from enforcing Section 2 and the March 22 directives and required Comelec to file a Comment.
The Office of the Solicitor General filed a Comment defending the Resolution as guidelines for procurement/allocation of “Comelec Space” and alternatively contending that, if mandatory, the measures were valid exercises of the police power. At oral hearing on April 28, 1995, Comelec Chairman Bernardo Pardo told the Court the Resolution and letters were not intended to compel donations but to solicit voluntary space, and that Comelec would adopt an amending/clarifying resolution. On May 4, 1995 Comelec adopted Resolution No. 2772‑A, which stated Sections 2 and 8 should not be construed to impose sanctions or to constitute prior restraint and clarified that no penalties were provided for noncompliance.
Although the amended resolution arguably mooted parts of the petition, the Court proceeded to address the con...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is the constitutional challenge to Section 8 of Comelec Resolution No. 2772 justiciable, or is there no actual case or controversy warranting adjudication?
- Does Section 2 of Resolution No. 2772 and the Comelec letter‑directives of March 22, 1995, unconstitutionally effect a taking of private property (print space) for public use without just compensation?
- If Section 2 is read as compulsory, can it be sustained as a valid exercise of the police power or does it otherwise offend the Constitutio...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)