Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 56 views

    Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Joyjoy C Lbanez
    The Commission on Elections (Comelec) promulgated Resolution No. 2167 to govern the conduct of the plebiscite on the Organic Act for the Cordillera Autonomous Region. Section 19 of the resolution prohibited mass media columnists, commentators, announcers from using their columns or airtime to campaign for or against plebiscite issues during the campaign period and on plebiscite day. A petitioner challenged the constitutionality of this provision, arguing it violated freedom of expression and press. The Supreme Court held that Section 19 was unconstitutional as it unduly restricted petitioner's freedom of expression without justification. While Comelec has the power to regulate elections and ensure equal access, it cannot restrict

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Joyjoy C Lbanez
    56 views1 page
    The Commission on Elections (Comelec) promulgated Resolution No. 2167 to govern the conduct of the plebiscite on the Organic Act for the Cordillera Autonomous Region. Section 19 of the resolution prohibited mass media columnists, commentators, announcers from using their columns or airtime to campaign for or against plebiscite issues during the campaign period and on plebiscite day. A petitioner challenged the constitutionality of this provision, arguing it violated freedom of expression and press. The Supreme Court held that Section 19 was unconstitutional as it unduly restricted petitioner's freedom of expression without justification. While Comelec has the power to regulate elections and ensure equal access, it cannot restrict

    Original Title

    CASE DIGEST

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Commission on Elections (Comelec) promulgated Resolution No. 2167 to govern the conduct of the plebiscite on the Organic Act for the Cordillera Autonomous Region. Section 19 of the resolution prohibited mass media columnists, commentators, announcers from using their columns or airtime to campaign for or against plebiscite issues during the campaign period and on plebiscite day. A petitioner challenged the constitutionality of this provision, arguing it violated freedom of expression and press. The Supreme Court held that Section 19 was unconstitutional as it unduly restricted petitioner's freedom of expression without justification. While Comelec has the power to regulate elections and ensure equal access, it cannot restrict

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    56 views1 page

    Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Joyjoy C Lbanez
    The Commission on Elections (Comelec) promulgated Resolution No. 2167 to govern the conduct of the plebiscite on the Organic Act for the Cordillera Autonomous Region. Section 19 of the resolution prohibited mass media columnists, commentators, announcers from using their columns or airtime to campaign for or against plebiscite issues during the campaign period and on plebiscite day. A petitioner challenged the constitutionality of this provision, arguing it violated freedom of expression and press. The Supreme Court held that Section 19 was unconstitutional as it unduly restricted petitioner's freedom of expression without justification. While Comelec has the power to regulate elections and ensure equal access, it cannot restrict

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    CASE DIGEST : Sanidad Vs Comelec

    G.R. No. L-44640 October 12, 1976 PABLO C. SANIDAD and PABLITO V. SANIDAD, petitioner,  vs.
    HONORABLE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and HONORABLE NATIONAL TREASURER,
    respondents. G.R. No. L-44684. October 12,1976 VICENTE M. GUZMAN, petitioner,  vs. COMMISSION
    ELECTIONS, respondent. G.R. No. L-44714. October 12,1976 RAUL M. GONZALES, RAUL T.
    GONZALES, JR., and ALFREDO SALAPANTAN, petitioners,  vs. HONORABLE COMMISSION ON
    SELECTIONS and HONORABLE NATIONAL TREASURER, respondents. MARTIN, J,:

    Facts: On October 23, 1989, Republic Act No. 6766, entitled "AN ACT PROVIDING FOR AN ORGANIC
    ACT FOR THE CORDILLERA AUTONOMOUS REGION" was enacted into law. The Commission on
    Elections, by virtue of the power vested by the 1987 Constitution, the Omnibus Election Code (BP 881),
    said R.A. 6766 and other pertinent election laws, promulgated Resolution No. 2167, to govern the
    conduct of the plebiscite on the said Organic Act for the Cordillera Autonomous Region. In a petition
    dated November 20, 1989, herein petitioner Pablito V. Sanidad, who claims to be a newspaper columnist
    of the "OVERVIEW" for the BAGUIO MIDLAND COURIER, a weekly newspaper circulated in the City of
    Baguio and the Cordilleras, assailed the constitutionality of Section 19 of Comelec Resolution No. 2167,
    which provides: Section 19. Prohibition on columnists, commentators or announcers. — During the
    plebiscite campaign period, on the day before and on the plebiscite day, no mass media columnist,
    commentator, announcer or personality shall use his column or radio or television time to campaign for or
    against the plebiscite issues It is alleged by petitioner that said provision is void and unconstitutional
    because it violates the constitutional guarantees of the freedom of expression and of the press enshrined
    in the Constitution.

    Issue : WON the said Section 19 of resolution No 2167 is unconstitutional

    Held: it is clear from Art. IX-C of the 1987 Constitution that what was granted to the Comelec was the
    power to supervise and regulate the use and enjoyment of franchises, permits or other grants issued for
    the operation of transportation or other public utilities, media of communication or information to the end
    that equal opportunity, time and space, and the right to reply, including reasonable, equal rates therefor,
    for public information campaigns and forums among candidates are ensured Neither Article IX-C of the
    Constitution nor Section 11 (b), 2nd par. of R.A. 6646 can be construed to mean that the Comelec has
    also been granted the right to supervise and regulate the exercise by media practitioners themselves of
    their right to expression during plebiscite periods. Media practitioners exercising their freedom of
    expression during plebiscite periods are neither the franchise holders nor the candidates. In fact, there
    are no candidates involved in a plebiscite. Therefore, Section 19 of Comelec Resolution No. 2167 has no
    statutory basis. While the limitation does not absolutely bar petitioner's freedom of expression, it is still a
    restriction on his choice of the forum where he may express his view. No reason was advanced by
    respondent to justify such abridgement. We hold that this form of regulation is tantamount to a restriction
    of petitioner's freedom of expression for no justifiable reason. Plebiscite issues are matters of public
    concern and importance. The people's right to be informed and to be able to freely and intelligently make
    a decision would be better served by access to an unabridged discussion of the issues, including the
    forum. The people affected by the issues presented in a plebiscite should not be unduly burdened by
    restrictions on the forum where the right to expression may be exercised. Comelec spaces and Comelec
    radio time may provide a forum for expression but they do not guarantee full dissemination of information
    to the public concerned because they are limited to either specific portions in newspapers or to specific
    radio or television times

    You might also like