Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ELISEO F. SORIANO,
Petitioner,
ELISEO F. SORIANO, G.R. No.
164785
Petitioner, - versus -
Present:
- versus - MOVIE AND TELEVISION
PUNO,REVIEW AND
MA. CONSOLIZA P. QUISUMBING,
CLASSIFICATION BOARD,
LAGUARDIA, in her capacity as YNARES-SANTIAGO,
ZOSIMO G. ALEGRE, JACKIE
Chairperson of the Movie and CARPIO,
AQUINO-GAVINO, NOEL R.
Television Review and AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
DEL PRADO, EMMANUEL
Classification Board, MOVIE CORONA,
BORLAZA, JOSE E. ROMERO
AND TELEVISION REVIEW CARPIOIV,MORALES,
and FLORIMONDO C.
AND CLASSIFICATION TINGA,ROUS, in their capacity as
BOARD, JESSIE L. GALAPON, CHICO-NAZARIO,
members of the Hearing and
ANABEL M. DELA CRUZ, VELASCO,
Adjudication
JR., Committee of the
MANUEL M. HERNANDEZ, NACHURA,
MTRCB, JESSIE L. GALAPON,
JOSE L. LOPEZ, CRISANTO LEONARDO-DE
ANABEL M. CASTRO,
DELA CRUZ,
SORIANO, BERNABE S. BRION,MANUEL M. HERNANDEZ,
YARIA, JR., MICHAEL M. PERALTA,
JOSEand L. LOPEZ, CRISANTO
SANDOVAL, and ROLDAN A. BERSAMIN,
SORIANO, BERNABE S. Promu
GAVINO, YARIA, JR., MICHAEL M.
Respondents. G.R. No.
SANDOVAL,
165636 and ROLDAN A. April 2
x------------------------------------------
GAVINO, in their capacity as following remarks:
complainants before
the MTRCB, Lehitimong anak ng demonyo; sinungaling;
Respondents.
x----------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------x
Gago ka talaga Michael, masahol ka pa sa
putang babae o di ba. Yung putang
DECISION
babae ang gumagana lang doon yung
ibaba, [dito] kay Michael ang
VELASCO, JR., J.: gumagana ang itaas, o di ba! O,
masahol pa sa putang babae yan.
In these two petitions for certiorari Sabi ng lola ko masahol pa sa putang
and prohibition under Rule 65, petitioner babae yan. Sobra ang
Eliseo F. Soriano seeks to nullify and set kasinungalingan ng mga demonyong
ito.[if !supportFootnotes][1][endif] x x x
aside an order and a decision of the Movie
and Television Review and Classification
Board (MTRCB) in connection with certain
utterances he made in his television show,
Two days after, before the MTRCB,
Ang Dating Daan.
separate but almost identical affidavit-
complaints were lodged by Jessie L.
Facts of the Case
Galapon and seven other private
On August 10, 2004, at around 10:00 p.m., respondents, all members of the Iglesia ni
petitioner, as host of the program Ang Cristo (INC),[if !supportFootnotes][2][endif] against
Dating Daan, aired on UNTV 37, made the petitioner in connection with the above
broadcast. Respondent Michael M.
Sandoval, who felt directly alluded to in The following day, petitioner sought
petitioners remark, was then a minister of reconsideration of the preventive suspension
INC and a regular host of the TV program order, praying that Chairperson Consoliza P.
Ang Tamang Daan.[if !supportFootnotes][3][endif] Laguardia and two other members of the
Forthwith, the MTRCB sent petitioner a adjudication board recuse themselves from
notice of the hearing on August 16, 2004 in hearing the case.[if !supportFootnotes][6][endif] Two
relation to the alleged use of some cuss days after, however, petitioner sought to
words in the August 10, 2004 episode of withdraw[if !supportFootnotes][7][endif] his motion for
Ang Dating Daan.[if !supportFootnotes][4][endif] reconsideration, followed by the filing with
this Court of a petition for certiorari and
After a preliminary conference in prohibition,[if !supportFootnotes][8][endif] docketed as
which petitioner appeared, the MTRCB, by G.R. No. 164785, to nullify the preventive
Order of August 16, 2004, preventively suspension order thus issued.
