Title
Supreme Court
ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. vs. Commission on Elections
Case
G.R. No. 133486
Decision Date
Jan 28, 2000
ABS-CBN challenged Comelec's ban on exit polls during the 1998 elections. The Supreme Court ruled the ban unconstitutional, upholding freedom of speech and press, as exit polls promote transparency without disrupting elections.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 133486)

Procedural and Factual Background

ABS-CBN filed a Petition for Certiorari (Rule 65) assailing the Comelec resolution as a grave abuse of discretion. On May 9, 1998, the Supreme Court granted a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), which allowed the media to proceed with exit polls on election day without interference.

Issues Presented

Primary issue: Whether Comelec exceeded its jurisdiction or committed a grave abuse of discretion by approving a blanket restraining order on exit polling.
Additional contentions by the Solicitor General: The petition is moot (election concluded) and premature (petitioner failed to seek reconsideration before the Comelec).

Jurisdictional Doctrines: Mootness and Prematurity

Mootness: The Court held that although the challenged resolution concerned the 1998 election, the question of exit-poll regulation has continuing significance for future polls and constitutional freedoms.
Prematurity: Under extraordinary circumstances—transcendental constitutional issues and the urgent electoral timetable—the requirement to exhaust Comelec remedies (e.g., motion for reconsideration) was dispensed with to prevent miscarriage of justice.

Definition and Importance of Exit Polls

Exit Poll: A confidential, random survey of voters immediately after they cast ballots, intended to provide a probabilistic forecast of election outcomes.
Significance: Exit polls serve not only election-day projections but also long-term research into voting behavior, trends, and factors affecting electoral choices.

Freedoms of Speech and Press under the 1987 Constitution

Constitutional Guarantee (Art. III, Sec. 4): “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press.”
Purpose: To assure individual self-fulfillment, facilitate discovery of truth, encourage public participation in governance, and maintain dynamic discourse on matters of public interest.

Tests for Limiting Expression: Clear and Present Danger versus Dangerous Tendency

Clear and Present Danger Test: Restriction warranted only if expression poses a serious, imminent threat to a state interest the government has a right to prevent.
Dangerous Tendency Test (rejected): Allows punishment based on speculative or generalized threat without showing imminence or severity.

Application to Comelec’s Absolute Ban on Exit Polls

Comelec Justification: Prevent confusion, disorder at polling places; guard against undermining official and quick counts; protect ballot secrecy.
Court’s Analysis:

  1. Speculative threat—no evidence exit polls disrupt voting centers.
  2. Exit polls are opinion snapshots, not substitutes for official counts.
  3. Absolute ban fails the narrow-tailoring and least restrictive-means requirements; it prohibits beneficial research uses.

Alternative Measures to Address Incidental Disruptions

The Court recommended less burdensome regulations, such as:
• Designation of specific areas for exit-polling activities.
• Accreditation of professional survey groups.
• Reasonable distancing of pollsters from voting stations.
• Requirement that pollsters identify themselves distinctly and inform voters of voluntary participation.
• Advance public information campaigns on the nature and purpose of exit polls.

Ballot Secrecy Argument

Comelec Claim: Exit polls indirectly violate ballot secrecy by inducing voters to reveal their votes.
Court Response:
• Ballot secrecy relates to preventing identification of votes on official ballots, not to voluntary, confidential disclosures in surveys.
• No compulsory association of voter identity with ballot contents in exit polls.

Conclusion and Relief Granted

Holding: The absolute ban on exit polls is unconstitutional under the 1987 Constitution’s free-speech





...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.