4/10/2015 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME181http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ca0c5b40132f1c76f000a0094004f00ee/p/ALZ071/?username=Guest 1/8VOL. 181, JANUARY 30, 1990 529Sanidad vs. Commission on ElectionsG.R. No. 90878. January 29, 1990.*PABLITOV.SANIDAD,petitioner,vs.THECOMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent.ElectionLawPoliticalLawPolicePowerProhibitionregarding certain forms of election propaganda is a valid exerciseof police power of the state to prevent perversion and prostitution oftheelectoralprocess.InthecaseofBadoy,Jr.v.Comelec,L32546,Oct.16,1970,wheretheconstitutionalityoftheprohibitionofcertainformsofelectionpropagandawasassailed,Weruledthereinthattheprohibitionisavalidexerciseofthepolicepowerofthestatetopreventtheperversionandprostitutionoftheelectoralapparatusandofthedenialofequalprotectionofthelaws.Theevilsoughttobepreventedinanelection which led to Our ruling in that case does not obtain in aplebiscite.Inaplebiscite,votesaretakeninanareaonsomespecial political matter unlike in an election where votes are castinfavorofspecificpersonsforsomeoffice.Inotherwords,theelectorate is asked to vote for or against issues, not candidates ina plebiscite.SameSec.19ofComelecResolutionNo.2167prohibitingcolumnists, commentators or announcers from using their columnstocampaignfororagainsttheplebisciteissuesisarestrictionoffreedomofexpression.AnentRespondentComelecsargumentthatSection19ofComelecResolution2167doesnotabsolutelybarpetitionercolumnistfromexpressinghisviewsand/orfromcampaigningfororagainsttheorganicactbecausehemaydosothrough the Comelec space and/ or Comelec radio/television time,thesameisnotmeritorious.Whilethelimitationdoesnotabsolutelybarpetitionersfreedomofexpression,itisstillarestriction on his choice of the forum where he may_____________4/10/2015 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME181http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ca0c5b40132f1c76f000a0094004f00ee/p/ALZ071/?username=Guest 2/8* EN BANC.530530 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDSanidad vs. Commission on Electionsexpress his view. No reason was advanced by respondent to justifysuchabridgement.Weholdthatthisformofregulationistantamounttoarestrictionofpetitionersfreedomofexpressionfor no justifiable reason.Same Same Sec.19ofComelecResolutionNo.2167isvoidandunconstitutional.Plebisciteissuesaremattersofpublicconcern and importance. The peoples right to be informed and tobe able to freely and intelligently make a decision would be betterservedbyaccesstoanunabridgeddiscussionoftheissues,includingtheforum.Thepeopleaffectedbytheissuespresentedinaplebisciteshouldnotbeundulyburdenedbyrestrictionsontheforumwheretherighttoexpressionmaybeexercised.ComelecspacesandComelecradiotimemayprovideaforumforexpressionbuttheydonotguaranteefulldisseminationofinformationtothepublicconcernedbecausetheyarelimitedtoeitherspecificportionsinnewspapersortospecificradioortelevisiontimes.Accordingly,theinstantpetitionisGRANTED.Section19ofComelecResolutionNo.2167isdeclarednullandvoid and unconstitutional.PETITION for certiorari to review the resolution of theCommission on Elections.The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.MEDIALDEA, J.:ThisisapetitionforcertiorariassailingtheconstitutionalityofSection19ofComelecResolutionNo.2167onthegroundthatitviolatestheconstitutionalguarantees of the freedom of expression and of the press.OnOctober23,1989,RepublicActNo.6766,entitiledAN ACT PROVIDING FOR AN ORGANIC ACT FOR THECORDILLERAAUTONOMOUSREGIONwasenactedintolaw.Pursuanttosaidlaw,theCityofBaguioandthe4/10/2015 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME181http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ca0c5b40132f1c76f000a0094004f00ee/p/ALZ071/?username=Guest 