Telecommunications and Broadcaster vs. Comelec | CASE DIGEST

TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND BROADCAST ATTORNEYS OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. and GMA NETWORK, INC. vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

G.R. No. 132922 April 21, 1998

FACTS:

Petitioner Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of the Philippines, Inc. and GMA Network, Inc. challenge the validity of Section 92 of BP 881 on the ground (1) that it takes property without due process of law and without just compensation; (2) that it denies radio and television broadcast companies the equal protection of the laws; and (3) that it is in excess of the power given to the COMELEC to supervise or regulate the operation of media of communication or information during the period of election.

Petitioner GMA Network claims that it suffered losses in providing COMELEC Time in the 1992 presidential election and the 1995 senatorial election and that it stands to suffer even more should it be required to do so again this year. Petitioners contend that Section 92 of BP 881 violates the due process clause and the eminent domain provision of the Constitution by taking air time from radio and television broadcasting stations without payment of just compensation claiming that the primary source of revenue of the radio and television stations is the sale of air time to advertisers. Petitioners claim that Section 92 is an invalid amendment of R.A. No. 7252 which granted GMA Network, Inc. a franchise for the operation of radio and television broadcasting stations. They argue that although Section 5 of R.A. No. 7252 gives the government the power to temporarily use and operate the stations of petitioner GMA Network or to authorize such use and operation, the exercise of this right must be compensated. Petitioners also complain that B.P. 881, Section 92 singles out radio and television stations to provide free air time.

Finally, it is argued that the power to supervise or regulate given to the COMELEC under Art. IX-C, Section 92 of the Constitution does not include the power to prohibit.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the power to supervise or regulate given to the COMELEC under Art. IX-C, Section 92 of the Constitution includes the power to prohibit?

RULING:

Article IX-C, Section 4 of the Constitution authorized the COMELEC to supervise or regulate the use by media of information of their franchises or permits, while what Congress prohibits is the sale or donation of print space or air time for political ads. In other words, the object of supervision or regulation is different from the object of the prohibition. It is another fallacy for petitioners to contend that the power to regulate does not include the power to prohibit. This may have force if the object of the power were the same.

The prohibition in Section 11(b) of R.A. No. 6646 is only half of the regulatory provision in the statute. The other half is the mandate to the COMELEC to procure print space and air time for allocation to candidates. Instead of leaving candidates to advertise freely in the mass media, the law provides for allocation, by the COMELEC of print space and air time to give all candidates equal time and space for the purpose of ensuring "free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections.

With the prohibition on media advertising by candidates themselves, the COMELEC Time and COMELEC Space are about the only means through which candidates can advertise their qualifications and programs of government more than merely depriving their qualifications and programs of government. More than merely depriving candidates of time for their ads, the failure of broadcast stations to provide air time unless paid by the government would clearly deprive the people of their right to know. Art III, Section 7 of the Constitution provides that "the right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized," while Art. XII, Section 6 states that "the use of property bears a social function and the right to own, establish, and operate economic enterprises is subject to the duty of the State to promote distributive justice and to intervene when the common good so demands."

To affirm the validity of Section 92 of B.P. 881 is to hold public broadcasters to their obligation to see to it that the variety and vigor of public debate on issues in an election is maintained. For while broadcast media are not mere common carriers but entities with free speech rights, they are also public trustees charged with the duty of ensuring that the people have access to the diversity of views on political issues. This right of the people is paramount to the autonomy of broadcast media. To affirm the validity of Section 92, therefore, is likewise to uphold the people's right to information on matters of public concern. The use of property bears a social function and is subject to the state's duty to intervene for the common good. Broadcast media can find their just and highest reward in the fact that whatever altruistic service they may render in connection with the holding of elections is for that common good.