22. GMA Network v.
COMELEC the “aggregate-based” airtime limits – leveling the playing field – does not
constitute a compelling state interest which would justify such a
FACTS: Petitioners ABS-CBN Corporation (ABS-CBN), ABC substantial restriction on the freedom of candidates and political parties
Development Corporation (ABC), GMA Network, Incorporated (GMA), to communicate their ideas, philosophies, platforms and programs
Manila Broadcasting Company, Inc. (MBC), Newsounds Broadcasting of government. And, this is specially so in the absence of a clear-cut basis
Network, Inc. (NBN), and Radio Mindanao Network, Inc. (RMN) are for the imposition of such a prohibitive measure.
owners/operators of radio and television networks in the Philippines,
while petitioner Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas (KBP) is the It is also particularly unreasonable and whimsical to adopt the aggregate-
national organization of broadcasting companies in the Philippines based time limits on broadcast time when we consider that the Philippines
representing operators of radio and television stations and said stations is not only composed of so many islands. There are also a lot of languages
themselves. The five (5) petitions before the Court put in issue the alleged and dialects spoken among the citizens across the country. Accordingly,
unconstitutionality of Section 9 (a) of COMELEC Resolution No. 9615 for a national candidate to really reach out to as many of the electorates as
limiting the broadcast and radio advertisements of candidates and possible, then it might also be necessary that he conveys his message
political parties for national election positions to an aggregate total of one through his advertisements in languages and dialects that the people may
hundred twenty (120) minutes and one hundred eighty (180) minutes, more readily understand and relate to. To add all of these airtimes in
respectively. Assailed in these petitions are certain regulations different dialects would greatly hamper the ability of such
promulgated by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) relative to the candidate to express himself – a form of suppression of his
conduct of the 2013 national and local elections dealing with political political speech. In the ultimate analysis, when the press is silenced, or
advertisements. Specifically, the petitions question the constitutionality of otherwise muffled in its undertaking of acting as a sounding board, the
the limitations placed on aggregate airtime allowed to candidates and people ultimately would be the victims.
political parties, as well as the requirements incident thereto, such as the
need to report the same, and the sanctions imposed for violations. They 23. THE DIOCESE OF BACOLOD vs. COMELEC
contend that such restrictive regulation on allowable broadcast time Facts: On February 21, 2013, petitioners posted two (2) tarpaulins within
violates freedom of the press, impairs the people’s right to suffrage as well a private compound housing the San Sebastian Cathedral of Bacolod. Each
as their right to information relative to the exercise of their right to choose tarpaulin was approximately six feet (6′) by ten feet (10′) in size. They were
who to elect during the forth coming elections posted on the front walls of the cathedral within public view. The first
tarpaulin contains the message “IBASURA RH Law” referring to the
The heart of the controversy revolves upon the proper interpretation of the Reproductive Health Law of 2012 or Republic Act No. 10354. The second
limitation on the number of minutes that candidates may use for television
tarpaulin is the subject of the present case. This tarpaulin contains the
and radio advertisements, as provided in Section 6 of R.A. No. 9006,
heading “Conscience Vote” and lists candidates as either “(Anti-RH) Team
otherwise known as the Fair Election Act.
Buhay” with a checkmark, or “(Pro-RH) Team Patay” with an “X” mark.
Section 9 (a) provides for an “aggregate total” airtime instead of the The electoral candidates were classified according to their vote on the
previous “per station” airtime for political campaigns or advertisements, adoption of Republic Act No. 10354, otherwise known as the RH Law.
and also required prior COMELEC approval for candidates’ television and Those who voted for the passing of the law were classified by petitioners
radio guestings and appearances. as comprising “Team Patay,” while those who voted against it form “Team
Buhay.”
ISSUE: Whether or not Section 9 (a) of COMELEC Resolution No. 9615 TEAM BUHAY TEAM PATAY
on airtimelimits violates freedom of expression, of speech and of the press. Estrada, JV Angara, Juan Edgardo
Honasan, Gregorio Casiño, Teddy
HELD: YES. The Court held that the assailed rule on “aggregate- Magsaysay, Mitos Cayetano, Alan Peter
based” airtime limits is unreasonable and arbitrary as it unduly restricts Pimentel, Koko Enrile, Jackie
and constrains the ability of candidates and political parties to reach out Trillanes, Antonio Escudero, Francis
and communicate with the people. Here, the adverted reason for imposing Villar, Cynthia Hontiveros, Risa
Party List Buhay Legarda, Loren Political speech refers to speech “both intended and received as a
Party List Ang Pamilya Party List Gabriela contribution to public deliberation about some issue,” “fostering informed
Party List Bayan Muna and civic minded deliberation.” On the other hand, commercial speech has
Party List Anak Pawis Party List been defined as speech that does “no more than propose a commercial
Akbayan transaction.” The expression resulting from the content of the tarpaulin is,
however, definitely political speech.
