Case Summary (G.R. No. 195872)
Key Dates and Procedural History
- February 15–17, 2013: SWS conducted and published a pre‑election survey.
- March 20, 2013: Rep. Tiangco wrote to COMELEC requesting enforcement of disclosure rules against SWS.
- April 10–16, 2013: COMELEC set a clarificatory hearing; Pulse Asia was invited to attend.
- April 23, 2013: COMELEC promulgated Resolution No. 9674.
- May 8, 2013: COMELEC Law Department issued a Notice to SWS and Pulse Asia reproducing the dispositive portion of Resolution No. 9674.
- July 1, 2013: COMELEC issued a Subpoena notifying the firms of a Complaint (E.O. Case No. 13‑222) for alleged election offenses.
- July 26, 2013: Petition for certiorari and prohibition filed before the Supreme Court.
- July 30, 2013: The Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order with limited enjoinment.
- April 7, 2015: Supreme Court Decision resolving the petition (per Justice Leonen).
Questions Presented
- Whether Resolution No. 9674 is ultra vires for requiring disclosure of “subscribers” to election surveys.
- Whether disclosure of subscribers curtails petitioners’ free‑speech rights.
- Whether the disclosure requirement impairs contracts (Art. III, Sec. 10, 1987 Constitution).
- Whether Resolution No. 9674 was in force when COMELEC demanded compliance.
- Whether COMELEC violated due process by failing to serve petitioners with the Resolution and with the criminal complaint, and by not specifying the election offense.
Governing Law and Constitutional Provisions
- 1987 Constitution: Article II, Section 26 (guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service), Article IX‑C, Sections 2 and 4 (COMELEC powers to enforce election laws and to supervise media/time/space during elections).
- Republic Act No. 9006 (Fair Election Act) — pertinent provisions: Section 5.1 (definition of election surveys), Section 5.2(a) (disclosure requirement: name of person/candidate/party/organization who commissioned or paid for the survey), Section 5.3 (access to survey and raw data), Section 13 (COMELEC rulemaking; rules take effect on the seventh day after publication).
- Omnibus Election Code (Batas Pambansa Blg. 881), Section 264 (penalties for election offenses).
- Relevant jurisprudence relied upon in the decision includes prior rulings interpreting free speech in elections and limits on administrative rulemaking and police power.
Fact Summary
SWS and Pulse Asia regularly conduct and publish election surveys. COMELEC, citing its constitutional authority and RA 9006, issued Resolution No. 9674 directing disclosure of commissioners, payors, and subscribers for surveys published in a specified campaign period and imposing immediate effect and sanctions for noncompliance. Petitioners allege the Resolution exceeded statutory authority, violated free speech, impaired contractual confidentiality with subscribers, and was improperly promulgated and enforced without service of the Resolution or complaint, depriving them of due process.
Court’s Interpretation of RA 9006 Section 5.2(a): Inclusion of “Subscribers”
The Court construed the phrase “commissioned or paid for the survey” in Section 5.2(a) as encompassing both direct payors/commissioners and indirect payors such as subscribers who finance access to survey outputs (even if payment is by subscription rather than per‑survey purchase). The disjunctive “or” separates classes (commissioners versus payors) and the legislative concern is disclosure of those who financed the published survey in any manner. Thus, subscribers fall within the statutory phrase “paid for” and are subject to disclosure when surveys are published.
Constitutional and Policy Justification: Equality-Based Regulation of Election Speech
The Court anchored validation of the disclosure requirement on the constitutional policy to “guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service” (Art. II, Sec. 26), and COMELEC’s supervisory powers (Art. IX‑C). RA 9006 is a legislative instrument to correct political inequalities in electoral discourse by regulating means—media, campaign propaganda, and published surveys—that materially influence voter deliberation and candidate exposure. The Court emphasized that published election surveys are not purely academic; they can shape voter expectations (e.g., bandwagon effect), influence strategy, and function like election propaganda, thereby justifying regulation to preserve fairness and political equality.
Free Speech Analysis and Narrow Tailoring
Applying an equality‑based balancing approach (as articulated in Diocese of Bacolod and related authorities), the Court held that regulation of published surveys (including disclosure of financiers) is constitutionally permissible. The rule was found to be: (a) provided by statute (RA 9006), (b) serving a substantial/compelling state interest (equal opportunity in elections), (c) reasonable and narrowly tailored to enhance equal opportunity of candidates to be heard, and (d) the least restrictive means to achieve that objective. The disclosure requirement regulates manner of publication rather than prohibiting or censoring publication, and thus is not a prior restraint.
