G.R. No. 132922 - Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of the Philippines, Inc. vs. Commission on Elections

TELEBAP: lacks standing. Its members cannot show actual or threatened injury under Sec. 92 or a sufficient taxpayer interest. Its associative suit to protect third‐party broadcasters fails absent a substantive meritorious claim.
GMA Network: has standing. It demonstrates substantial revenue losses (millions of pesos in 1992 and projected higher losses in 1998) from providing free campaign air time.

Congress prohibited direct sale or donation of campaign ads by media (R.A. 6646, Sec. 11[b]).
COMELEC must procure and allocate:
• “COMELEC Space” in print media (Sec. 90, paid)
• “COMELEC Time” in radio/TV (Sec. 92, free of charge)
Franchise grants to broadcast stations expressly amended to obligate free air time during campaigns. Similar provisions date back to the 1971 and 1978 election codes.

Due Process/Eminent Domain: Free‐time requirement takes property (air time) without just compensation.
Equal Protection: Broadcast media are singled out, treated less favorably than print media (which receive compensation).
Excess of COMELEC Power: Sec. 92 exceeds supervisory/regulatory authority under Art. IX-C, Sec. 4 of the Constitution.
Franchise Violation: Obligation to provide free time allegedly conflicts with franchise terms granting only temporary “take‐over” rights with compensation.

Franchise as Privilege: Broadcast frequencies are scarce public resources licensed by government; stations do not own airwaves but hold conditional privileges subject to “common good” amendments (Art. XII, Sec. 11).
Reasonableness and History: Compulsory free air time has existed since the 1971 and 1978 election codes without compensation objections; it serves the “common good” by giving voters equal access to candidate information.
Public Service Obligation: Franchise statutes (e.g., R.A. No. 7252) require stations to provide “adequate public service time,” implementing Sec. 92 of B.P. 881. “COMELEC Time” is a subset of that public service.
Print‐Broadcast Distinction: Because broadcast spectrum is limited and regulated for public convenience, broadcasters’ freedom is “somewhat lesser” than print media; allocation of broadcast licenses carries public‐interest obligations in exchange for government oversight and investment.
COMMISSION Power: COMELEC’s rulemaking (Resolution No. 2983) attempting to add compensation contradicts Sec. 92 and is thus invalid. The broad statutory language, however, does not authorize arbitrary denial of stations’ programming prerogatives; COMELEC must schedule time reasonably within campaign objectives.

Justice Panganiban (joined by Justices Romero and Purisima) argues that Sec. 92:

Constitutes a taking of private property (air time and the substantial investments behind it) without just compensation, violating Art. III, Sec. 9 of the Constitution.
Is not a mere police‐power regulation but a compulsory donation of commercial inventory worth millions, far exceeding de minimis burdens.
Makes no allowance for fra

Petitioners: Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of the Philippines, Inc. (TELEBAP) and GMA Network, Inc.
Respondent: Commission on Elections (COMELEC)
Subject: Validity of Section 92 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 (Omnibus Election Code) requiring free radio/TV time (“COMELEC Time”) for political candidates
Lower courts: Petition filed directly with the Supreme Court under its constitutional power to promulgate rules on election contests
Decision date: April 21, 1998, En Banc, per Justice Mendoza

R.A. No. 6646, Sec. 11(b): Prohibits sale or donation of print space or air time to political ads except those procured by COMELEC under BP 881
BP 881 (Omnibus Election Code):
• Sec. 90 “COMELEC Space” – COMELEC procures and pays for print space equally among candidates
• Sec. 92 “COMELEC Time” – COMELEC procures free radio/TV time equally among candidates; franchises amended to provide such free time during campaigns
COMELEC Resolution No. 2983-A: Attempts to require “just compensation” for 30 minutes prime‐time daily, but is deemed inconsistent with Sec. 92

Both petitioners allege that Section 92:
• Takes property without due process and without just compensation (Art. III, Sec. 1; Art. III, Sec. 9, Constitution)
• Violates the eminent domain clause requiring payment for public use (Art. III, Sec. 9)
• Denies equal protection of the laws (Art. III, Sec. 1)
• Exceeds COMELEC’s power to supervise/regulate media during elections (Art. IX-C, Sec. 4)
GMA asserts losses of P22,498,560 in 1992 and projected P58,980,850 for 1998 from mandated free airtime

TELEBAP:
• Lacks personal injury as citizens, taxpayers, voters, or lawyers to challenge Sec. 92
• No harm traceable to Section 92; cannot assert third-party rights of broadcasters without substantial relation
• Held: No standing
GMA Network, Inc.:
• Operates affected stations under congressional franchise
• Alleged millions in losses from