Sanidad V COMELEC

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 2

Pablito Sanidad v.

COMELEC supervise and regulate the exercise by media practitioners themselves of their
Jan. 29, 1990 | Medialdea | Freedom of Expression – Unconstitutional Prior right to expression during plebiscite periods. In Badoy, Jr. v COMELEC, the
Restraint Court ruled that prohibition is a valid exercise of police power to prevent the
perversion of the electoral apparatus and the denial of equal protection. But the
evil sought to be prevented in an election, which led to the Ruling in that case,
PETITIONER: Pablito Sanidad does not obtain in a plebiscite. On COMELEC’s argument that Sec. 19 does not
RESPONDENTS: COMELEC absolutely bar petitioner from expressing his views, this is not meritorious. Even
though the restriction is not total or absolute, it is still a restriction on his choice
SUMMARY: of forum where he may express his views. No reason was advanced by
In 1989, RA 6766 entitled, “AN ACT PROVIDING FOR AN ORGANIC ACT COMELEC to justify this. The Court holds that this form of regulation is
FOR THE CORDILLERA AUTONOMOUS REGION” was enacted into law. tantamount to a restriction of the freedom of expression and of the press for no
Pursuant to this law, the City of Baguio and the Cordilleras, all comprising the justifiable reason. Hence, void and unconstitutional.
Cordillera Autonomous Region, were to take part in a plebiscite for the
ratification of said Organic Act. The COMELEC promulgated Resolution No. FACTS:
2167 to govern the conduct of the plebiscite. Petitioner Sanidad, a newspaper 1. This petition assails the constitutionality of Sec 19 of COMELEC
columnist, assails the constitutionality of Sec. 19 of the Resolution on the ground Resolution No. 2167 on the ground that it is violative of the
that it violates the guaranty of freedom of expression and of the press. He also constitutional guaranty of freedom of expression and of the press.
alleges that it constitutes a prior restraint on the same constitutionally-guaranteed 2. In 1989, RA 6766 entitled, “AN ACT PROVIDING FOR AN
right. Meanwhile, COMELEC maintains that it is a valid implementation of its ORGANIC ACT FOR THE CORDILLERA AUTONOMOUS
power to supervise and regulate media during election or plebiscite periods as REGION” was enacted into law. Pursuant to this law, the City of Baguio
enunciated in Art. IX-C of the Constitution. COMELEC also argued that it does and the Cordilleras, all comprising the Cordillera Autonomous Region,
not absolutely bar petitioner from expressing his views since he may still do so were to take part in a plebiscite for the ratification of said Organic Act.
thru the COMELEC space and airtime. The issue is W/N Sec. 19 of 3. The COMELEC promulgated Resolution No. 2167 to govern the conduct
COMELEC Resolution No. 2167 is violative of the freedom of expression of the plebiscite.
and of the press. The Court ruled in the affirmative. The Court notes that the 4. Petitioner Sanidad, a newspaper columnist, assails Sec. 19 of Resolution
reliance of COMELEC on Art. IX-C of the Constitution on this issue is No. 2167, which provides that, “During the plebiscite campaign period,
misplaced. What the Constitution granted to COMELEC was only the power to on the day before and on plebiscite day, no mass media columnist,
supervise and regulate the use and enjoyment of franchises, permits, or other commentator, announcer, or personality shall use his column or radio or
grants issued for the operation of… media for public information campaigns and television time to campaign for or against the plebiscite issues.”
forum among candidates. The evil sought to be prevented by this provision is the 5. He asserts that said provisions is void and unconstitutional bec it violates
possibility that a franchise holder may favor or give undue advantage to a the constitutional guaranty of freedom of expression and of the press. He
candidate in terms of advertising space or radio or television time. Art. IX-C also alleges that it constitutes a prior restraint on the same
cannot be construed to mean that COMELEC has also been granted the right to constitutionally-guaranteed right.
6. Meanwhile, COMELEC maintains that it is a valid implementation of the obtain in a plebiscite. In a plebiscite, the people are asked to vote for or
power of the COMELEC to supervise and regulate media during election against certain issues, not candidates.
or plebiscite periods as enunciated in Art. IX-C of the Constitution. 4. Anent COMELEC’s argument that Sec. 19 does not absolutely bar
COMELEC also argued that said provision does not absolutely bar petitioner from expressing his views since he may still do so thru
petitioner from expressing his views since he may still express or COMELEC space or airtime, this is not meritorious. Even though the
campaign for or against the Act thru the COMELEC space and airtime. restriction is not total or absolute, it is still a restriction on his choice of
forum where he may express his views. No reason was advanced by
ISSUES: COMELEC to justify this. The Court holds that this form of regulation is
1. W/N Sec. 19 of COMELEC Resolution No. 2167 is violative of the tantamount to a restriction of the freedom of expression and of the press
freedom of expression and of the press. [YES] for no justifiable reason.

RATIO: DISPOSITION:
1. The Court notes that the reliance of COMELEC on Art. IX-C of the Petition is GRANTED. Assailed Sec. 19 of Resolution No. 2167 is declared
Constitution on this issue is misplaced. It is clear that what Art. IX-C null and void for being unconstitutional.
granted to the COMELEC was the power to supervise and regulate the
use and enjoyment of franchises, permits, or other grants issued for the
operation of… media of communication or information to the end that
equal opportunity, time and space, and the right to reply… for public
information campaigns and forum among candidates are ensured. The
evil sought to be prevented by this provision is the possibility that a
franchise holder may favor or give any undue advantage to a candidate in
terms of advertising space or radio or television time.
2. However, Art. IX-C cannot be construed to mean that COMELEC has
also been granted the right to supervise and regulate the exercise by
media practitioners themselves of their right to expression during
plebiscite periods. The media practitioners are neither the franchise
holders nor the candidates. In fact, there are no candidates involved in a
plebiscite. Hence, Sec. 19 of Resolution No. 2167 has no legal/statutory
basis.
3. In Badoy, Jr. v COMELEC, the Court ruled that prohibition is a valid
exercise of police power to prevent the perversion of the electoral
apparatus and the denial of equal protection. But the evil sought to be
prevented in an election, which led to the Ruling in that case, does not

You might also like