TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND BROADCAST ATTORNEYS

OF THE PHILS. VS. COMELEC [289 SCRA 337; G.R. NO.

132922; 21 APR 1998]
Monday, February 02, 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes
Labels: Case Digests, Political Law

Facts: Petitioner Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of the

Philippines, Inc. (TELEBAP) is an organization of lawyers of radio and
television broadcasting companies. It was declared to be without legal standing
to sue in this case as, among other reasons, it was not able to show that it was
to suffer from actual or threatened injury as a result of the subject law. Petitioner
GMA Network, on the other hand, had the requisite standing to bring the
constitutional challenge. Petitioner operates radio and television broadcast
stations in the Philippines affected by theenforcement of Section 92, B.P. No. 881.

Petitioners challenge the validity of Section 92, B.P. No. 881 which provides:

“Comelec Time- The Commission shall procure radio and television time to be
known as the “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 campaign.”

Petitioner contends that while Section 90 of the same law requires COMELEC to
procure print space in newspapers and magazines with payment, Section 92
provides that air time shall be procured by COMELEC free of charge. Thus it
contends that Section 92 singles out radio and television stations to provide
free air time.

Petitioner claims that it suffered losses running to several million pesos in

providing COMELEC Time in connection with the 1992 presidential election and
1995 senatorial election and that it stands to suffer even more should it be
required to do so again this year. Petitioners claim that the primary source of
revenue of the radio and television stations is the sale of air
timeto advertisers and to require these stations to provide free air time is to
authorize unjust taking of private property. According to petitioners, in 1992 it
lost P22,498,560.00 in providing free air time for one hour each day and, in this
year’s elections, it stands to lost P58,980,850.00 in view of COMELEC’s
requirement that it provide at least 30 minutes of prime time daily for such.

Issues:

(1) Whether of not Section 92 of B.P. No. 881 denies radio and television
broadcast companies the equal protection of the laws.

(2) Whether or not Section 92 of B.P. No. 881 constitutes taking of property
without due process of law and without just compensation.

Held: Petitioner’s argument is without merit. All broadcasting, whether radio

or by television stations, is licensed by the government. Airwavefrequencies have
to be allocated as there are more individuals who want to broadcast that there
are frequencies to assign. Radio and televisionbroadcasting companies, which are
given franchises, do not own theairwaves and frequencies through which they
transmit broadcast signals and images. They are merely given the temporary
privilege to use them. Thus, such exercise of the privilege may reasonably be
burdened with the performance by the grantee of some form of public service. In
granting the privilege to operate broadcast stations and supervising radio and
television stations, the state spends considerable public funds in licensing and
supervising them.

The argument that the subject law singles out radio and television stations to
provide free air time as against newspapers and magazines which require
payment of just compensation for the print space they may provide is likewise
without merit. Regulation of the broadcast industry requires spending of public
funds which it does not do in the case of printmedia. To require the broadcast
industry to provide free air time for COMELEC is a fair exchange for what the
industry gets.

As radio and television broadcast stations do not own the airwaves, no private
property is taken by the requirement that they provide air time to the COMELEC.

Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of

the Philippines, Inc. v. Commission on Elections,
289 SCRA 337, G.R. No. 132922 April 21, 1998
10JAN
En Banc
[MENDOZA, J.]

FACTS: Section 92 of Batas Pambansa (BP) Blg. 881, as amended, reads as follows:
Sec. 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.

Petitioners contend that §92 of BP Blg. 881 violates the due process clause and the eminent domain
provision of the Constitution by taking airtime from radio and television broadcasting stations without
payment of just compensation. Petitioners claim that the primary source of revenue of the radio and
television stations is the sale of airtime to advertisers and that to require these stations to provide free
airtime is to authorize a taking which is not “a de minimis temporary limitation or restraint upon the use of
private property.” According to petitioners, in 1992, the GMA Network, Inc. lost P22,498,560.00 in providing
free airtime of one (1) hour every morning from Mondays to Fridays and one (1) hour on Tuesdays and
Thursdays from 7:00 to 8:00 p.m. (prime time) and, in this year’s elections, it stands to lose P58,980,850.00
in view of COMELEC’s requirement that radio and television stations provide at least 30 minutes of prime
time daily for the COMELEC Time.

ISSUE#1: Does GMA Network, Inc. have the standing to bring the constitutional question on the assailed
provision?
HELD#1: YES.
[W]e have decided to take this case since the other petitioner, GMA Network, Inc., appears to have the
requisite standing to bring this constitutional challenge. Petitioner operates radio and television broadcast
stations in the Philippines affected by the enforcement of §92 of B.P. Blg. 881 requiring radio and television
broadcast companies to provide free airtime to the COMELEC for the use of candidates for campaign and
other political purposes. Petitioner claims that it suffered losses running to several million pesos in providing
COMELEC Time in connection with the 1992 presidential election and the 1995 senatorial election and that
it stands to suffer even more should it be required to do so again this year. Petitioner’s allegation that it will
suffer losses again because it is required to provide free airtime is sufficient to give it standing to question
the validity of §92.

ISSUE#2: Is Section 92 of BP. Blg. 881 violative of the due process clause and unlawful taking of private
property for public use without just compensation?
HELD#2: NO.
Petitioners’ argument is without merit. All broadcasting, whether by radio or by television stations, is
licensed by the government. Airwave frequencies have to be allocated as there are more individuals who
want to broadcast than there are frequencies to assign. A franchise is thus a privilege subject, among other
things, to amendment by Congress in accordance with the constitutional provision that “any such franchise
or right granted . . . shall be subject to amendment, alteration or repeal by the Congress when the common
good so requires.”