4/20/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 181
VOL. 181, JANUARY 30, 1990 529
Sanidad vs. Commission on Elections
*
G.R. No. 90878. January 29, 1990.
PABLITO V. SANIDAD, petitioner, vs. THE COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, respondent.
Election Law; Political Law; Police Power; Prohibition regarding
certain forms of election propaganda is a valid exercise of police power of
the state to prevent perversion and prostitution of the electoral process.—In
the case of Badoy, Jr. v. Comelec, L-32546, Oct. 16, 1970, where the
constitutionality of the prohibition of certain forms of election propaganda
was assailed, We ruled therein that the prohibition is a valid exercise of the
police power of the state “to prevent the perversion and prostitution of the
electoral apparatus and of the denial of equal protection of the laws.” The
evil sought to be prevented in an election which led to Our ruling in that
case does not obtain in a plebiscite. In a plebiscite, votes are taken in an area
on some special political matter unlike in an election where votes are cast in
favor of specific persons for some office. In other words, the electorate is
asked to vote for or against issues, not candidates in a plebiscite.
Same; Sec. 19 of Comelec Resolution No. 2167 prohibiting columnists,
commentators or announcers from using their columns to campaign for or
against the plebiscite issues is a restriction of freedom of expression.—
Anent Respondent Comelec’s argument that Section 19 of Comelec
Resolution 2167 does not absolutely bar petitioner-columnist from
expressing his views and/or from campaigning for or against the organic act
because he may do so through the Comelec space and/ or Comelec
radio/television time, the same is not meritorious. 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
_____________
* EN BANC.
530
[Link]/sfsreader/session/00000178edd0f3c89ce52d27003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/7
4/20/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 181
530 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Sanidad vs. Commission on Elections
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.
Same; Same; Sec. 19 of Comelec Resolution No. 2167 is void and
unconstitutional.—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. Accordingly, the instant
petition is GRANTED. Section 19 of Comelec Resolution No. 2167 is
declared null and void and unconstitutional.
PETITION for certiorari to review the resolution of the Commission
on Elections.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
MEDIALDEA, J.:
This is a petition for certiorari assailing the constitutionality of
Section 19 of Comelec Resolution No. 2167 on the ground that it
violates the constitutional guarantees of the freedom of expression
and of the press.
On October 23, 1989, Republic Act No. 6766, entitiled “AN
ACT PROVIDING FOR AN ORGANIC ACT FOR THE
CORDILLERA AUTONOMOUS REGION” was enacted into law.
Pursuant to said law, the City of Baguio and the Cordilleras which
consist of the provinces of Benguet, Mountain Province, Ifugao,
Abra and Kalinga-Apayao, all comprising the Cordillera
Autonomous Region, shall take part in a plebiscite for the
ratification of said Organic Act originally scheduled last December
27, 1989 which was, however, reset to January 30, 1990 by virtue of
Comelec Resolution No. 2226 dated December 27, 1989.
The Commission on Elections, by virtue of the power vested
531
VOL. 181, JANUARY 30, 1990 531
Sanidad vs. Commission on Elections
[Link]/sfsreader/session/00000178edd0f3c89ce52d27003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/7
4/20/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 181
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 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.
Unlike a regular newsreporter or news correspondent who merely
reports the news, petitioner maintains that as a columnist, his
column obviously and necessarily contains and reflects his opinions,
views and beliefs on any issue or subject about which he writes.
Petitioner believes that said provision of COMELEC Resolution No.
2167 constitutes a prior restraint on his constitutionally-guaranteed
freedom of the press and further imposes subsequent punishment for
those who may violate it because it contains a penal provision, as
follows:
“Article XIII, Section 122, Election Offenses and Banned Acts or Activities.
—Except to the extent that the same may not be applicable to a plebiscite,
the banned acts/activities and offenses defined in and penalized by the
Omnibus Election Code (Sections 261, 262, 263 and 264, Article XXII, B.P.
Blg. 881) and the pertinent provisions of R.A. No. 6646 shall be applicable
to the plebiscite governed by this Resolution.”
Petitioner likewise maintains that if media practitioners were
allowed to express their views, beliefs and opinions on the issue
532
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 532
Sanidad vs. Commission on Elections
submitted to a plebiscite, it would in fact help in the government
drive and desire to disseminate information, and hear, as well as
ventilate, all sides of the issue.
[Link]/sfsreader/session/00000178edd0f3c89ce52d27003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/7
4/20/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 181
On November 28, 1989, We issued a temporary restraining order
enjoining respondent Commission on Elections from enforcing and
implementing Section 19 of Resolution No. 2167. We also required
the respondent to comment on the petition.
On January 9, 1990, respondent Commission on Elections,
through the Office of the Solicitor General filed its Comment.
Respondent Comelec maintains that the questioned provision of
Comelec Resolution No. 2167 is not violative of the constitutional
guarantees of the freedom of expression and of the press. Rather, it
is a valid implementation of the power of the Comelec to supervise
and regulate media during election or plebiscite periods as
enunciated in Article IX-C, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution of the
Republic of the Philippines.
