Constitutional Law II

1. What is the essence of privacy?

2. What are the requisites of a valid search warrant and warrant of arrest?
3. What are general warrants?
4. What is the purpose of particularity of description?
5. When is particularity of description complied with? (for WOAs and Search
Warrants)
6. What are the properties subject to seizure?
7. What is probable cause?
8. How is probable cause determined personally by the judge? (for WOAs and
Search Warrants)
9. What constitutes personal knowledge?
10.What constitutes searching questions?
11.What are the instances of a valid warrantless arrest? Expound.
12.Can there be a waiver of the right to question an invalid arrest?
13.Are there any other instances where a peace officer can validly conduct a
warrantless arrest, assigned from those mentioned in Section 5, Rule 113 of
the ROC?
14.Can the place to be searched, as set out in the warrant be amplified or
modified by the officers’ personal knowledge of the premises or evidence
they adduce in support of their application for the warrant?
15.Which court has the primary jurisdiction in issuing search warrants?
16.Does the Constitution limit to judges the authority to issue warrants of
arrests?
17.What is the nature of a search warrant proceeding?
18.What are the instances of a valid warrantless search?
19.What is the Plain View Doctrine?
20.What is a “stop‐and‐frisk” search?
21.Are searches conducted in checkpoints lawful?
22.When may motorists and their vehicles passing though checkpoints be
stopped and extensively searched?
23.Valeroso was arrested by virtue of a warrant of arrest. At that time, Valeroso
was sleeping. He was pulled out of the room. The other police officers
remained inside the room and ransacked the locked cabinet where they
found a firearm and ammunition. Is the warrantless search and seizure of the
firearm and ammunition justified as an incident to a lawful arrest?
24.When is there an administrative arrest?
25.When can a person be arrested in a deportation proceedings?
26.Is a law requiring mandatory drug testing for students of secondary and
tertiary schools unconstitutional?
27.Is a law requiring mandatory drug testing for officers and employees of public
and private offices unconstitutional?
28.Dela Cruz was an on-the-job trainee of an inter-island vessel. He frequently
traveled, "coming back and forth taking a vessel." At around 12:00 noon of
May 11, 2007, Dela Cruz was at a pier of the Cebu Domestic Port to go home
to Iloilo. While buying a ticket, he allegedly left his bag on the floor with a
porter. It took him around 15 minutes to purchase a ticket. Dela Cruz then
proceeded to the entrance of the terminal and placed his bag on the x-ray
scanning machine for inspection. The operator of the x-ray machine saw

ATTYPDCBCPA
 firearms inside Dela Cruz’s bag. Cutie Pie Flores (Flores) was the x-ray
machine operator-on-duty on May 11, 2007. She saw the impression of what
appeared to be three (3) firearms inside Dela Cruz’s bag. Upon seeing the
suspected firearms, she called the attention of port personnel Archie Igot
(Igot) who was the baggage inspector then. Igot asked Dela Cruz whether he
was the owner of the bag. Dela Cruz answered Igot in the affirmative and
consented to Igot’s manual inspection of the bag. "Port Police Officer Adolfo
Abregana [(Officer Abregana)] was on duty at the terminal of the Cebu
Domestic Port in Pier 1-G when his attention was called by . . . Igot." Igot told
Officer Abregana that there were firearms in a bag owned by a certain
person. Igot then pointed to the person. That person was later identified as
Dela Cruz. Dela Cruz admitted that he was owner of the bag. The bag was
then inspected and the following items were found inside: three (3) revolvers;
NBI clearance; seaman’s book; other personal items; and four (4) live
ammunitions placed inside the cylinder. When asked whether he had the
proper documents for the firearms, Dela Cruz answered in the negative. Dela
Cruz was then arrested and informed of his violation of a crime punishable by
law. He was also informed of his constitutional rights. In the Information
dated November 19, 2003, Dela Cruz was charged with violation of Republic
Act No. 8294 for illegal possession of firearms. Subsequently, another
Information was filed charging Dela Cruz with the violation of Commission on
Elections Resolution No. 7764, in relation to Section 261 of Batas Pambansa
Blg. 881.

