Case Summary (G.R. No. 90878)
Petitioner
Petitioner asserted that as a columnist his writings necessarily express his opinions, views and beliefs. He argued that Section 19 constituted an unconstitutional prior restraint and an impermissible penalty on freedom of expression and of the press. He contended that allowing media practitioners to voice opinions would advance public information and the airing of all sides of the plebiscite issue.
Respondent
COMELEC defended Section 19 as a valid exercise of its constitutional and statutory powers to supervise and regulate media usage during election or plebiscite periods, invoking Article IX‑C, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution, the Omnibus Election Code (B.P. Blg. 881), R.A. No. 6766 and other election laws. COMELEC also asserted that the restriction did not completely bar expression because petitioners could use allocated "COMELEC space" and "COMELEC time" under Sections 90 and 92 of B.P. 881.
Key Dates
- R.A. No. 6766 (Organic Act for the Cordillera Autonomous Region) enacted October 23, 1989.
- Plebiscite originally scheduled December 27, 1989; reset to January 30, 1990 by COMELECT Resolution No. 2226 dated December 27, 1989.
(Decision date appears in the original record and the Court applied the 1987 Constitution as the governing charter.)
Applicable Law
- 1987 Constitution, Article IX‑C (power of COMELEC to supervise/regulate media usage during election period).
- Omnibus Election Code (B.P. Blg. 881), Sections 90 and 92 (COMELECT space and COMELEC time).
- Republic Act No. 6646, Section 11 (prohibited forms of election propaganda, including restrictions on mass media use and leave of absence for media personalities who are candidates).
- R.A. No. 6766 (Organic Act for Cordillera Autonomous Region).
- COMELECT Resolution No. 2167, Section 19 (prohibition on use of columnist, commentator, announcer, or personality’s column or airtime to campaign for or against plebiscite issues during campaign period, day before, and plebiscite day).
- Reference: Badoy, Jr. v. Comelec, L‑32546 (cited by the Court as precedent addressing election propaganda prohibitions).
Background and Nature of the Regulation Challenged
COMELEC promulgated Resolution No. 2167 to govern the conduct of the plebiscite for the Cordillera Organic Act. Section 19 prohibited mass media columnists, commentators, announcers, or personalities from using their columns or radio/television time to campaign for or against plebiscite issues during the plebiscite campaign period, including the day before and on plebiscite day. The resolution incorporated penal provisions by reference to election offenses and banned acts defined in the Omnibus Election Code and pertinent provisions of R.A. No. 6646.
Relief Sought and Interim Relief
Petitioner filed the petition on November 20, 1989. The Court issued a temporary restraining order on November 28, 1989, enjoining COMELECT from enforcing Section 19 and required COMELEC to comment on the petition.
COMELECT’s Justifications
COMELEC argued Section 19 was a permissible regulation under its constitutional power to supervise and regulate media franchises, permits and related privileges during election periods to ensure equal opportunity, time and space and the right to reply (Article IX‑C). COMELEC also pointed to statutory provisions (Sections 90 and 92 of B.P. 881, and Section 11(b) of R.A. 6646) that allocate free and equal COMELEC space and time to candidates and prohibit mass media from selling or giving free print space or air time for campaign purposes except to COMELEC.
Court’s Analysis — Scope of Article IX‑C and Statutory Provisions
The Court examined Article IX‑C and Section 11(b) of R.A. 6646 and concluded that those provisions empower COMELECT to supervise and regulate franchises, permits and the use of media facilities to ensure equal opportunity, time and space, and the right to reply among candidates. The Court emphasized that the constitutional and statutory supervision targets franchise holders and candidates to prevent undue advantage in advertising space or broadcast time.
Court’s Analysis — Distinction Between Media Owners/Franchise Holders and Media Practitioners
The Court reasoned that media practitioners (columnists, commentators, announcers, personalities) exercising freedom of expression are not franchise holders nor candidates in a plebiscite context. Unlike elections, a plebiscite involves voting on issues rather than for candidates. Consequently, the regulatory powers granted to COMELECT to supervise franchises and ensure equal opportunity among candidates do not extend to supervising or regulating the exercise of individual media practitioners’ freedom of expression during a plebiscite.
Court’s Analysis — Relevance of Badoy Precedent
The Court referenced Badoy, Jr. v. Comelec, where prohibitions on certain forms of election propaganda were upheld as a valid exercise of the State’s police power to preserve the integrity of the electoral process. The Court distinguished that case on the gr
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 90878)
Case Citation and Decision
- Reported at 260 Phil. 565, En Banc.
- G.R. No. 90878.
- Decision promulgated January 29, 1990.
