Scribd
Upload
205 views1 page

4 Abs CBN vs. Comelec

The COMELEC issued a resolution prohibiting ABS-CBN from conducting exit polls during the 1998 elections due to concerns it could undermine the integrity of the official election results. ABS-CBN challenged this, arguing it violated freedom of speech and press. The Supreme Court agreed, finding the COMELEC overstepped its authority by issuing an overly broad ban without meeting the clear and present danger test or dangerous tendency rule required to restrict fundamental rights. The Court ruled the COMELEC abused its discretion and lifted the prohibition on exit polls.

Uploaded by

shahira
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
205 views1 page

4 Abs CBN vs. Comelec

The COMELEC issued a resolution prohibiting ABS-CBN from conducting exit polls during the 1998 elections due to concerns it could undermine the integrity of the official election results. ABS-CBN challenged this, arguing it violated freedom of speech and press. The Supreme Court agreed, finding the COMELEC overstepped its authority by issuing an overly broad ban without meeting the clear and present danger test or dangerous tendency rule required to restrict fundamental rights. The Court ruled the COMELEC abused its discretion and lifted the prohibition on exit polls.

Uploaded by

shahira
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Shahira Karla R.

Belandres

Constitutional Law II

ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation vs. Commission on Elections

G.R. No. 133486 January 28, 2000

Petitioner ABS CBN conducted exit polls which the respondent COMELEC prohibited on the
ground of clear and present danger it poses to the integrity of elections. However the court said that it
erred in such measure because it violates freedom of speech and freedom of press by making an
overboard resolution as it prohibits the long-term use of such data on research.

Facts:

Petitioner raised a petition for certiorari assailing the COMELEC en banc Resolution to approve
the issuance of a restraining order to stop ABS CBN or any other groups from conducting such exit
survey. This resolution issued by the respondent allegedly upon information from a reliable source that
a petitioner has prepared a project, with PR groups, to conduct radio-TV coverage of the elections and
to make an exit survey of the vote during the elections for national officials particularly for President and
Vice President and its results will be broadcasted immediately. Because such project is believed to
conflict with the official COMELEC count, the Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order, prayed for by
petitioner, to direct the respondent to cease and desist from implementing the assailed Resolution or
the issued restraining order.

Issue:

Whether or not the respondent acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to a lack or
excess of jurisdiction when it approved the issuance of a restraining order enjoining the petitioner or
any other groups, its agents or representatives from conducting exit polls during the May 1998
elections.

Held:

No. It restricts fundamental rights of speech and of press.

The Constitution mandates that no law shall be passed abridging freedom of speech. However,
there are limitations to this freedom in which the state, in the exercise of its police power, can curtail
whenever the tests namely:

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 high before the utterance
can be punished. The danger to be guarded against is the substantive evil sought to be
prevented.
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 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 that the words need not be definite so as to incite the listeners to
acts of force, violence or unlawfulness.

You might also like