Dela Cruz entered a plea of not guilty to both charges during arraignment.
After trial, Branch 12 of the Regional Trial Court, Cebu City found Dela Cruz
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating the Gun Ban under Commission
on Elections Resolution No. 7764, in relation to Section 261 of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 881 in Criminal Case No. CBU 80085. Dela Cruz was
sentenced to suffer imprisonment of one (1) year with disqualification from
holding public office and the right to suffrage. On appeal, the Court of
Appeals affirmed the trial court’s Judgment. Dela Cruz filed a Motion for
Reconsideration, which was denied by the Court of Appeals in its Resolution
dated August 23, 2013.

a. Whether petitioner waived his right against unreasonable searches and

seizures
b. Assuming that there was no waiver, whether there was a valid search
and seizure in this case.

29.Police Senior Inspector Bayan "received a text message from an unidentified

civilian informer" that one Marvin Buya (also known as Marvin Bugat) "would
be transporting marijuana". PSI Bayan thereafter organized checkpoints in
order "to intercept the suspect." PSI Bayan ordered SPO1 Taracatac to set up
a checkpoint in the waiting area of passengers. A passenger jeepney arrived
at SPO1 Taracatac’s checkpoint. The jeepney driver disembarked and
signalled to SPO1 Taracatac indicating the two male passengers who were
carrying marijuana. SPO1 Taracatac approached the two male passengers
who were later identified as Victor Romana Cogaed and Santiago Sacpa
Dayao. SPO1 Taracatac asked Cogaed and Dayao about the contents of their

ATTYPDCBCPA
 bags. Cogaed and Dayao told SPO1 Taracatac that they did not know since
they were transporting the bags as a favor for their barriomate named
Marvin. After this exchange, Cogaed opened the blue bag, revealing three
bricks of what looked like marijuana. "SPO1 Taracatac arrested Cogaed and
Dayao and brought them to the police station. Forensic Chemical Officer
Police Inspector Laya II performed the tests and found that the objects
obtained were indeed marijuana. According to Cogaed’s testimony during
trial, he boarded a jeepney and recognized Dayao. Upon arrival at their
destination, Dayao and Cogaed alighted from the jeepney. Dayao allegedly
"asked for Cogaed’s help in carrying his things, which included a travelling
bag and a sack." Cogaed agreed because they were both going to the
market. This was when SPO1 Taracatac approached them, and when SPO1
Taracatac asked Cogaed what was inside the bags, Cogaed replied that he
did not know. Thereafter, SPO1 Taracatac arrested Dayao and Cogaed and
brought them to the police station. At the police station, Cogaed said that
"SPO1 Taracatac hit him on the head." The bags were also opened, but
Cogaed never knew what was inside. It was only later when Cogaed learned
that it was marijuana when he and Dayao were charged with illegal
possession of dangerous drugs under Republic Act No. 9165.

a. Whether or not the search and seizure of marijuana as against the

accused are valid.

30.Sanchez was charged with violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165,
otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, in the
Information, filed before the RTC. That, the Sanchez, not being authorized by
law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his
possession, control and custody, 0.1017 gram of Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride, commonly known as “shabu,” a dangerous drug. When
arraigned, Sanchez pleaded not guilty to the offense charged. During the pre-
trial, the prosecution and the defense stipulated on the existence and due
execution of the following pieces of evidence: 1) the request for laboratory
examination; 2) certification issued by the National Bureau of Investigation;
3) Dangerous Drugs Report; and 4) transparent plastic sachet containing
small transparent plastic sachet of white crystalline substance. Thereafter,
trial on the merits ensued.

The prosecution’s version states that around 2:50 pm of March 19,

2003, acting on the information that Jacinta Marciano, aka “Intang,” was
selling drugs to tricycle drivers, SPO1 Elmer Amposta, together with CSU
Edmundo Hernandez, CSU Jose Tagle, Jr., and CSU Samuel Monzon, was
dispatched to Barangay Alapan 1-B, Imus, Cavite to conduct an operation.
While at the place, the group waited for a tricycle going to, and coming from,
the house of Jacinta. After a few minutes, they spotted a tricycle carrying
Rizaldy Sanchez coming out of the house. The group chased the tricycle.
After catching up with it, they requested Rizaldy to alight. It was then that
they noticed Rizaldy holding a match box. SPO1 Amposta asked Rizaldy if he
could see the contents of the match box. Rizaldy agreed. While examining it,
SPO1 Amposta found a small transparent plastic sachet which contained a
white crystalline substance. Suspecting that the substance was a regulated

ATTYPDCBCPA
 drug, the group accosted Rizaldy and the tricycle driver. The group brought
the two to the police station. Salud M. Rosales, a forensic chemist from the
NBI, submitted a Certification that the specimen/s gave positive results for
methamphetamine hydrochloride.

