Title
Philippine Press Institute, Inc. vs. Commission on Elections
Case
G.R. No. 119694
Decision Date
May 22, 1995
Comelec required newspapers to provide free print space for election info; SC ruled it unconstitutional as it violated property rights and press freedom without just compensation.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 119694)

Petitioner

Philippine Press Institute, Inc., for and in behalf of 139 member publications.

Respondent

Commission on Elections.

Key Dates

• March 2, 1995 – Comelec promulgates Resolution No. 2772.
• March 22, 1995 – Directive letters sent to PPI members.
• April 20, 1995 – Supreme Court issues Temporary Restraining Order.
• April 28, 1995 – Oral arguments before the Court.
• May 4, 1995 – Comelec adopts Resolution No. 2772-A clarifying Sections 2 and 8.
• May 22, 1995 – Supreme Court issues final Resolution.

Applicable Law

• 1987 Constitution:
– Art. III, Sec. 9 (Takings Clause: private property for public use requires just compensation)
– Art. III, Sec. 18(2) (Prohibition against involuntary servitude)
– Art. III, Sec. 4 (Freedom of speech, of the press, and of expression)
• Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 (Omnibus Election Code), Sec. 90 (no grant of Comelec space)
• Republic Act No. 6646, Sec. 11(b) (prohibition on sale or donation of print space for political purposes)

Resolution No. 2772 and Its Implementation

Section 2 directed newspapers and periodicals to “procure free print space” of at least one-half page for Comelec use at specified campaign intervals. Section 3 and 4 detailed allocation among candidates by lottery. Section 8 prohibited “undue reference” or manifestly favorable/opposed accounts in news or opinion sections. Implementation letters dated March 22 demanded free space and requested raw or camera-ready materials from publishers.

PPI’s Constitutional Challenges

  1. Uncompensated taking of private property for public use (Art. III, Sec. 9).
  2. Imposition of involuntary servitude by mandating publishers to process and supply Comelec materials (Art. III, Sec. 18(2)).
  3. Violation of press freedom through Section 8’s prior-restraint-type restrictions (Art. III, Sec. 4).

Comelec’s Defense and Resolution No. 2772-A

The Solicitor General argued that Resolution No. 2772 merely provided guidelines without sanctions, and that even if mandatory, it fell under Comelec’s police power and supervisory authority. At oral argument, Chairman Pardo represented the measures as voluntary solicitations. On May 4, Comelec adopted Resolution No. 2772-A clarifying that Sections 2 and 8 were not to be construed as imposing penalties or prior restraints.

Supreme Court’s Analysis on Section 2

The Court held that, as originally drafted and applied, Section 2 was susceptible to a coercive reading and produced a compulsory “donation” of print space. This constituted a taking of private property without just compensation.
• Necessity: Comelec offered no evidence of an inability to purchase space at regular rates.
• Authority: No constitutional or statutory delegation of eminent-domain power to compel such donations.
• Just Compensation: Mandating free space circumvented the requirement of payment under the Takings Clause.

Rejection of Police Power Argument

The Court found no valid delegation of police power to Comelec for this purpose. Even if the police power could apply, Comelec failed to demonstrate an urgent public necessity, calibrated response, or individualized assessments required for a lawful exercise of police power takings.

Ana



...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.