Prior Restraint and Burden Arguments Rejected
Petitioners’ contention that Resolution No. 9674 constituted a prior restraint or would unduly burden survey firms was rejected. The Court explained prior restraint concerns apply where government requires permission prior to publication or suppresses content; by contrast, Resolution No. 9674 requires post‑publication disclosures and does not prohibit publication. Petitioners’ speculative claim that subscription clients would withdraw and render firms financially unsustainable lacked evidentiary support and was insufficient to invalidate the regulation.
Non‑Impairment of Contracts and Police Power
The Court recognized the constitutional prohibition on laws impairing contractual obligations but reiterated the established rule that the non‑impairment guarantee yields to a legitimate exercise of the State’s police power when the regulation is reasonable and not capricious. Because RA 9006 and COMELEC regulations aim to protect electoral fairness and political equality, the Court held that disclosure obligations may be read into preexisting contracts and that the petitioners’ contracts cannot immunize subscribers from a valid regulatory requirement.
COMELEC Rule‑Making Authority and Deference
The Court acknowledged COMELEC’s wide latitude and deference in administering election laws (given its constitutional status), but cautioned that deference is not unlimited: actions must be germane to statutory purposes and not a grave abuse of discretion. The Court found Resolution No. 9674 to be within COMELEC’s regulatory competence and consistent with the Fair Election Act’s objectives; it was therefore not ultra vires on substantive grounds.
Effectivity of Resolution No. 9674 — Statutory Requirement
The Court held that Section 13 of RA 9006 requires rules and regulations promulgated by COMELEC “to take effect on the seventh day after their publication in at least two (2) daily newspapers of general circulation.” Resolution No. 9674’s clause purporting immediate effect upon publication contravened Section 13. Consequently, Resolution No. 9674 could not have taken effect immediately; the earliest effective date, given its publication on April 25, 2013, was May 2, 2013. The Court rejected COMELEC’s attempt to treat the Resolution as implementing only its own IRR and not the Act, holding that all implementing rules must comply with Section 13 irrespective of denomination.
Due Process Defects in Enforcement
The Court fo
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 195872)
Case Citation, Court, and Date
- G.R. No. 208062, April 07, 2015; Decision written by Justice Leonen, En Banc.
- Captioned: Social Weather Stations, Inc. and Pulse Asia, Inc., petitioners, vs. Commission on Elections (COMELEC), respondent.
- Clerk of Court notice appended indicating Decision rendered April 7, 2015 and original received May 20, 2015.
Nature of the Petition and Relief Sought
- Petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 64, in relation to Rule 65, of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
- Petitioners prayed that COMELEC Resolution No. 9674 dated April 23, 2013 be nullified and set aside.
- Petitioners further prayed for a permanent injunction enjoining COMELEC from enforcing Resolution No. 9674, from prosecuting petitioners for violating it, or otherwise compelling compliance.
Parties and Functional Background
- Petitioners: Social Weather Stations, Inc. (SWS) and Pulse Asia, Inc. (Pulse Asia), both social research and public polling firms engaged in, among other things, pre-election surveys.
- Respondent: Commission on Elections (COMELEC), the constitutional body charged with enforcement and administration of election laws and regulations.
Factual Background (Survey, Requests, and COMELEC Action)
- SWS conducted a pre-election senatorial preference survey from February 15–17, 2013, and subsequently published its findings, including a question inviting respondents to choose up to twelve senatorial candidates.
- On March 20, 2013, Representative Tobias M. Tiangco (UNA Secretary-General) wrote to COMELEC asking it to compel SWS to disclose identities of subscribers and payors of the February 15–17, 2013 survey or hold SWS liable for an election offense.
- Tiangco had earlier written SWS on February 28, 2013 requesting the identity of persons who paid for and subscribed to the survey; SWS allegedly responded with particulars but did not disclose identities of commissioners/subscribers.
- Acting on Tiangco’s letter and an internal recommendation, COMELEC issued an Order dated April 10, 2013 scheduling a clarificatory hearing for April 16, 2013 and directing SWS to submit comment within three days of receipt.
- Pulse Asia received a letter on April 12, 2013 requesting its representative to attend the April 16, 2013 COMELEC hearing.
- During the hearing petitioners allege COMELEC Chairman Brillantes characterized the proceeding as clarificatory, not a formal hearing or investigation.