In the present petition, Sanchez denied the accusation against him and
presented a different version of the events that transpired in the afternoon of
March 19, 2003. He testified that on the date and time in question, he,
together with a certain Darwin Reyes, was on their way home from Brgy.
Alapan, Imus, Cavite, where they transported a passenger, when their way
was blocked by four (4) armed men riding an owner-type jeepney. Without a
word, the four men frisked him and Darwin. He protested and asked what
offense they committed. The arresting officers told him that they had just
bought drugs from Alapan. He reasoned out that he merely transported a
passenger there but the policemen still accosted him and he was brought to
the Imus Police Station where he was further investigated. The police officer,
however, let Darwin Reyes go.

The RTC rendered its decision finding that Sanchez was caught in
flagrante delicto , in actual possession of shabu. It stated that the police
operatives had reasonable ground to believe that Sanchez was in possession
of the said dangerous drug and such suspicion was confirmed when the
match box Sanchez was carrying was found to contain shabu. The CA found
no cogent reason to reverse or modify the findings of facts and conclusions
reached by the RTC and, thus, upheld the conviction of the accused for
violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. The CA then went on to
write that non-compliance by the police officers on the requirements of
Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, particularly on the
conduct of inventory and photograph of the seized drug, was not fatal to the
prosecution’s cause since its integrity and evidentiary value had been duly
preserved. Hence, this petition.

a. Whether or not the Court of Appeals, committed grave abuse of

discretion amounting to lack and/or excess of jurisdiction when it held
that accused was caught in flagrante delicto, hence, a search warrant
was no longer necessary.

31.At 10:00 a.m. of December 3, 1998, SPO2 Lazaro Paglicawan and SPO3
Isagani Yuzon, the officers-on-duty at the Philippine National Police (PNP)
Station, Looc, Occidental Mindoro, received a radio message from the
Barangay Captain of Ambil Island, Looc, Maximo Torreliza, that a suspicious
looking boat was seen somewhere within the vicinity of said island.
Immediately thereafter, the police officers headed towards the specified
location wherein they spotted two (2) boats anchored side by side, one of
which resembled a fishing boat and the other, a speedboat. They noticed one
(1) person on board the fishing boat and two (2) on board the speed boat who
were transferring cargo from the former to the latter. As they moved closer to
the area, the fishing boat hurriedly sped away. Due to the strongwaves, the
police officers were prevented from chasing the same and instead, went
towards the speed boat, which seemed to be experiencing engine trouble.On

ATTYPDCBCPA
 board the speed boat, the officers found the appellants Chi Chan Liu a.k.a.
Chan Que and Hui Lao Chung a.k.a. Leofe Senglao with several transparent
plastic bags containing a white, crystalline substance they instantly
suspected to be the regulated drug, methamphetamine hydrochloride,
otherwise known as “shabu.” They requested the appellants to show their
identification papers but appellants failed to do so. Thus, the police officers
directed appellants to transfer to their service boat and thereafter towed
appellants’ speed boat to the shore behind the Municipal Hall of Looc,
Occidental Mindoro. On their way, the police officers testified that appellant
Chi Chan Liu repeatedly offered them “big, big amount of money” which they
ignored.

Upon reaching the shore, the police officers led the appellants, together
with the bags containing the crystalline substance, to the police station. In
the presence of the appellants and Municipal Mayor Felesteo Telebrico, they
conducted an inventory of the plastic bags which were forty-five (45) in
number, weighing about a kilo each. Again, SPO3 Yuson requested proper
documentation from the appellants as to their identities as well as to the
purpose of their entry in the Philippine territory. However, the appellants did
not answer any of SPO3 Yuson’s questions. Immediately thereafter, SPO3
Yuson reported the incident to their superiors. The PNP Regional Director
General Reynaldo Acop advised them to await his arrival the following day.

On December 4, 1998, General Acop arrived. They talked with Mayor

Telebrico and the arresting officers and then brought the appellants with the
suspected illegal drugs to Camp Vicente Lim, Calamba, Laguna, for further
investigation. There, the appellants and the suspected prohibited drugs were
turned over to Police Inspector Julieto B. Culili, of the Intelligence and
Investigation Division, PNP, Regional Office IV, who attempted to
communicate with the appellants using “broken” English. According to
Inspector Culili, appellant Chi Chan Liu only kept saying the phrase “call
China, big money,” giving him a certain cellular phone number.