suspended the showing of Ang Dating Daan
program for 20 days, in accordance with On September 27, 2004, in Adm. Case
Section 3(d) of Presidential Decree No. (PD) No. 01-04, the MTRCB issued a decision,
1986, creating the MTRCB, in relation to disposing as follows:
Sec. 3, Chapter XIII of the 2004
Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR)
of PD 1986 and Sec. 7, Rule VII of the
MTRCB Rules of Procedure.[if !supportFootnotes][5] WHEREFORE, in view of all
[endif] the foregoing, a Decision is hereby
The same order also set the case for rendered, finding respondent Soriano
preliminary investigation. liable for his utterances and thereby
imposing on him a penalty of three Petitioner then filed this petition for
(3) months suspension from his certiorari and prohibition with prayer for
program, Ang Dating Daan.
injunctive relief, docketed as G.R. No.
165636.
In a Resolution dated April 4, 2005,
the Court consolidated G.R. No. 164785
with G.R. No. 165636.
Co-respondents Joselito
Mallari, Luzviminda Cruz and UNTV In G.R. No. 164785, petitioner raises the
Channel 37 and its owner, PBC, are
hereby exonerated for lack of following issues:
evidence.
[if !supportLists](D) [endif]FOR BEING
VIOLATIVE OF FREEDOM OF
RELIGION; AND
I
III
G.R. No. 164785
We shall first dispose of the issues in
[PD] 1986 IS NOT COMPLETE IN ITSELF G.R. No. 164785, regarding the assailed
AND DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR A order of preventive suspension, although its
SUFFICIENT STANDARD FOR ITS
implementability had already been
IMPLEMENTATION THEREBY
RESULTING IN AN UNDUE overtaken and veritably been rendered moot
DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE by the equally assailed September 27, 2004
POWER BY REASON THAT IT decision.
DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR THE
PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF It is petitioners threshold posture that
ITS PROVISIONS.
CONSEQUENTLY, THE [IRR], the preventive suspension imposed against
RULES OF PROCEDURE, AND him and the relevant IRR provision
authorizing it are invalid inasmuch as PD albeit impliedly, to issue the challenged
1986 does not expressly authorize the order of preventive suspension. And this
MTRCB to issue preventive suspension. authority stems naturally from, and is
necessary for the exercise of, its power of
Petitioners contention is untenable. regulation and supervision.
Administrative agencies have powers Sec. 3 of PD 1986 pertinently
and functions which may be administrative, provides the following:
investigatory, regulatory, quasi-legislative,
or quasi-judicial, or a mix of the five, as
may be conferred by the Constitution or by
statute.[if !supportFootnotes][12][endif] They have in fine Section 3. Powers and Functions. The
only such powers or authority as are granted BOARD shall have the following
functions, powers and duties
or delegated, expressly or impliedly, by law.
[if !supportFootnotes][13][endif]
And in determining
whether an agency has certain powers, the
xxxx
inquiry should be from the law itself. But
once ascertained as existing, the authority
given should be liberally construed.[if !
supportFootnotes][14][endif] c) To approve or disapprove, delete objectionable
portions from and/or prohibit the x x x production, x
x x exhibition and/or television broadcast of the
A perusal of the MTRCBs basic motion pictures, television programs and publicity
mandate under PD 1986 reveals the materials subject of the preceding paragraph, which,
possession by the agency of the authority, in the judgment of the board applying contemporary
Filipino cultural values as standard, are objectionable
for being immoral, indecent, contrary to law and/or television broadcast of all motion pictures,
good customs, injurious to the prestige of the television programs and publicity materials, to the
Republic of the Philippines or its people, or with a end that no such pictures, programs and
dangerous tendency to encourage the commission of materials as are determined by the BOARD to be
violence or of wrong or crime such as but not limited objectionable in accordance with paragraph (c)
to: hereof shall be x x x produced, copied, reproduced,
distributed, sold, leased, exhibited and/or
broadcast by television; [if !
supportLineBreakNewLine][endif]
xxxx
xxxx
Bernas adds:
Moreover, in MTRCB v. ABS-CBN
Broadcasting Corporation,[if !supportFootnotes][65]
Under the decree a movie [endif]
it was held that the power of review and
classification board is made the
prior approval of MTRCB extends to all of permit or subsequent punishment, like
television programs and is valid despite the suspension or cancellation of permit, among
freedom of speech guaranteed by the others.