3/8CordilleraswhichconsistoftheprovincesofBenguet,MountainProvince,Ifugao,AbraandKalingaApayao,allcomprisingtheCordilleraAutonomousRegion,shalltakepartinaplebiscitefortheratificationofsaidOrganicActoriginallyscheduledlastDecember27,1989whichwas,however,resettoJanuary30,1990byvirtueofComelecResolution No. 2226 dated December 27, 1989.TheCommissiononElections,byvirtueofthepowervested531VOL. 181, JANUARY 30, 1990 531Sanidad vs. Commission on Electionsbythe1987Constitution,theOmnibusElectionCode(BP881),saidR.A.6766andotherpertinentelectionlaws,promulgated Resolution No. 2167, to govern the conduct oftheplebisciteonthesaidOrganicActfortheCordilleraAutonomous Region.In a petition dated November 20, 1989, herein petitionerPablitoV.Sanidad,whoclaimstobeanewspapercolumnist of the OVERVIEW for the BAGUIO MIDLANDCOURIER,aweeklynewspapercirculatedintheCityofBaguio and the Cordilleras, assailed the constitutionality ofSection 19 of Comelec Resolution No. 2167, which provides:Section19.Prohibitiononcolumnists,commentatorsorannouncers.Duringtheplebiscitecampaignperiod,onthedaybeforeandonplebisciteday,nomassmediacolumnist,commentator,announcerorpersonalityshallusehiscolumnorradioortelevisiontimetocampaignfororagainsttheplebisciteissues.Itisallegedbypetitionerthatsaidprovisionisvoidandunconstitutionalbecauseitviolatestheconstitutionalguaranteesofthefreedomofexpressionandofthepressenshrined in the Constitution.Unlikearegularnewsreporterornewscorrespondentwho merely reports the news, petitioner maintains that asa columnist, his column obviously and necessarily containsand reflects his opinions, views and beliefs on any issue orsubject about which he writes. Petitioner believes that saidprovisionofCOMELECResolutionNo.2167constitutesapriorrestraintonhisconstitutionallyguaranteedfreedom4/10/2015 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME181http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ca0c5b40132f1c76f000a0094004f00ee/p/ALZ071/?username=Guest 4/8ofthepressandfurtherimposessubsequentpunishmentforthosewhomayviolateitbecauseitcontainsapenalprovision, as follows:ArticleXIII,Section122,ElectionOffensesandBannedActsorActivities.Excepttotheextentthatthesamemaynotbeapplicabletoaplebiscite,thebannedacts/activitiesandoffensesdefined in and penalized by the Omnibus Election Code (Sections261,262,263and264,ArticleXXII,B.P.Blg.881)andthepertinentprovisionsofR.A.No.6646shallbeapplicabletotheplebiscite governed by this Resolution.Petitionerlikewisemaintainsthatifmediapractitionerswere allowed to express their views, beliefs and opinions onthe issue532SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 532Sanidad vs. Commission on Electionssubmittedtoaplebiscite,itwouldinfacthelpinthegovernmentdriveanddesiretodisseminateinformation,and hear, as well as ventilate, all sides of the issue.OnNovember28,1989,WeissuedatemporaryrestrainingorderenjoiningrespondentCommissiononElectionsfromenforcingandimplementingSection19ofResolutionNo.2167.Wealsorequiredtherespondenttocomment on the petition.OnJanuary9,1990,respondentCommissiononElections,throughtheOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneralfiledits Comment.RespondentComelecmaintainsthatthequestionedprovision of Comelec Resolution No. 2167 is not violative oftheconstitutionalguaranteesofthefreedomofexpressionand of the press. Rather, it is a valid implementation of thepoweroftheComelectosuperviseandregulatemediaduringelectionorplebisciteperiodsasenunciatedinArticleIXC,Section4ofthe1987ConstitutionoftheRepublic of the Philippines.ItisstatedfurtherbyrespondentthatResolution2167doesnotabsolutelybarpetitionerfromexpressinghisviewsand/orfromcampaigningfororagainsttheOrganicAct.HemaystillexpresshisviewsorcampaignfororagainsttheactthroughtheComelecspaceandairtime.4/10/2015 