With the assistance of said interpreter, Inspector Culili informed and

explained to the appellants their rights under Philippine laws inclusive of the
right to remain silent, the right to counsel, as well as the right to be informed
of the charges against them, and the consequences thereof. Inspector Culili
also requested the interpreter to ask the appellants whether they wanted to
avail of said constitutional rights. However, appellants only kept repeating
the phrase “big money, call China.”
According to Inspector Culili, moreover, he was able to confirm that the
appellants are Chinese nationals from Guandong, China, based on an earlier
intelligence report that foreign nationals on board extraordinary types of
vessels were seen along the sealine of Lubang Island in Cavite, and Quezon
Province.

Thereafter, Police Inspector Mary Jean Geronimo, PNP Chief Forensic

Chemist/Physical Examiner assigned at the PNP Regional Crime Laboratory
Service Office, Camp Vicente Lim, Laguna conducted an examination of the
white, crystalline substance in the forty-five (45) bags seized from the

ATTYPDCBCPA
 appellants. After performing three (3) tests thereon, she positively confirmed
in her Chemistry Report that the same is, indeed, methamphetamine
hydrochloride, otherwise known as “shabu.”
On December 8, 1998, the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of
Occidental Mindoro filed an Information21 with the RTC of Mamburao,
Occidental Mindoro, against appellants for violation of Section 14, Article III,
in relation to Section 21 (a), Article IV of RA No. 6425 as amended by RA No.
7659, or the Importation of Regulated Drugs. Appellants pleaded not guilty to
the charges against them.

The testimonies of the witnesses for the defense, namely: Jesus

Astorga and Fernando Oliva, both residents of Ambil Island, Leopoldo S. J.
Lozada, a former Supervising Crime Photographer of the PNP, and Godofredo
de la Fuente Robles, a Member of the Looc Municipal Council, essentially
maintain that the subject crystalline substance was merely recovered by the
apprehending police officers from the house of Barangay Captain Maximo
Torreliza and not actually from the speed boat the appellants were on. The
trial court found appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt.On appeal, the
CA affirmed in toto the Decision of the RTC in its Decision dated January 9,
2009. On April 24, 2009, it further denied the appellants’ Motion for
Reconsideration in its Resolution finding no cogent reason to make any
revision, amendment, or reversal of its assailed Decision.

a. Whether the arrest and seizure of the illegal drugs in violation of

their constitutionally protected rights.

32.The general rule is that the right to privacy of communication and

correspondence is inviolable. What are the exceptions?
33.Is the tape recording of a telephone conversation containing a person’s
admission admissible in evidence? Why?
34.Is the use of telephone extension a violation of R.A. 4200 (Anti‐Wire Tapping
Law)?
35.Are letters of a husband’s paramour kept inside the husband’s drawer,
presented by the wife in the proceeding for legal separation, admissible in
evidence?
36.What does the exclusionary rule state?
37.What is the writ of habeas data?
38.What are the reliefs that may be obtained in the petition for issuance of writ
of habeas data?
39.What is the concept and scope of protected freedom of expression under the
Constitution?
40.What are considered protected speech?
41.What is the concept behind the provision?
42.What are the limitations of freedom of expression?
43.What are the four aspects of freedom of speech and press?
44.What is the first prohibition of the free speech and press clause?
45.Is the prohibition of prior restraint absolute?If not what are the exceptions?
46.What is the second basic prohibition of the free speech and press clause?
47.Is freedom from subsequent punishment absolute?

