CASE FACTS ISSUES RULING

Topic: Judicial COMELEC released a resolution which approved the issuance WHETHER NO. The measure is overbroad and unnecessarily restricts fundamental rights of speech and of press.
Elaboration of of a restraining order against ABS-CBN to conduct exit survey. OR NOT the
the Constitution It acted upon reports that the network plans to conduct a TV- COMELEC in
(Functions of radio coverage of the elections and make an exit survey of the the exercise The Constitution mandates that no law shall be passed abridging freedom of speech and press. These freedoms basically consist of the liberty to discuss
Judicial votes cast for Pres and VP and broadcast the results of its powers publicly and truthfully any matter of public interest without prior restraint. (Gonzales v. COMELEC) It represents a profound commitment to the principle that
Review) immediately. can ban exit debates on public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide open.
polls?
ABS-CBN SC issued a TRO against the resolution of COMELEC and the There are limitations however to this freedom in which the state, in the exercise of its police power, can curtail whenever these tests are satisfied:
exit polls were actually conducted and reported by media.
vs. 1. Clear and present danger rule – the evil consequence of comment or utterance must be extremely serious and the degree of imminence must be extremely
Arguments: high before the utterance can be punished. The danger to be guarded against is the substantive evil sought to be prevented.
COMELEC
ABS-CBN: Holding exit polls and nationwide reporting of 2. Dangerous tendency rule - If the words uttered create a dangerous tendency which the state has a right to prevent, then such words are punishable. It is
G.R. No. results are valid exercises of the freedoms of speech and of sufficient if the natural tendency and probable effect of the utterance be to bring about the substantive evil which the legislative body seeks to prevent. Note
133486 the press. COMELEC committed GAD when it issued such that the words need not be definite so as to incite the listeners to acts of force, violence or unlawfulness.
January 28, resolution
2000 The court adheres to the clear and present danger rule which is a question on the proximity and degree of the utterance will result to the danger or evil sought
COMELEC: 1. The conduct of exit polls might confuse the to be avoided. This is a heavy burden because the court is always on the side of freedom of expression. To justify restriction, the promotion of substantial govt
PANGANIBAN, voters and unduly influence them. interest must be clearly shown. And even when its purpose are legitimate and substantial, the means employed should not be broad as to stifle personal
J. liberties when the end can be more narrowly achieved.
2. Exit surveys indirectly violate the sanctity of ballots as
enshrined in the Constitution (Sec. 2 Art. 5) because the In this case, the freedoms of speech and of the press should all the more be upheld when what is sought to be curtailed is the dissemination of information
voters will be lured to reveal their votes. meant to add meaning to the equally vital right of suffrage. The interest being protected is the fundamental right to vote and securing its sanctity through the
ballots. However the means employed are necessarily broad because it effectively prevents other uses of exit poll data – for long term research purposes.
3. Exit surveys pose a clear and present danger of destroying
the credibility and integrity of the electoral process because COMELEC tried to justify the restraint in arguing that such conduct of exit polls present a clear and present danger of destroying the credibility and integrity of
the media is not supervised by any gov’t agency which can electoral process. (na unreliable and surveys and might conflict with the count of COMELEC and NAMFREL) However its arguments are purely speculative.
easily be manipulated. Why?

1. Because in a survey, the participants are randomly selected so the results will be a representation or reflection of the general sentiment of the community.

2.It is merely an opinion of the community or group polled. Its result is not meant to replace or be at par with the official COMELEC count.

COMELEC ‘s restriction on exit polls is overly broad. Its application is without qualification whether the exit polls is disruptive or not. And assuming arguendo
that there is such qualification, there is no showing that exit polls will cause chaos in voting centers. The absolute prohibition restricts the future use of
valuable information for long-term research on the impact of current events on the voting behavior of people.

ABS-CBN even explained its methodology which has enough precautions against the evils enumerated by COMELEC:

(1) communities are randomly selected in each province;

(2) residences to be polled in such communities are also chosen at random;

(3) only individuals who have already voted, as shown by the indelible ink on their fingers, are interviewed;

(4) the interviewers use no cameras of any sort;

And lastly, on the issue of violation of ballot secrecy, the court said that such is not at issue here. The exit poll dies not seek to access the ballots of the
interviewees. The contents of their ballots are not exposed. Even the choice of revealing who they voted for is not mandatory but voluntary.

The reason behind the principle of ballot secrecy is to avoid vote buying through voter identification. Thus, voters are prohibited from exhibiting the contents of
their official ballots to other persons, from making copies thereof, or from putting distinguishing marks thereon so as to be identified. Also proscribed is finding
out the contents of the ballots cast by particular voters or disclosing those of disabled or illiterate voters who have been assisted. Clearly, what is forbidden is
the association of voters with their respective votes, for the purpose of assuring that the votes have been cast in accordance with the instructions of a third
party. This result cannot, however, be achieved merely through the voters' verbal and confidential disclosure to a pollster of whom they have voted for.