Sanidad vs. Comelec

PABLITO V. SANIDAD vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

G.R. No. 90878               January 29, 1990

FACTS:
On October 23, 1989, Republic Act No. 6766, entitled "AN ACT PROVIDING FOR AN ORGANIC ACT FOR THE CORDILLERA AUTONOMOUS REGION" was enacted into law. A plebiscite was scheduled for the ratification of said Organic Act by virtue of COMELEC Resolution No. 2226.
The COMELEC govern the conduct of the plebiscite on the Organic Act for the Cordillera Autonomous Region. Petitioner Pablito V. Sanidad, who claims to be a newspaper columnist of the "OVERVIEW" for the BAGUIO MIDLAND COURIER, assailed the constitutionality of Section 19 of COMELEC Resolution No. 2167, which provides: “Prohibition on columnists, commentators or announcers. During the plebiscite campaign period, on the day before and on the plebiscite day, 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.” The petitioner alleged that said provision is void and unconstitutional because it violates the constitutional guarantees of the freedom of expression and of the press enshrined in the Constitution.

On November 28, 1989, a temporary restraining orders enjoining respondent COMELEC from enforcing and implementing Section 19 of Resolution No. 2167 was issued.

Respondent COMELEC maintains that the questioned provision of COMELEC Resolution No. 2167 does not violate the constitutional guarantees of the freedom of expression and of the press. Rather it is a valid implementation of the power of the COMELEC to supervise and regulate media during election or plebiscite periods as enunciated in Article IX-C, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. The Resolution 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.

Respondent COMELEC has relied much on Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution and Section 11 of R.A. 6646 as the basis for the promulgation of the questioned Section 19 of COMELEC Resolution 2167.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Section 19 of COMELEC Resolution 2167 prohibits Columnist from expressing their opinions during plebiscite periods?

RULING:
Art. IX-C of the 1987 Constitution granted 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 for public information campaigns and forums 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.

However, neither Article IX-C of the Constitution nor Section 11 (b), 2nd par. of R.A. 6646 can be construed to mean that the 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. Media practitioners exercising their freedom of expression during plebiscite periods are neither the franchise holders nor the candidates. In fact, there are no candidates involved in a plebiscite. Therefore, Section 19 of COMELEC Resolution No. 2167 has no statutory basis.
While the limitation does not absolutely bar petitioner's freedom of expression, it is still a restriction on his choice of the forum where he may express his view. No reason was advanced by respondent to justify such abridgement. We hold that this form of regulation is tantamount to a restriction of petitioner's freedom of expression for no justifiable reason.

Plebiscite issues are matters of public concern and importance. The people's right to be informed and to be able to freely and intelligently make a decision would be better served by access to an unabridged discussion of the issues, including the forum. The people affected by the issues presented in a plebiscite should not be unduly burdened by restrictions on the forum where the right to expression may be exercised. COMELEC spaces and COMELEC radio time may provide a forum for expression but they do not guarantee full dissemination of information to the public concerned because they are limited to either specific portions in newspapers or to specific radio or television times.