ATTYPDCBCPA
 48.Discuss the Doctrine of Fair Comment.
49.A national daily newspaper carried an exclusive report stating that Senator
XX received a house and lot located at YY Street, Makati, in consideration for
his vote cutting cigarette taxes by 50%. The Senator sued the newspaper, its
reporter, editor and publisher for libel, claiming the report was completely
false and malicious. According to the Senator, there is no YY Street in Makati,
and the tax cut was only 20%. He claimed one million pesos in damages. The
defendants denied "actual malice," claiming privileged communication and
absolute freedom of the press to report on public officials and matters of
public concern. If there was any error, the newspaper said it would publish
the correction promptly. Is there "actual malice" in the newspaper’s
reportage? How is "actual malice" defined? Are the defendants liable for
damages?
50.Is the Borjal doctrineapplicable in a case where the allegations against a
public official were false and that the journalist did not exert effort to verify
the information before publishing his articles? (Read Tulfo Case G.R. No.
161032, September 16, 2008)
51.Distinguish content‐neutral regulation from content‐based restraint or
censorship.
52.The NTC issued a warning that that the continuous airing or broadcast by
radio and television stations of the an alleged wiretapped conversation
involving the President allegedly fixing votes in the 2004 national elections is
a continuing violation of the Anti‐Wiretapping Law and shall be just cause for
the suspension, revocation and/or cancellation of the licenses or
authorizations issued to the said companies. Were the rights to freedom of
expression and of the press, and the right of the people to information on
matters of public concern violated?
53.What do you mean by Facial Challenges?
54.How is "facial" challenge different from "as‐applied" challenge?
55.Are facial challenges allowed in penal statutes?
56.What is the Overbreadth Doctrine?
57.What are the tests for valid governmental interference to freedom of
expression?
58.Can an offensive and obscene language uttered in a prime‐time television
broadcast which was easily accessible to the children be reasonably curtailed
and validly restrained?
59.Is broadcast media entitled to the same treatment under the free speech
guarantee of the Constitution as the print media?
60.Can a trial in the Sandiganbayan or any other court be broadcasted in TV or
radio?
61.What is the meaning of commercial speech?
62.In order for government to curtail commercial speech what must be shown?
63.Differentiate Government Speech From Private Speech.
64.What is a Heckler’s Veto?
65.A resolution dated 26 Nov. 2013 was issued directing Cagas to explain why
he should not be cited in contempt of court for the letter he sent to the Court
Administrator Jose Midas Marquez. In the letter, he expressed his dismay on
the decision in the case of Cagas vs. COMELEC- in his words: I was offended
of the “level of deceitfulness of the ponente” and that “the decision can
poison the minds of law students.”

ATTYPDCBCPA
 Cagas assisted by a law firm sent a Compliance Letter alleging that it
was a personal communication made by Cagas to a friend—thus the use of
the words “pards” and “pare”—and was not meant nor intended to be an
official communication to Atty. Marquez in his capacity as Court Administrator
of the Honorable Court. Cagas added that he was merely carried away by his
emotions and he further stated that he still believes in the court and as a
matter of fact he sent DVDs so that the Court would know the truth.

a. Whether or not Cagas's act constitute disrespect for the Court hence
should be cited for contempt?

66.Rappler filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition against Bautista, in his
capacity as Chairman of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). The
petition seeks to nullify parts of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
regarding online streaming and the imposition of a maximum limit of two
minutes of debate excerpts for news reporting, entered into between
COMELEC, Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas(KBP), and various
media networks regarding the 2016 presidential and vice-presidential
debates, for being executed without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction and for
violating the fundamental rights of petitioner protected under the
Constitution.
Petitioner is alleging that it is being discriminated particularly as regards the
MOA provisions on live audio broadcast via online streaming. Petitioner
further argues that the MOA grants radio stations the right to simultaneously
broadcast live the audio of the debates, even if the radio stations are not
obliged to perform any obligation under the MOA. Yet, this right to broadcast
by live streaming online the audio of the debates is denied petitioner and
other online media entities, which also have the capacity to live stream the
audio of the debates. Petitioner insists that it signed the MOA believing in
good faith the issues it has raised will be resolved by the COMELEC.

a. Whether or not pertinent parts of the MOA violated the rights/freedom of

the Press of the Petitioner

67.On February 21, 2013, petitioners The Diocese of Bacolod and the Most Rev.
Bishop Navarra posted two (2) tarpaulins within a private compound housing
the San Sebastian Cathedral of Bacolod. Each tarpaulin was approximately
six feet (6') by ten feet (10') in size.

They were posted on the front walls of the cathedral within public view.
The second tarpaulin contains the heading “Conscience Vote” and lists
candidates as either “(Anti-RH) Team Buhay” with a check mark, or “(Pro-RH)
Team Patay” with an “X” mark. The electoral candidates were classified
according to their vote on the adoption of Republic Act No. 10354, otherwise
known as the RH Law. Those who voted for the passing of the law were
classified by petitioners as comprising “Team Patay,” while those who voted

ATTYPDCBCPA
 against it form “Team Buhay”. These tarpaulins were not paid for nor
sponsored by any candidate, and they contain names of candidates for the
2013 elections, but not of politicians who helped in the passage of the RH
Law but were not candidates for that election.
On February 22, 2013 respondent Atty. Majarucon, in her capacity as
Election Officer of Bacolod City, ordered Bishop Navarra to remove the
tarpaulin within 3 days from receipt for being oversized, in violation of
COMELEC Resolution No. 9615 which provided for a size requirement for
campaign materials. Petitioners requested for a definitive ruling from the
COMELEC Law Department. On February 27, 2013 the latter ordered the
immediate removal of the tarpaulin for violation of the abovementioned
Resolution; otherwise COMELEC will file an election offense case against the
petitioners.
Concerned about the imminent threat of prosecution for their exercise
of free speech, petitioners initiated before the Supreme Court a special civil
action for certiorari and prohibition with application for preliminary injunction
and temporary restraining order under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court seeking
to nullify COMELEC’s Notice to Remove Campaign Materials dated February
22, 2013 and letter issued on February 27, 2013.