Respondents conceded that the tarpaulin was neither sponsored nor paid 24. I-United Transport Koalisyon v. COMELEC
for by any candidate. Petitioners also conceded that the tarpaulin contains
FACTS: On January 15, 2013, the COMELEC promulgated Resolution No.
names of candidates for the 2013 elections, but not of politicians who
9615, which provided for the rules implementing R.A. No. 9006 in
helped in the passage of the RH Law but were not candidates for that
connection with the May 13, 2013 national and local elections and
election. subsequent elections. Section 7 thereof, which enumerates the prohibited
forms of election propaganda, pertinently provides:
On February 22, 2013, respondent Atty. Mavil V. Majarucon, in her
capacity as Election Officer of Bacolod City, issued a Notice to Remove SEC. 7. Prohibited Forms of Election Propaganda. – During the
Campaign Materials addressed to petitioner Most Rev. Bishop Vicente M. campaign period, it is unlawful:
Navarra. The election officer ordered the tarpaulin’s removal within three
(3) days from receipt for being oversized. COMELEC Resolution No. 9615 xxxx
provides for the size requirement of two feet (2’) by three feet (3’).
(f) To post, display or exhibit any election campaign or propaganda material
outside of authorized common poster areas, in public places, or in private
Issue: Whether or not the assailed notice and letter for the removal of properties without the consent of the owner thereof.
the tarpaulin violated petitioners’ fundamental right to freedom of
expression. (g) Public places referred to in the previous subsection (f) include any of the
following:
Ruling: Yes. The Court held that every citizen’s expression with political
consequences enjoys a high degree of protection. xxxx
Moreover, the respondent’s argument that the tarpaulin is election 5. Public utility vehicles such as buses, jeepneys, trains,
propaganda, being petitioners’ way of endorsing candidates who voted taxi cabs, ferries, pedicabs and tricycles, whether motorized or
against the RH Law and rejecting those who voted for it, holds no water. not;
The Court held that while the tarpaulin may influence the success or failure 6. Within the premises of public transport terminals, such
of the named candidates and political parties, this does not necessarily as bus terminals, airports, seaports, docks, piers, train
mean it is election propaganda. The tarpaulin was not paid for or posted stations, and the like.
“in return for consideration” by any candidate, political party, or party-list
group. The violation of items [5 and 6] under subsection (g) shall be a cause for
the revocation of the public utility franchise and will make the owner
By interpreting the law, it is clear that personal opinions are not included, and/or operator of the transportation service and/or terminal liable for an
while sponsored messages are covered. election offense under Section 9 of Republic Act No. 9006 as implemented
by Section 18 (n) of these Rules.
The content of the tarpaulin is a political speech
Petitioner sought for clarification from COMELEC as regards permissible, even if it restricts the right to free speech, provided that the
the application of REsolution No. 9615 particularly Section 7(g) items (5) following requisites concur:
and (6), in relation to Section 7(f), vis-à-vis privately owned public utility 1. The government regulation is within the constitutional power of the
vehicles (PUVs) and transport terminals. The petitioner then requested Government;
the COMELEC to reconsider the implementation of the assailed provisions 2. It furthers an important or substantial governmental interest;
and allow private owners of PUVs and transport terminals to post election 3. The governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free
campaign materials on their vehicles and transport terminals. expression; and
4. The incidental restriction on freedom of expression is no greater than is
The COMELEC en banc issued Minute Resolution No. 13-0214, which essential to the furtherance of that interest.
denied the petitioner’s request to reconsider the implementation of
Section 7(g) items (5) and (6), in relation to Section 7(f), of Resolution No. The prohibition is still repugnant to the free speech clause as it fails to
9615. satisfy all of the requisites for a valid content-neutral regulation.
ISSUE: Whether or not Section 7(g) items (5) and (6), in relation to Section 7(g) items (5) and (6), in relation to Section 7(f), of Resolution
Section 7(f), of Resolution No. 9615 are constitutional. No. 9615, are not within the constitutionally delegated power of the
COMELEC under Section 4, Article IX-C of the Constitution. Also, there
is absolutely no necessity to restrict the right to free speech of the owners of PUVs
RULING: The Supreme Court held that the said provisions of Resolution and transport terminals.
No. 9615 are null and void for being repugnant to Sections 1 and 4, Article
III of the 1987 Constitution.
Prohibiting owners of PUVs and transport terminals from
posting election campaign materials also violates the equal
Section 7(g) items (5) and (6), in relation to Section 7(f), of protection clause.
