Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 310 views

    Sanidad Vs COMELEC

    Uploaded by

    Cheza Biliran
    The petitioner, a newspaper columnist, challenged the constitutionality of a COMELEC resolution that prohibited media personalities from using their columns or airtime to campaign for or against issues in an upcoming plebiscite. The Court ruled the resolution violated the petitioner's freedom of expression and press. While the resolution did not absolutely bar the petitioner from expressing views, it restricted the forum in which he could do so. As there were no candidates involved in a plebiscite, the COMELEC's power to regulate media did not extend this far. The petition was granted and the resolution's section declared unconstitutional.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Sanidad Vs COMELEC

    Uploaded by

    Cheza Biliran
    310 views2 pages
    The petitioner, a newspaper columnist, challenged the constitutionality of a COMELEC resolution that prohibited media personalities from using their columns or airtime to campaign for or against issues in an upcoming plebiscite. The Court ruled the resolution violated the petitioner's freedom of expression and press. While the resolution did not absolutely bar the petitioner from expressing views, it restricted the forum in which he could do so. As there were no candidates involved in a plebiscite, the COMELEC's power to regulate media did not extend this far. The petition was granted and the resolution's section declared unconstitutional.

    Original Title

    Sanidad vs COMELEC

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner, a newspaper columnist, challenged the constitutionality of a COMELEC resolution that prohibited media personalities from using their columns or airtime to campaign for or against issues in an upcoming plebiscite. The Court ruled the resolution violated the petitioner's freedom of expression and press. While the resolution did not absolutely bar the petitioner from expressing views, it restricted the forum in which he could do so. As there were no candidates involved in a plebiscite, the COMELEC's power to regulate media did not extend this far. The petition was granted and the resolution's section declared unconstitutional.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    310 views2 pages

    Sanidad Vs COMELEC

    Uploaded by

    Cheza Biliran
    The petitioner, a newspaper columnist, challenged the constitutionality of a COMELEC resolution that prohibited media personalities from using their columns or airtime to campaign for or against issues in an upcoming plebiscite. The Court ruled the resolution violated the petitioner's freedom of expression and press. While the resolution did not absolutely bar the petitioner from expressing views, it restricted the forum in which he could do so. As there were no candidates involved in a plebiscite, the COMELEC's power to regulate media did not extend this far. The petition was granted and the resolution's section declared unconstitutional.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    404

    Sanidad vs Commission on Elections


    G.R. No. 90878
    January 29, 1990
    Article III, Section 4

    FACTS:

    On October 1989, Republic Act 6766 or the Organic Act for the Cordillera Autonomous
    Region was enacted. The COMELEC, through its powers vested by the Constitution and the
    Omnibus Election Code, was tasked to govern the plebiscite on the said Organic Act. To effectively
    implement this, the COMELEC issued COMELEC Resolution No. 2167.

    Petitioner Pablito Sanidad is a newspaper columnist of the “Overview” for the “Baguio
    Midland Courier”, a weekly newspaper circulated in the City of Baguio and the Cordilleras. He
    assailed the constitutionality of Section 19 of the COMELEC Resolution No. 2167, which provides
    “that during the plebiscite campaign period, no mass media columnist, commentator, announcer or
    personality shall use his column or radio or television time to campaign for or against the plebiscite
    issues”. Said Resolution was enacted by respondent COMELEC pursuant to the 1987 Constitution,
    the Omnibus Election Code, R.A. 6766, and other pertinent election laws.

    Petitioner alleges that the assailed provision is void because it violates the constitutional
    guarantees of the freedom of expression and of the press. Unlike a regular news reporter or news
    correspondent who merely reports the news, petitioner maintains that as a columnist, his column
    obviously and necessarily contains and reflects his opinions, views and beliefs on any issue or
    subject about which he writes. Furthermore, he maintains that if media practitioners were allowed to
    express their views, beliefs and opinions on the issue submitted to a plebiscite, it would help
    disseminate information, hear, and ventilate all sides of the issue.

    Respondent COMELEC, on the other hand, maintains that the assailed section does not
    absolutely bar petitioner from expressing his views and/or from campaigning for or against the
    Organic Act. He may still express his views or campaign for or against the act through the
    COMELEC space and airtime.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not there was a violation of the constitutional guarantees to the freedom of
    expression and of the press

    RATIO + RULING:

    YES. The Court ruled that Article IX-C of the Constitution only grants the COMELEC the
    power to supervise and regulate the use and enjoyment of franchises, permits or other grants issued
    for the operation of transportation or other public utilities, media of communication or information
    to the end that equal opportunity, time and space, and the right to reply, including reasonable, equal
    rates therefor, for public information campaigns and forums among candidates are ensured. Such
    was implemented to avoid giving any candidate undue advantage. More than that, the Constitution
    provides that a columnist, commentator, announcer or personality is required to take a leave of
    absence from his work during the campaign period. In the case at hand, petitioner was not a
    candidate at all. As a matter of fact, there are no candidates involved in a plebiscite to begin with.

    Prepared by: Cheza Marie Biliran !1


    404

    The Court further ruled that while the assailed section does not absolutely bar petitioner’s
    freedom of expression and of speech, it is still a restriction on his choice of the forum where he may
    express his view. It is of the Court’s opinion that such is tantamount to restriction of his right to
    freedom of speech and of expression.

    Petition is GRANTED. Section 19 of COMELEC Resolution No. 2167 is declared


    UNCONSTITIONAL.

    Prepared by: Cheza Marie Biliran !2

    You might also like