It is stated further by respondent that Resolution 2167 does not
absolutely bar petitioner from expressing his views and/or from
campaigning for or against the Organic Act. He may still express his
views or campaign for or against the act through the Comelec space
and airtime. This is provided under Sections 90 and 92 of BP 881:
“Section 90. Comelec Space.—The Commission shall procure space in at
least one newspaper of general circulation in every province or city:
Provided, however, That in the absence of said newspaper, publication shall
be done in any other magazine or periodical in said province or city, which
shall be known as “Comelec Space” wherein candidates can announce their
candidacy. Said space shall be allocated, free of charge, equally and
impartially within the area in which the newspaper is circulated.
“Section 92. Comelec Time.—The Commission shall procure radio and
television time to be known as “Comelec Time” which shall be allocated
equally and impartially among the candidates within the area of coverage of
all radio and television stations. For this purpose, the franchise of all radio
broadcasting and television stations are hereby amended so as to provide
radio or television time, free of charge, during the period of the campaign.”
Respondent Comelec has relied much on Article IX-C of the 1987
Constitution and Section 11 of R.A. 6646 as the basis for
533
VOL. 181, JANUARY 30, 1990 533
Sanidad vs. Commission on Elections
the promulgation of the questioned Section 19 of Comelec
Resolution 2167.
Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution provides:
“The Commission may, during the election period, supervise or regulate the
enjoyment or utilization of all franchises or permits for the operation of
transportation and other public utilities, media of communication or
information, all grants, special privileges, or concessions granted by the
[Link]/sfsreader/session/00000178edd0f3c89ce52d27003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/7
4/20/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 181
Government or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof,
including any government-owned or controlled corporation or its subsidiary.
Such supervision or regulation shall aim to ensure equal opportunity, time,
and space, and the right to reply, including reasonable, equal rates therefor,
for public information campaigns and forums among candidates in
connection with the objective of holding free, orderly, honest, peaceful and
credible elections.”
Similarly, Section 11 of Republic Act No. 6646 (The Electoral
Reform Law of 1987) likewise provides:
“Prohibited forms of election Propaganda.—In addition to the forms of
election propaganda prohibited under Section 85 of Batas Pambansa Blg.
881, it shall be unlawful: x x x
“(b) for any newspaper, radio, broadcasting or television station, or other
mass media, or any person making use of the mass media to sell or to give
free of charge print space or air time for campaign or other political
purposes except to the Commission as provided under Sections 90 and 92 of
Batas Pambansa Blg. 881. Any mass media columnist, commentator,
announcer, or personality who is a candidate for any elective office shall
take a leave of absence from his work as such during the campaign period.”
(Emphasis ours)
However, 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. The evil sought to be
prevented by this provision is the possibility that a franchise holder
may favor or give any undue
534
534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Sanidad vs. Commission on Elections
advantage to a candidate in terms of advertising space or radio or
television time. This is also the reason why a “columnist,
commentator, announcer or personality, who is a candidate for any
elective office is required to take a leave of absence from his work
during the campaign period (2nd par. Section 11(b) R.A. 6646). It
cannot be gainsaid that a columnist or commentator who is also a
candidate would be more exposed to the voters to the prejudice of
other candidates unless required to take a leave of absence.
However, neither Article IX-C of the Constitution nor Section
11(b), 2nd par. of R.A. 6646 can be construed to mean that the
[Link]/sfsreader/session/00000178edd0f3c89ce52d27003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/7
4/20/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 181
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.
In the case of Badoy, Jr. v. Comelec, L-32546, Oct. 16, 1970,
where the constitutionality of the prohibition of certain forms of
election propaganda was assailed, We ruled therein that the
prohibition is a valid exercise of the police power of the state “to
prevent the perversion and prostitution of the electoral apparatus and
of the denial of equal protection of the laws.” The evil sought to be
prevented in an election which led to Our ruling in that case does not
obtain in a plebiscite. In a plebiscite, votes are taken in an area on
some special political matter unlike in an election where votes are
cast in favor of specific persons for some office. In other words, the
electorate is asked to vote for or against issues, not candidates in a
plebiscite.
Anent respondent Comelec’s argument that Section 19 of
Comelec Resolution 2167 does not absolutely bar petitioner-
columnist from expressing his views and/or from campaigning for or
against the organic act because he may do so through the Comelec
space and/or Comelec radio/television time, the same is not
meritorious. 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
535
VOL. 181, JANUARY 30, 1990 535
Sanidad vs. Commission on Elections
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.
[Link]/sfsreader/session/00000178edd0f3c89ce52d27003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/7
4/20/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 181
ACCORDINGLY, the instant petition is GRANTED. Section 19
of Comelec Resolution No. 2167 is declared null and void and
unconstitutional. The restraining order herein issued is hereby made
permanent.
SO ORDERED.
Fernan (C.J.), Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr.,
Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento,
Cortés, Griño-Aquino and Regalado, JJ., concur.
Petition granted.
Note.—45-day period of campaign under Sec. 4 of the 1978
Election Code is not violative of Sec. 6 of Art. XII of the New
Constitution. (Occena vs. COMELEC, 95 SCRA 755).
——o0o——
536
© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
[Link]/sfsreader/session/00000178edd0f3c89ce52d27003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/7
