GMA NETWORK, INC. vs.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
G.R. No. 205357, September 2, 2014

ABC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs.COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

G.R. No. 205374

MANILA BROADCASTING COMPANY, INC. and NEWSOUNDS BROADCASTING NETWORK, INC. vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
G.R. No. 205592

KAPISANAN NG MGA BRODKASTER NG PILIPINAS (KBP) and ABS-CBN CORPORATION vs. COMMISSION
ON ELECTIONS
G.R. No. 205852

RADIO MINDANAO NETWORK, INC. vs COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

G.R. No. 206360

FACTS:
            The five (5) petitions before the Court put in issue the alleged unconstitutionality of Section 9 (a)
of COMELEC Resolution No. 9615 limiting the broadcast and radio advertisements of candidates and
political parties for national election positions to an aggregate total of one hundred twenty (120)
minutes and one hundred eighty (180) minutes, respectively. They contend that such restrictive
regulation on allowable broadcast time violates freedom of the press, impairs the people’s right to
suffrage as well as their right to information relative to the exercise of their right to choose who
to elect during the forthcoming elections.
                Section 9 (a) provides for an “aggregate total” airtime instead of the previous “per station”
airtime for political campaigns or advertisements, and also required prior COMELEC approval for
candidates’ television and radio guestings and appearances.

ISSUE:
                Whether or not Section 9 (a) of COMELEC Resolution No. 9615 on airtime limits
violates freedom of expression, of speech and of the press.
 
HELD:
                YES. The Court held that the assailed rule on “aggregate-based” airtime limits is unreasonable
and arbitrary as it unduly restricts and constrains the ability of candidates and political parties to reach
out and communicate with the people. Here, the adverted reason for imposing the “aggregate-based”
airtime limits – leveling the playing field – does not constitute a compelling state interest which would
justify such a substantial restriction on the freedom of candidates and political parties to communicate
their ideas, philosophies, platforms and programs of government. And, this is specially so in the absence
of a clear-cut basis for the imposition of such a prohibitive measure.

                It is also particularly unreasonable and whimsical to adopt the aggregate-based time limits on
broadcast time when we consider that the Philippines is not only composed of so many islands. There
are also a lot of languages and dialects spoken among the citizens across the country. Accordingly, for a
national candidate to really reach out to as many of the electorates as possible, then it might also be
necessary that he conveys his message through his advertisements in languages and dialects that the
people may more readily understand and relate to. To add all of these airtimes in
different dialects would greatly hamper the ability of such candidate to express himself – a form of
suppression of his political speech.