Case Digest: ABS-CBN vs. COMELEC, GR 133486, Jan. 28, 2000

         Freedom of Expression, Exit Polls| Constitutional Law


Facts:
A Petition for Certiorari was filed under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, challenging the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) en banc Resolution No. 98-14191 dated April 21, 1998. The resolution approved a restraining order against ABS-CBN and other groups from conducting an exit survey during the national elections. Comelec issued the resolution based on information from a reliable source that ABS-CBN had planned to conduct an exit survey that could conflict with the official Comelec count and the unofficial quick count of the National Movement for Free Elections (NAMFREL). The court granted a Temporary Restraining Order, halting the implementation of the resolution. Despite this, the exit polls were eventually conducted by the media without any issues.

Issue:
WoN the Comelec can ban the holding of exit polls and the dissemination of their results through mass media.

Held: Granted.
Temporary Restraining Order issued by the Court on May 9, 1998 is made PERMANENT.
Assailed Minute Resolution No. 98-1419 issued by the Comelec en banc on April 21, 1998 is hereby NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE.

The freedom of expression is a means of assuring individual self-fulfillment, of attaining the truth, of securing participation by the people in social and political decision-making, and of maintaining the balance between stability and change.

Unquestionably, this Court adheres to the "clear and present danger" test. A limitation on the freedom of expression may be justified only by a danger of such substantive character that the state has a right to prevent. Unlike in the "dangerous tendency" doctrine, the danger must not only be clear but also present. "Present" refers to the time element; the danger must not only be probable but very likely to be inevitable. The evil sought to be avoided must be so substantive as to justify a clamp over one's mouth or a restraint of a writing instrument.

The freedoms of speech and of the press should all the more be upheld when what is sought to be curtailed is the dissemination of information meant. to add meaning to the equally vital right of suffrage. We cannot support any ruling or order "the effect of which would be to nullify so vital a constitutional right as free speech." When faced with borderline situations in which the freedom of a candidate or a party to speak or the freedom of the electorate to know is invoked against actions allegedly made to assure clean and free elections, this Court shall lean in favor of freedom. For in the ultimate analysis, the freedom of the citizen and the State's power to regulate should not be antagonistic. There can be no free and honest elections if, in the efforts to maintain them, the freedom to speak and the right to know are unduly curtailed. True, the government has a stake in protecting the fundamental right to vote by providing voting places that are safe and accessible. It has the duty to secure the secrecy of the ballot and to preserve the sanctity and the integrity of the electoral process. However, in order to justify a restriction of the people's freedoms of speech and of the press, the state's responsibility of ensuring orderly voting must far outweigh them.

Popular posts from this blog

Election Laws: Requirements Before Election

REQUIREMENTS BEFORE ELECTION A. Registration Registration of Voters The right of a citizen to vote is necessarily conditioned upon certain procedural requirements he must undergo, among others, the process of registration. Registration regulates the exercise of the right of suffrage .  It is not a qualification for such right.  R.A. No. 8189, the Voter's Registration Act of 1996 (approved June 11, 1996) : Sec. 2. Declaration of Policy. It is the policy of the State to systematize the present method of registration in order to establish a clean, complete, permanent and updated list of voters. Sec. 3. Definition of Terms. – As used in this Act: Registration refers to the act of accomplishing and filing of a sworn application for registration by a qualified voter before the election officer of the city or municipality wherein he resides and including the same in the book of registered voters upon approval by the Election Registration Board; Registration Record refers to an ...
Read more

Case Digest: Cadajas vs. People, GR No. 247348, November 16, 2021

Evidence | Rule 130 Lopez, J, J. Petitioner: Christian Cadajas y Cabias Respondent: People of the Philippines  Recit Ver: The right to privacy under the 1987 Philippine Constitution protects individuals against government intrusions, not actions by private individuals. Since the evidence was obtained by AAA's mother, a private individual, it did not violate Cadajas' constitutional rights . Cadajas had no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding the messages, as he voluntarily gave his password to AAA. The prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Cadajas induced AAA to send him nude photos, constituting child pornography under the relevant laws. The sweetheart defense was not applicable because the violation was a malum prohibitum offense, and the age disparity placed Cadajas in a position of power over AAA. The penalties prescribed by law for such offenses are within the legislative prerogative and justified by the potential for widespread harm through digital mean...
Read more

Case Digest: Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, GR. No. 122156, February 3, 1997

Political Law Review | Self-executing Provisions, Doctrine of Constitutional Supremacy The GSIS decided to privatize the Manila Hotel by selling 51% of its shares to a qualified bidder through public bidding. In the bidding, the Manila Prince Hotel Corporation (MPHC) offered ₱41.58 per share, which was ₱0.58 higher than the ₱41.00 per share offered by a Malaysian firm, Renong Berhad. Despite MPHC being a Filipino-owned corporation and having a higher bid, the GSIS awarded the sale to the Malaysian firm, citing that MPHC failed to match the terms of payment required. MPHC filed a petition, invoking Section 10, second paragraph, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution, which states: “ In the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos .” MPHC argued that the provision is self-executing and GSIS was bound to apply it without need for an enabling law. Whether Section 10, Article XII of the 19...
Read more