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME181http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ca0c5b40132f1c76f000a0094004f00ee/p/ALZ071/?username=Guest 5/8This is provided under Sections 90 and 92 of BP 881:Section 90. Comelec Space.The Commission shall procure spacein at least one newspaper of general circulation in every provinceor city: Provided, however, That in the absence of said newspaper,publicationshallbedoneinanyothermagazineorperiodicalinsaidprovinceorcity,whichshallbeknownasComelecSpacewhereincandidatescanannouncetheircandidacy.Saidspaceshallbeallocated,freeofcharge,equallyandimpartiallywithinthe area in which the newspaper is circulated.Section92.ComelecTime.TheCommissionshallprocureradioandtelevisiontimetobeknownasComelecTimewhichshallbeallocatedequallyandimpartiallyamongthecandidateswithin the area of coverage of all radio and television stations. Forthis purpose, the franchise of all radio broadcasting and televisionstationsareherebyamendedsoastoprovideradioortelevisiontime, free of charge, during the period of the campaign.Respondent Comelec has relied much on Article IXC of the1987 Constitution and Section 11 of R.A. 6646 as the basisfor533VOL. 181, JANUARY 30, 1990 533Sanidad vs. Commission on ElectionsthepromulgationofthequestionedSection19ofComelecResolution 2167.Article IXC of the 1987 Constitution provides:TheCommissionmay,duringtheelectionperiod,superviseorregulatetheenjoymentorutilizationofallfranchisesorpermitsfortheoperationoftransportationandotherpublicutilities,mediaofcommunicationorinformation,allgrants,specialprivileges,orconcessionsgrantedbytheGovernmentoranysubdivision,agencyorinstrumentalitythereof,includinganygovernmentownedorcontrolledcorporationoritssubsidiary.Suchsupervisionorregulationshallaimtoensureequalopportunity,time,andspace,andtherighttoreply,includingreasonable, equal rates therefor, for public information campaignsandforumsamongcandidatesinconnectionwiththeobjectiveofholding free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections.Similarly,Section11ofRepublicActNo.6646(TheElectoral Reform Law of 1987) likewise provides:4/10/2015 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME181http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ca0c5b40132f1c76f000a0094004f00ee/p/ALZ071/?username=Guest 6/8ProhibitedformsofelectionPropaganda.Inadditiontotheforms of election propaganda prohibited under Section 85 of BatasPambansa Blg. 881, it shall be unlawful: x x x(b)foranynewspaper,radio,broadcastingortelevisionstation,orothermassmedia,oranypersonmakinguseofthemass media to sell or to give free of charge print space or air timefor campaign or other political purposes except to the CommissionasprovidedunderSections90and92ofBatasPambansaBlg.881.Anymassmediacolumnist,commentator,announcer,orpersonality who is a candidate for any elective office shall take aleaveofabsencefromhisworkassuchduringthecampaignperiod. (Emphasis ours)However, it is clear from Art. IXC of the 1987 ConstitutionthatwhatwasgrantedtotheComelecwasthepowertosuperviseandregulatetheuseandenjoymentoffranchises, permits or other grants issued for the operationoftransportationorotherpublicutilities,mediaofcommunicationorinformationtotheendthatequalopportunity,timeandspace,andtherighttoreply,includingreasonable,equalratestherefor,forpublicinformationcampaignsandforumsamongcandidatesareensured.Theevilsoughttobepreventedbythisprovisionisthepossibilitythatafranchiseholdermayfavororgiveany undue534534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDSanidad vs. Commission on Electionsadvantagetoacandidateintermsofadvertisingspaceorradioortelevisiontime.Thisisalsothereasonwhyacolumnist, commentator, announcer