Case Digest (G.R. No. 48683)
Facts:
Geronimo Santiago, petitioner, v. Far Eastern Broadcasting, respondent, G.R. No. 48683, November 08, 1941, the Supreme Court, Ozaeta, J., writing for the Court.
The petitioner, a campaign manager of the Popular Front Sumulong political party, sought to purchase air time from Far Eastern Broadcasting to transmit the party's speeches delivered at the Opera House on September 23, 1941. According to the petition, the radio company refused to permit broadcasting except upon prior submission of complete manuscripts of the speeches; the petitioner alleged this requirement was discriminatory, amounted to unlawful censorship, and violated the freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution. The petition asserted there was no suspension of constitutional guarantees and claimed no other plain, speedy or adequate remedy existed, so the petitioner sought an original writ of mandamus from the Court.
The respondent answered that it is a corporation operating stations under a franchise granted by Act No. 3180, and that it required submission of manuscripts in the exercise of rights granted by existing laws and regulations and its obligation to safeguard public morality and the public interest. The respondent denied discrimination, denied an actual refusal to sell air time (stating the petitioner refused to submit the manuscript and did not return), and contended mandamus was not the proper remedy.
No lower court proceedings appear because this was brought as an original petition for mandamus to the Supreme Court. The Court reviewed statutory sources bearing on broadcasting: Act No. 3180 (Sec. 2) (granting the grantee power to regulate allotment of time and classes of communications), Commonwealth Act No. 98 (creating a Radio Board and authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to examine and eliminate objectionable programs pending appointment of the Board), and the Secretary of the Interior’s Departme...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is mandamus the proper remedy to compel respondent to broadcast the petitioner’s speeches without prior submission of manuscripts?
- Does the petitioner have a clear legal right to broadcast his speeches over respondent’s station without submitting the manuscript in advance, and does the respondent have a corresponding legal duty to permit such broadcasting?
- Does the respondent’s requirement of prior submission of manuscripts constitute unlawful censorship or a v...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)