COMELEC Resolution No. 9674 — Dispositive Provisions
- Promulgated April 23, 2013; dispositive portion directs SWS, Pulse Asia, and “other survey firms of similar circumstance” to submit within three days from receipt:
- Names of all commissioners and payors of surveys published from February 12, 2013 to the date of promulgation (for copying and verification by COMELEC).
- Names of all “subscribers” of those published surveys.
- Stipulated that the submitted information/data shall be for the exclusive and confidential use of COMELEC.
- Further resolved that all surveys published subsequent to promulgation must be accompanied by the information required in RA No. 9006 (Fair Election Act), including names of commissioners, payors, and subscribers.
- Resolution declared to take effect immediately after publication and warned that violation would constitute an election offense as provided in RA No. 9006 (the Fair Election Act).
Statutory and Constitutional Bases Relied Upon by COMELEC
- COMELEC cited Article IX-C, Section 2(1) of the 1987 Constitution (power to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election).
- COMELEC relied on Sections 5.1 to 5.3 of Republic Act No. 9006 (Fair Election Act), as implemented by COMELEC Resolution No. 9615 (the IRR).
- Relevant constitutional provisions repeatedly invoked in the Decision include Article II, Section 26 (guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service) and Article IX‑C, Section 4 (COMELEC’s power during the election period to supervise/regulate media/time/space).
Procedural History and Interim Relief
- Petition filed July 26, 2013 challenging Resolution No. 9674 as ultra vires, violative of contracts clause, and violative of due process; sought TRO and/or preliminary injunction.
- On July 30, 2013, the Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining enforcement of COMELEC Resolution No. 9674:
- Injunction applied with respect to submission of the names of regular subscribers generally.
- TRO explicitly did not enjoin submission of (1) the names of specific subscribers for the limited period February 12–April 23, 2013 who had paid a substantial amount for access to results and privileged survey data, and (2) the names of all commissioners and payors of surveys published within the same period.
- COMELEC filed Comment on October 10, 2013; petitioners filed Joint Reply on February 12, 2014; parties filed memoranda (petitioners May 16, 2014; COMELEC June 25, 2014).
- This Court gave due course to the petition in its February 18, 2014 Resolution and directed memoranda.
Issues Presented to the Court
- Whether Resolution No. 9674 is invalid in requiring disclosure of names of “subscribers” of election surveys.
- Whether petitioners’ free speech rights would be curtailed by submission of subscriber names.
- Whether Resolution No. 9674, insofar as it compels disclosure of subscribers, violates the constitutional prohibition on impairment of contracts (Art. III, Sec. 10).
- Whether Resolution No. 9674 was already in force and effect at the time petitioners were required to reveal subscribers’ names (i.e., the issue of effectivity).
- Whether COMELEC deprived petitioners of due process by:
- failing to provide copies of Resolution No. 9674 and of the criminal complaint (E.O. Case No. 13-222); and
- refusing to specify the election offense under which petitioners were being prosecuted.
Petitioners’ Principal Contentions
- Resolution No. 9674 was issued ultra vires, exceeding what the Fair Election Act requires, in that the Fair Election Act requires disclosure only of those who commissioned or paid for the particular published survey, not of subscribers who may have paid for general access or subscription services.
- The Resolution improperly creates an election offense where none existed and thus expands COMELEC’s authority beyond statutory authorization.
- Resolution No. 9674 impermissibly made itself executory immediately upon publication, contrary to Section 13 of the Fair Election Act (which provides that rules and regulations promulgated by COMELEC take effect on the seventh day after publication).
- Resolution No. 9674 violates the constitutional non-impairment of contracts clause by forcing disclosure of information that, under contractual terms, is confidential or privileged.
- Petitioners were denied due process because they were not served with a copy of Resolution No. 9674 and were not furnished the criminal complaint underlying E.O. Case No. 13-222; they were not properly apprised of the precise election offense alleged.
COMELEC’s Principal Contentions and Defenses
- COMELEC asserted wide latitude of discretion as the constitutional body to enforce and administer election laws and claimed its contemporaneous construction of Section 5.2(a) of the Fair Election Act is entitled to great weight.
- COMELEC argued Section 5.2(a) draws no distinction between direct payors and indirect payors (subscribers), and that disclosure of subscribers serves the public interest in reporting election expenditures and verifying compliance with campaign finance rules.
- COMELEC maintained that Resolution No. 9674 merely enforces Section 26 of its implementing Resolution No. 9615 and suggested the Section 13 seven-day publication rule applied only to Resolution No. 9615; COMELEC also pointed to publication of Resolution No. 9674 in the Philippine Daily Inquirer and the Philippine Star on April 25, 2013.
- COMELEC claimed