Case Digest (G.R. No. 147571) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Social Weather Stations, Inc. (SWS) and Kamahalana Publishing Corporation, doing business as *Manila Standard*, vs. the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), G.R. No. 147571, decided May 5, 2001, petitioners challenged Section 5.4 of Republic Act No. 9006 (Fair Election Act) and Section 24(h) of COMELEC Resolution No. 3636, which prohibit the publication of “election surveys” affecting national candidates fifteen days and local candidates seven days before an election. SWS is a private social research institution that conducts and publishes surveys; Kamahalana publishes a newspaper of general circulation. Petitioners filed a petition for prohibition directly with this Court en banc to enjoin enforcement of the blackout, arguing that it constitutes an unconstitutional prior restraint on the freedoms of speech, expression, and of the press under the 1987 Constitution. They relied on past practice in the 1992, 1995, and 1998 polls and pointed to the absence of any historical or emp Case Digest (G.R. No. 147571) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Background
- Petitioners
- Social Weather Stations, Inc. (SWS) – private non-stock, non-profit social research institution conducting and reporting surveys.
- Kamahalan Publishing Corporation – publisher of the Manila Standard, a newspaper featuring election surveys.
- Respondent
- Commission on Elections (COMELEC) charged with enforcing election laws and regulations.
- Statutory Provisions and Implementing Resolution
- Republic Act No. 9006 (Fair Election Act), Section 5.4
- Prohibits publication of surveys affecting national candidates within 15 days before a national election.
- Prohibits publication of surveys affecting local candidates within 7 days before a local election.
- COMELEC Resolution No. 3636, Section 24(h)
- Implements Section 5.4 verbatim.
- Proceedings and Contentions
- Petitioners’ Position
- Seek prohibition of Section 5.4 and implementing resolution as unconstitutional prior restraint on freedom of speech, expression, and the press.
- Assert absence of clear and present danger, lack of empirical support for harm caused by surveys, and discriminatory treatment of pollsters versus other media expressions.
- Respondent’s Position
- Justifies restrictions to prevent manipulation of electoral process: debasement via manipulated surveys, bandwagon effect, misinformation, “junking” of candidates, and dagdag-bawas cheating.
- Claims the ban is rationally connected to these objectives, narrowly tailored in duration and scope, with minimal impairment of free speech.
- Reliance on precedent upholding a total ban on paid political advertisements (National Press Club v. COMELEC).
Issues:
- Whether Section 5.4 of RA 9006 and corresponding COMELEC resolution constitute an unconstitutional prior restraint on the freedoms of speech, expression, and the press.
- Whether the prohibition passes constitutional scrutiny—particularly the O’Brien test for content-neutral regulations requiring that:
- The measure furthers an important or substantial governmental interest;
- The governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression;
- The incidental restriction on speech is no greater than essential to further that interest.
- Whether less restrictive alternatives exist to achieve the law’s objectives without imposing a blanket ban on survey publication.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)