Case Summary (G.R. No. 205357)
COMELEC’s Airtime Regulations and Challenges
• Resolution 7767 (2007) & 8758 (2010): 120/180-minute limits per station.
• Resolution 9615 (2013): limits applied in aggregate across all stations; imposes reporting, approval requirements, and heavy sanctions for over-sales.
• Petitioners filed petitions for certiorari and prohibition; senator Cayetano intervened, contesting the aggregate interpretation.
Constitutional and Statutory Framework
• 1987 Constitution, Art. IX-C, Sec. 4: COMELEC may regulate media “to ensure equal opportunity, time and space, and the right to reply…for free, honest, credible elections.”
• Art. III, Sec. 4: freedom of speech and press; Sec. 7: right to information; Art. V: suffrage.
• RA 9006, Sec. 6.2: equal access to media time and space—120/180 minutes.
Petitioners’ Constitutional Challenges
• Aggregate limits unreasonably restrict freedom of expression and press.
• Curtail right to information and suffrage by blocking candidates’ ability to reach voters.
• Reporting and approval requirements constitute prior restraint.
• Sanctions (suspension/revocation of franchise, criminal liability) are oppressive.
• Resolution 9615 adopted without prior notice or hearing—denial of due process.
COMELEC’s Arguments in Defense
• Aggregate interpretation effectuates RA 9006’s objective to level the playing field and minimize election spending (Art. IX-C, Sec. 2[7]).
• COMELEC’s rule-making power under Art. IX-C, Sec. 4 includes amplification of RA 9006 guidelines.
• Reporting requirement is content-neutral monitoring, not prior restraint; right to reply mandated by Constitution and RA 9006.
• Broadcasters lack standing; remedy should have been declaratory relief, not certiorari.
• Public participation in rule-making not required for constitutional commissions.
Procedural Rulings (Remedy & Locus Standi)
• The Court recognized the petitions as proper despite remedy technicalities, citing the public importance of the issues.
• Petitioners, including broadcasters and senator Cayetano, have standing: broadcasters face direct injury via risk of liability; senator’s campaign reach is directly affected.
Court’s Substantive Analysis
The 1987 Constitution permits COMELEC to regulate media during elections but demands balancing state interests and fundamental rights. Content-neutral restrictions on political advertising are subject to intermediate scrutiny (O’Brien test): (1) within government power; (2) furthers an important interest; (3) interest unrelated to suppressing speech; (4) incidental burden no greater than essential.
Administrative Discretion and Due Process
Although COMELEC has broad discretion to implement election laws, its abrupt shift from per-station to aggregate limits lacked reasonable basis and adequate explanation. COMELEC Resolution 9615 introduced a drastic reduction in airtime without justifying the change or consulting affected parties in advance. Stability and clarity in administrative rules require that significant, burdensome changes be preceded by prior notice and hearing to ensure due process.
Interpretation of RA 9006 and COMELEC Authority
RA 9006’s text does not mandate aggregate limits; its ambiguity authorized COMELEC to amplify the guidelines, but not to contradict statutory intent. By imposing aggregate limits, COMELEC exceeded the law’s scope. The legislative history does not clearly support total aggregation, and COMELEC’s abdication of reasoned justification renders its interpretation arbitrary and null.
Free Speech and Prior Restraint
Aggregate limits imposed by Resolution 9615 unduly restrict political speech, a core First Amendment–level right, by sharply curtailing candidates’ ability to communicate with voters. No compelling state interest—such as equal opportunity or minimized spending—adequately justifies this heavy prior restraint. Broadcasters’ risk of sanction chills free press, and candidates’ speech is cut to token sound bites.
Invalidity of Aggregate Airtime Limits
The Court holds that Section 9(a) of Reso
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 205357)
Procedural History
- Five consolidated petitions (G.R. Nos. 205357, 205374, 205592, 205852, 206360) filed by major broadcast networks, KBP, and ABS-CBN challenging COMELEC Resolutions Nos. 9615 and 9631 implementing R.A. 9006 for the May 2013 elections
- Senator Alan Peter S. Cayetano granted intervenor status to assail the same aggregate-basis limitation
- COMELEC’s Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) issued April 16, 2013; this TRO later made permanent by the Supreme Court’s final decision
Factual Background
- Republic Act No. 9006 (“Fair Election Act”) § 6.2 entitles each national candidate or registered party to 120 minutes of TV and 180 minutes of radio campaign ads (60/90 minutes for local)
- COMELEC Resolutions for 2004, 2007, and 2010 elections interpreted those limits on a per-station basis
- For 2013, COMELEC Resolution No. 9615 (Jan 15 2013) reinterpreted § 6.2 on an aggregate-basis, capping total airtime across all stations; Resolution No. 9631 (Feb 1 2013) amended procedural provisions but kept aggregate formula
- Petitioners allege the new aggregate rule lacks basis, conflicts with law, unduly burdens broadcasters, and violates constitutional guarantees
Issues
- Is the aggregate-basis computation of campaign airtime under COMELEC Resolutions Nos. 9615 and 9631 beyond COMELEC’s authority and violative of R.A. 9006?
- Did COMELEC commit grave abuse of discretion and violate due process by issuing the aggregate rule without prior notice and hearing?
- Does the aggregate rule unreasonably abridge freedom of speech, press, right to information, right to suffrage, and right to reply?
- Are the monitoring/reporting requirements and sanctions for broadcasters under the new rule unconstitutional?
Petitioners’ Arguments
- COMELEC exceeded jurisdiction and abused discretion by shifting from “per station” to “total aggregate” limit without empirical basis
- Aggregate limitation frustrates R.A. 9006’s intent to broaden access after repeal of direct‐ad ban; disproportionately affects smaller n