Case Digest (G.R. No. 222702)
Facts:
Rappler, Inc. v. Andres D. Bautista, G.R. No. 222702, April 05, 2016, Supreme Court En Banc, Carpio, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Rappler, Inc. (petitioner), an online news outlet, sought certiorari and prohibition against Andres D. Bautista (respondent) in his capacity as Chairman of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to nullify portions of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) on the 2016 presidential and vice‑presidential debates. The MOA was signed on 13 January 2016 by the COMELEC (through respondent Bautista), the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas (KBP) as Debate Coordinator, and various media Lead Networks including ABS‑CBN, GMA, Nine Media (CNN Philippines), TV5 and several print partners, among them petitioner as a partner for the vice‑presidential debate.
The antecedent events began with a COMELEC meeting on 21 September 2015 where respondent presented the debate framework and proposed roles for media, initially suggesting petitioner and Google for online engagement. Petitioner submitted broadcast pool guidelines on 22 September; by the 19 October meeting petitioner and Google were dropped in favor of online outlets owned by Lead Networks. Lot drawing assigned sponsorships for debate legs; petitioner ultimately became a sponsoring partner for the lone vice‑presidential debate with CNN Philippines and Business Mirror.
Petitioner received the draft MOA only on the evening of 12 January 2016 and raised concerns about online streaming and a two‑minute excerpt limit for news reporting; respondent urged signing due to time constraints and assured later resolution. Petitioner signed the MOA on 13 January 2016 but alleged subsequent non‑response from respondent and later exclusion from live coverage of the first presidential debate, prompting the petition which sought nullification of Part VI(C), paragraph 19 and Part VI(D), paragraph 20 of the MOA, injunctive relief, and a preliminary mandatory injunction to ensure equal access to the debates.
No trial‑court or appellate disposition is reported in the record; the case...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is a petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 a proper remedy to challenge the COMELEC Chair’s execution of the MOA?
- Does Part VI(C), paragraph 19 of the MOA entitle petitioner to live‑stream the debates and must the COMELEC implement that provision in light of the Intellectual Property Code and constitutional guarantees of freedom of the press and information?
- Should Part VI(D), paragraph 20 of the MOA (the two‑minute excerpt limitation) be n...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)