Scribd
Upload
22 views2 pages

Ppi Vs Comelec Notes

The Supreme Court declared Comelec Resolution No. 2772 unconstitutional, as it mandated newspapers to provide free advertising space without just compensation, violating constitutional protections against the taking of private property. The Court found no evidence of a national emergency or necessity justifying such a taking, and concluded that the resolution did not represent a valid exercise of police power. The decision emphasized that the taking of private property for public use must always include payment of just compensation.

Uploaded by

mau
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
22 views2 pages

Ppi Vs Comelec Notes

The Supreme Court declared Comelec Resolution No. 2772 unconstitutional, as it mandated newspapers to provide free advertising space without just compensation, violating constitutional protections against the taking of private property. The Court found no evidence of a national emergency or necessity justifying such a taking, and concluded that the resolution did not represent a valid exercise of police power. The decision emphasized that the taking of private property for public use must always include payment of just compensation.

Uploaded by

mau
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/ 2

Section 2 of Resolution No.

2772 is a blunt and heavy instrument that


purports, without a showing of existence of a national emergency or other
imperious public necessity, indiscriminately and without regard to the
individual business condition of particular newspapers or magazines
located in differing parts of the country, to take private property of
newspaper or magazine publishers.

No attempt was made to demonstrate that a real and palpable or urgent


necessity for the taking of print space confronted the Comelec and that
Section 2 of Resolution No. 2772 was itself the only reasonable and
calibrated response to such necessity available to the Comelec. Section 2
does not constitute a valid exercise of the police power of the State.
Philippine Press Institute, Inc. vs. Commission on Elections, 244 SCRA 272,
G.R. No. 119694 May 22, 1995

FACTS:

Respondent Comelec promulgated Resolution no. 2772 directing


newspapers to provide free Comelec space of not less than one-half page
for the common use of political parties and candidates.

The Comelec space shall be allocated by the Commission, free of charge,


among all candidates to enable them to make known their qualifications,
their stand on public issue and their platforms of government. The
Comelec space shall also be used by the Commission for dissemination of
vital election information.

Petitioner Philippine Press Institute, Inc. (PPI), a non-profit organization of


newspaper and magazine publishers, asks the Supreme Court to declare
Comelec Resolution 2772 unconstitutional and void on the ground that it
violates the prohibition imposed by the Constitution upon the government
against the taking of private property for public use without just
compensation.

On behalf of the respondent Comelec, the Solicitor General claimed that


the Resolution is permissible exercise of the power of supervision (police
power) of the Comelec over the information operations of print media
enterprises during the election period to safeguard and ensure a fair,
impartial and credible election.

ISSUE: Whether Comelec Resolution No. 2772 is unconstitutional

HELD:

The Supreme Court declared the Resolution as unconstitutional. It held


that to compel print media companies to donate “Comelec space”
amounts to “taking” of private personal property without payment of the
just compensation required in expropriation cases.
Moreover, the element for the taking has not been established by
respondent Comelec, considering that the newspapers are not unwilling to
sell advertising space.

The taking of private property for public use is authorized by the


constitution, but not without payment of just compensation. Also
Resolution No. 2772 does not constitute a valid exercise of the police
power of the state. In such case at bench, there is no showing of exixtence
of national emergency to take private property of newspapers or
magazine publishers.

You might also like