or personality, who isa candidate for any elective office is required to take a leaveof absence from his work during the campaign period (2ndpar.Section11(b)R.A.6646).Itcannotbegainsaidthatacolumnist or commentator who is also a candidate would bemoreexposedtothevoterstotheprejudiceofothercandidates unless required to take a leave of absence.However,neitherArticleIXCoftheConstitutionnorSection11(b),2ndpar.ofR.A.6646canbeconstruedtomeanthattheComelechasalsobeengrantedtherighttosuperviseandregulatetheexercisebymediapractitionersthemselvesoftheirrighttoexpressionduringplebiscite4/10/2015 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME181http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ca0c5b40132f1c76f000a0094004f00ee/p/ALZ071/?username=Guest 7/8periods.Mediapractitionersexercisingtheirfreedomofexpressionduringplebisciteperiodsareneitherthefranchiseholdersnorthecandidates.Infact,therearenocandidates involved in a plebiscite. Therefore, Section 19 ofComelec Resolution No. 2167 has no statutory basis.InthecaseofBadoy,Jr.v.Comelec,L32546,Oct.16,1970,wheretheconstitutionalityoftheprohibitionofcertainformsofelectionpropagandawasassailed,Weruled therein that the prohibition is a valid exercise of thepolicepowerofthestatetopreventtheperversionandprostitutionoftheelectoralapparatusandofthedenialofequalprotectionofthelaws.TheevilsoughttobepreventedinanelectionwhichledtoOurrulinginthatcasedoesnotobtaininaplebiscite.Inaplebiscite,votesare taken in an area on some special political matter unlikeinanelectionwherevotesarecastinfavorofspecificpersonsforsomeoffice.Inotherwords,theelectorateisaskedtovotefororagainstissues,notcandidatesinaplebiscite.Anent respondent Comelecs argument that Section 19 ofComelecResolution2167doesnotabsolutelybarpetitionercolumnist from expressing his views and/or fromcampaigning for or against the organic act because he maydosothroughtheComelecspaceand/orComelecradio/televisiontime,thesameisnotmeritorious.Whilethelimitationdoesnotabsolutelybarpetitionersfreedomofexpression,itisstillarestrictiononhischoiceoftheforumwherehemayexpresshisview.Noreasonwasadvanced by respondent to justify such abridgement. We535VOL. 181, JANUARY 30, 1990 535Sanidad vs. Commission on Electionsholdthatthisformofregulationistantamounttoarestrictionofpetitionersfreedomofexpressionfornojustifiable reason.Plebisciteissuesaremattersofpublicconcernandimportance.Thepeoplesrighttobeinformedandtobeabletofreelyandintelligentlymakeadecisionwouldbebetterservedbyaccesstoanunabridgeddiscussionoftheissues,includingtheforum.Thepeopleaffectedbytheissuespresentedinaplebisciteshouldnotbeundulyburdenedbyrestrictionsontheforumwheretherightto4/10/2015 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME181http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ca0c5b40132f1c76f000a0094004f00ee/p/ALZ071/?username=Guest 8/8expressionmaybeexercised.ComelecspacesandComelecradio time may provide a forum for expression but they donotguaranteefulldisseminationofinformationtothepublic concerned because they are limited to either specificportionsinnewspapersortospecificradioortelevisiontimes.ACCORDINGLY,theinstantpetitionisGRANTED.Section 19 of Comelec Resolution No. 2167 is declared nullandvoidandunconstitutional.Therestrainingorderherein issued is hereby made permanent.SO ORDERED. Fernan(C.J.),Narvasa,MelencioHerrera,Gutierrez,Jr.,Cruz,Paras,Feliciano,Gancayco,Padilla,Bidin, Sarmiento, Corts, GrioAquino and Regalado, JJ.,concur.Petition granted.Note.45dayperiodofcampaignunderSec.4ofthe1978ElectionCodeisnotviolativeofSec.6ofArt.XIIoftheNewConstitution.(Occenavs.COMELEC,95SCRA755).o0o536Copyright2015CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.