a. Did the COMELEC have legal basis to regulate the tarpaulin of the
petitioners?
b. Are the tarpaulins are a form or expression (protected speech), or election
propaganda/political advertisement?
c. Assuming arguendo that the tarpaulins are a form of expression, did the
COMELEC possesses the authority to regulate the same?
d. May this form of expression may be regulated?
e. Was the doctrine of separation of church and state violated by the
petitioners and the respondents when the former posted its tarpaulin, and
the latter ordered the tarpaulin taken down?

68.The present case involves five petitions assailing the constitutionality of Sec
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 120 minutes and 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 forth coming elections.
During the previous elections of May 14, 2007 and May 10, 2010, COMELEC
issued Resolutions implementing and interpreting Section 6 of R.A. No. 9006,
regarding airtime limitations, to mean that a candidate is entitled to the
aforestated number of minutes "per station." For the May 2013 elections,
however, respondent COMELEC promulgated Resolution No. 9615 dated
January 15, 2013, changing the interpretation of said candidates' and political
parties' airtime limitation for political campaigns or advertisements from a
"per station" basis, to a "total aggregate" basis.
Petitioners ABS-CBN, ABC, GMA, MBC, NBN, and RMN are owners/operators of
radio and television networks in the Philippines, while petitioner Kapisanan ng

ATTYPDCBCPA
 mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas (KBP) is the national organization of broadcasting
companies in the Philippines representing operators of radio and television
stations and said stations themselves. They sent their respective letters to
the COMELEC questioning the provisions of the aforementioned Resolution,
thus, the COMELEC held public hearings.

Meanwhile, on March 15, 2013, Senator Alan Peter S. Cayetano (Petitioner-

Intervenor) filed a Motion for Leave to Intervene and to File and Admit the
Petition-in-Intervention, which was granted by the Court per its Resolution
dated March 19, 2013.
All of the Petitioners assail Sec. 9 (a) of the Resolution which 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.
Petitioners posit that Section 9 (a) of the assailed Resolution provides for a
very restrictive aggregate airtime limit and a vague meaning for a proper
computation of "aggregate total" airtime, and violates the equal protection
guarantee, thereby defeating the intent and purpose of R.A. No. 9006.
Petitioners further contend that Section 9 (a), which imposes a notice
requirement, is vague and infringes on the constitutionally protected freedom
of speech, of the press and of expression, and on the right of people to be
informed on matters of public concern Petitioners also allege that Section 9
(a) is a cruel and oppressive regulation as it imposes an unreasonable and
almost impossible burden on broadcast mass media of monitoring a
candidate's or political party's aggregate airtime, otherwise, it may incur
administrative and criminal liability.
Section 14 of Resolution No. 9615, providing for a candidate's or political
party's "right to reply," is likewise assailed by Petitioners to be
unconstitutional for being an improper exercise of the COMELEC's regulatory
powers; for constituting prior restraint and infringing petitioners' freedom of
expression, speech and the press; and for being violative of the equal
protection guarantee.
In addition to the foregoing, petitioner GMA further argues that the Resolution
was promulgated without public consultations, in violation of petitioners' right
to due process.
Thereafter, on February 1, 2013 COMELEC issued Resolution No. 9631
amending provisions of Resolution No. 9615. Nevertheless, petitioners still
found the provisions objectionable and oppressive, hence, the present
petitions.

a. Whether or not the COMELEC is duty bound to come up with reasonable

basis for changing the interpretation and implementation of the airtime
limits.
b. Whether or not Section 9 (a) of COMELEC Resolution No. 9615 on airtime
limits goes against the constitutional guaranty of freedom of expression, of
speech and of the press.
c. Whether or not Section 9 (a) of Resolution 9615 is violative of the people's
right to suffrage.
d. Whether or not Resolution No. 9615 needs prior hearing before adoption.

ATTYPDCBCPA
 e. Whether or not Resolution No. 9615 imposes an unreasonable burden on
the broadcast industry.

ATTYPDCBCPA