Case Digest (G.R. No. 90878)
Facts:
In Pablito V. Sanidad vs. Commission on Elections (G.R. No. 90878, January 29, 1990), petitioner Pablito V. Sanidad, a newspaper columnist for the *Overview* of the Baguio Midland Courier, challenged the constitutionality of Section 19 of Comelec Resolution No. 2167. On October 23, 1989, Republic Act No. 6766, the Organic Act for the Cordillera Autonomous Region, was enacted, mandating a plebiscite originally set for December 27, 1989, later postponed to January 30, 1990 by Comelec Resolution No. 2226. To regulate the plebiscite, the Commission on Elections, under the 1987 Constitution and the Omnibus Election Code (B.P. Blg. 881), issued Resolution No. 2167. Section 19 prohibited “mass media columnists, commentators, announcers, or personalities” from using their columns or airtime to campaign during the plebiscite period. On November 20, 1989, Sanidad petitioned for certiorari, alleging that this provision constituted an unconstitutional prior restraint on his freedom of expreCase Digest (G.R. No. 90878)
Facts:
- Legislative and Plebiscite Background
- On October 23, 1989, Republic Act No. 6766 (“Organic Act for the Cordillera Autonomous Region”) was enacted, providing for autonomy of Baguio City and the provinces of Benguet, Mountain Province, Ifugao, Abra and Kalinga-Apayao.
- A plebiscite to ratify the Organic Act was originally scheduled on December 27, 1989 but reset to January 30, 1990 by Comelec Resolution No. 2226.
- Comelec Regulation and Petitioner’s Challenge
- The Commission on Elections, under its constitutional and statutory powers, issued Resolution No. 2167 to govern the plebiscite, including Section 19 prohibiting “mass media columnist, commentator, announcer, or personality” from using their columns or airtime to campaign for or against the plebiscite issues during the campaign period, day before and on plebiscite day.
- Petitioner Pablito V. Sanidad, a newspaper columnist of the Baguio Midland Courier, filed a petition on November 20, 1989 for certiorari assailing Section 19 as an unconstitutional restraint on freedom of expression and of the press, invoking Article XIII, Section 4 of the Constitution and the Omnibus Election Code’s penal provisions.
- Proceedings Below
- On November 28, 1989, the Court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining enforcement of Section 19 and required Comelec to comment.
- On January 9, 1990, Comelec, through the Solicitor General, filed its Comment, arguing that Section 19 was a valid exercise of its power under Article IX-C, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution and related statutes, and pointing to “Comelec space” and “Comelec time” provisions (BP 881, §§ 90, 92) as alternative forums for expression.
Issues:
- Whether Section 19 of Comelec Resolution No. 2167 unconstitutionally restrains the freedom of expression and of the press by prohibiting media practitioners from campaigning in their columns or broadcasts during the plebiscite period.
- Whether the Comelec is empowered under Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution or Section 11(b) of R.A. 6646 to regulate or supervise the exercise of free expression by media practitioners themselves during a plebiscite.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)