Resolution No. 9615 are prior restraints on speech
Section 7(g) items (5) and (6) of Resolution No. 9615 do not only run afoul
Section 7(g) items (5) and (6), in relation to Section 7(f), of Resolution No. of the free speech clause, but also of the equal protection clause. One of
9615 unduly infringe on the fundamental right of the people to freedom of the basic principles on which this government was founded is that of the
speech. Central to the prohibition is the freedom of individuals, i.e., the equality of right, which is embodied in Section 1, Article III of the 1987
owners of PUVs and private transport terminals, to express their Constitution.
preference, through the posting of election campaign material in their
property, and convince others to agree with them.
As regards ownership, there is no substantial distinction between owners
of PUVs and transport terminals and owners of private vehicles and other
The prohibition constitutes a clear prior restraint on the right properties. As already explained, the ownership of PUVs and transport
to free expression of the owners of PUVs and transport terminals, though made available for use by the public, remains private. If
terminals. As a result of the prohibition, owners of PUVs and owners of private vehicles and other properties are allowed to
transport terminals are forcefully and effectively inhibited from express their political ideas and opinion by posting election
expressing their preferences under the pain of indictment for campaign materials on their properties, there is no cogent
an election offense and the revocation of their franchise or reason to deny the same preferred right to owners of PUVs and
permit to operate. transport terminals. In terms of ownership, the distinction
between owners of PUVs and transport terminals and owners
The assailed prohibition on posting election campaign of private vehicles and properties is merely
materials is an invalid content-neutral regulation repugnant to superficial. Superficial differences do not make for a valid
the free speech clause. classification.
A content-neutral regulation, i.e., which is merely concerned with the
incidents of the speech, or one that merely controls the time, place or
manner, and under well-defined standards, is constitutionally
25. Social Weather Stations Inc. v. COMELEC published from February 12, 2013 until April 23, 2013." SWS was warned
that failure to comply with the Notice shall constitute an election offense
FACTS: Commission on Elections' (COMELEC) Resolution No. 9674 punishable under the Omnibus Election Code.
directed Social Weather Stations, Inc. (SWS) and Pulse Asia, Inc. (Pulse
Asia), as well as "other survey firms of similar circumstance"4 to submit ISSUE: Whether the rights of petitioners to free speech will be curtailed
to COMELEC the names of all commissioners and payors of all surveys by the requirement to submit the names of their subscribers
published from February 12, 2013 to April 23, 2013, including those of
their "subscribers." SWS and Pulse Asia are social research and public RULING: We sustain the validity of Resolution No. 9674. The names of
polling firms. Among their activities is the conduct of pre-election those who commission or pay for election surveys, including subscribers
surveys. of survey firms, must be disclosed pursuant to Section 5.2(a) of the Fair
Election Act. This requirement is a valid regulation in the exercise of
As recounted by SWS and Pulse Asia, on February 15 to February 17, police power and effects the constitutional policy of "guarantee[ing]
2013, SWS conducted a pre-election survey on voters' preferences for equal access to opportunities for public service[.]" Section 5.2(a)'s
senatorial candidates. Thereafter, it published its findings. The following requirement of disclosing subscribers neither curtails petitioners' free
question was asked in the survey: speech rights nor violates the constitutional proscription against the
impairment of contracts.
Kung ang eleksyon ay gaganapin ngayon, sino ang pinakamalamang ninyong
iboboto bilang mga SENADOR ng PILIPINAS? Narito ang listahan ng mga
kandidato. Paki-shade o itiman po ang naaangkop na oval katabi ng pangalan
hg mga taong pinakamalamang ninyong iboboto. Maaari po kayong pumili ng
hanggang labindalawang (12) kandidato.
(LIST OF CANDIDATES OMITTED)
On March 20, 2013, Representative Tobias M. Tiangco, Secretary
General of the United Nationalist Alliance (UNA), wrote Atty. Esmeralda
Ladra, Director of COMELEC's Law Department asking COMELEC to
"compel [SWS] to either comply with the directive in the Fair Election
Act and COMELEC Resolution No. 9[6]1[5] and give the names or
identities of the subscribers who paid for the [pre-election survey
conducted from February 15 to February 17, 2013], or be liable for the
violation thereof, an act constitutive of an election offense.”
Tiangco recounted that on February 28, 2013, he wrote to SWS
requesting, among others, that he "be furnished the identity of persons
who paid for the [pre-election survey conducted from February 15 to
February 17, 2013] as well as those who subscribed to it."12 Sometime in
March 2013, SWS supposedly replied to Tiangco, "furnishing [him] with
some particulars about the survey but [without] disclosing] the identity
of the persons who commissioned or subscribed to the survey."13
On May 8, 2013, the COMELEC Law Department issued a Notice26 to
SWS (and also to Pulse Asia) directing it to furnish COMELEC with a list
of the names of all "commissioners, subscribers, and payors of surveys