- Decision authored by Justice Medialdea.
- Concurrence noted from Justices Fernan, C.J., Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, Cortes, Grino-Aquino, and Regalado.
Nature of the Case and Relief Sought
- Petition for certiorari challenging the constitutionality of Section 19 of Comelec Resolution No. 2167.
- Petitioner's claim: Section 19 violates the constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression and of the press.
- Procedural step: On November 28, 1989, the Court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) from enforcing and implementing Section 19 of Resolution No. 2167; the TRO was later made permanent by the Court’s final disposition.
Relevant Background Facts and Context
- On October 23, 1989, Republic Act No. 6766, "AN ACT PROVIDING FOR AN ORGANIC ACT FOR THE CORDILLERA AUTONOMOUS REGION," was enacted.
- The City of Baguio and the Cordilleras (provinces of Benguet, Mountain Province, Ifugao, Abra and Kalinga-Apayao) comprise the Cordillera Autonomous Region and were to participate in a plebiscite to ratify R.A. 6766.
- The plebiscite originally scheduled for December 27, 1989 was reset to January 30, 1990 by Comelec Resolution No. 2226 dated December 27, 1989.
- The Commission on Elections promulgated Resolution No. 2167 to govern the conduct of the plebiscite on the Organic Act for the Cordillera Autonomous Region.
Text of the Challenged Provision
- Section 19 of Comelec Resolution No. 2167, as quoted in the source:
- "Section 19. Prohibition on columnist, commentators or announcers. During the plebiscite campaign period, on the day before and on plebiscite day, no mass media columnist, commentator, announcer, or personality shall use his column or radio or television times to campaign for or against the plebiscite issues."
Petitioner's Allegations and Arguments
- Petitioner Pablito V. Sanidad identifies himself as a newspaper columnist of the "OVERVIEW" for the BAGUIO MIDLAND COURIER, a weekly newspaper circulated in the City of Baguio and the Cordilleras.
- Petitioner asserts that as a columnist his columns "obviously and necessarily contains and reflects his opinions, views and beliefs" on issues he writes about; thus the prohibition targets opinion expression distinct from mere news reporting.
- Petitioner contends that Section 19 constitutes a prior restraint on the freedom of the press and freedom of expression.
- Petitioner further alleges that Section 19 imposes subsequent punishment because it incorporates a penal provision, quoted in the petition as:
- "Article XIII, Section 122, Election Offenses and Banned Acts or Activities. Except to the extent that the same may not be applicable to a plebiscite, the banned acts/activities and offenses defined in and penalized by the Omnibus Election Code (Sections 261, 262, 263 and 264, Article XXII, B.P. Blg. 881) and the pertinent provisions of R.A. No. 6646 shall be applicable to the plebiscite governed by this Resolution."
- Petitioner also argues that allowing media practitioners to express their views on the plebiscite would aid governmental efforts to disseminate information and would permit airing of all sides of the issue.
Comelec’s Position and Arguments in Comment
Comelec filed its Comment on January 9, 1990, through the Office of the Solicitor General.
Comelec maintained that Section 19 is not violative of freedom of expression or of the press.
COMELEC argued Section 19 is a valid exercise of its power to supervise and regulate media during election or plebiscite periods, citing:
- Article IX-C, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution (power to supervise or regulate enjoyment/utilization of franchises, permits for operation of media of communication to ensure equal opportunity, time, and space, and the right to reply).
- The Omnibus Election Code (B.P. Blg. 881) provisions on Comelec space and Comelec time, specifically Section 90 and Section 92, quoted in the source:
- Section 90 (Comelec space): the Commission shall procure space in at least one newspaper of general circulation in every province or city, to be known as "Comelec Space," allocated free of charge, equally and impartially within the area in which the newspaper is circulated.
- Section 92 (Comelec time): the Commission shall procure radio and television time, known as "Comelec Time," allocated equally and impartially among candidates, with franchise amendments to provide free radio or television time during the campaign period.
- Section 11 of R.A. No. 6646 (The Electoral Reform Law of 1987), quoted in the source, specifically Section 11(b) which provides:
- "(b) for any newspaper, radio, broadcasting or television station, or other mass media, or any person making use of the mass media to sell or to give free of charge print space or air time for campaign or other political purposes except to the Commission as provided under Sections 90 and 92 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881. Any mass media columnist, commentator, announcer, or personality who is a candidate for any elective office shall take a leave of absence from his work as such during the campaign period." (Emphasis in source)
Comelec argued that Section 19 does not absolutely bar a columnist from expressing views or campaigning for or against the Organic Act because the columnist may still use Comelec space