Constitution. Thus, all broadcast networks
are regulated by the MTRCB since they are The three (3) months suspension in this case
required to get a permit before they air their is not a prior restraint on the right of
television programs. Consequently, their petitioner to continue with the broadcast of
right to enjoy their freedom of speech is Ang Dating Daan as a permit was already
subject to that requirement. As lucidly issued to him by MTRCB for such
explained by Justice Dante O. Tinga, broadcast. Rather, the suspension is in the
government regulations through the form of permissible administrative sanction
MTRCB became a necessary evil with the or subsequent punishment for the offensive
government taking the role of assigning and obscene remarks he uttered on the
bandwidth to individual broadcasters. The evening of August 10, 2004 in his television
stations explicitly agreed to this regulatory program, Ang Dating Daan. It is a sanction
scheme; otherwise, chaos would result in the that the MTRCB may validly impose under
television broadcast industry as competing its charter without running afoul of the free
broadcasters will interfere or co-opt each speech clause. And the imposition is
others signals. In this scheme, station separate and distinct from the criminal
owners and broadcasters in effect waived action the Board may take pursuant to Sec.
their right to the full enjoyment of their right 3(i) of PD 1986 and the remedies that may
to freedom of speech in radio and television be availed of by the aggrieved private party
programs and impliedly agreed that said under the provisions on libel or tort, if
right may be subject to prior restraintdenial applicable. As FCC teaches, the imposition
of sanctions on broadcasters who indulge in permissible cancellation of exhibition or
profane or indecent broadcasting does not broadcast permit or license. In fine, the
constitute forbidden censorship. Lest it be suspension meted was simply part of the
overlooked, the sanction imposed is not per duties of the MTRCB in the enforcement
se for petitioners exercise of his freedom of and administration of the law which it is
speech via television, but for the indecent tasked to implement. Viewed in its proper
contents of his utterances in a G rated TV context, the suspension sought to penalize
program. past speech made on prime-time G rated TV
program; it does not bar future speech of
More importantly, petitioner is deemed to petitioner in other television programs; it is
have yielded his right to his full enjoyment a permissible subsequent administrative
of his freedom of speech to regulation under sanction; it should not be confused with a
PD 1986 and its IRR as television station prior restraint on speech. While not on all
owners, program producers, and hosts have fours, the Court, in MTRCB,[if !supportFootnotes][66]
[endif]
impliedly accepted the power of MTRCB to sustained the power of the MTRCB to
regulate the broadcast industry. penalize a broadcast company for
Neither can petitioners virtual inability to exhibiting/airing a pre-taped TV episode
speak in his program during the period of without Board authorization in violation of
suspension be plausibly treated as prior Sec. 7 of PD 1986.
restraint on future speech. For viewed in its
proper perspective, the suspension is in the Any simplistic suggestion, however, that the
nature of an intermediate penalty for uttering MTRCB would be crossing the limits of its
an unprotected form of speech. It is authority were it to regulate and even
definitely a lesser punishment than the restrain the prime-time television broadcast
of indecent or obscene speech in a G rated jurisprudence to reflect these times.
program is not acceptable. As made clear in
Eastern Broadcasting Corporation, the Petitioner, in questioning the three-month
freedom of television and radio broadcasting suspension, also tags as unconstitutional the
is somewhat lesser in scope than the very law creating the MTRCB, arguing that
freedom accorded to newspaper and print PD 1986, as applied to him, infringes also
media. The MTRCB, as a regulatory agency, upon his freedom of religion. The Court has
must have the wherewithal to enforce its earlier adequately explained why petitioners
mandate, which would not be effective if its undue reliance on the religious freedom
punitive actions would be limited to mere cannot lend justification, let alone an
fines. Television broadcasts should be exempting dimension to his licentious
subject to some form of regulation, utterances in his program. The Court sees no
considering the ease with which they can be need to address anew the repetitive
accessed, and violations of the regulations arguments on religious freedom. As earlier
must be met with appropriate and discussed in the disposition of the petition in
proportional disciplinary action. The G.R. No. 164785, what was uttered was in
suspension of a violating television program no way a religious speech. Parenthetically,
would be a sufficient punishment and serve petitioners attempt to characterize his speech
as a deterrent for those responsible. The as a legitimate defense of his religion fails
prevention of the broadcast of petitioners miserably. He tries to place his words in
television program is justified, and does not perspective, arguing evidently as an
constitute prohibited prior restraint. It afterthought that this was his method of
behooves the Court to respond to the needs refuting the alleged distortion of his
of the changing times, and craft statements by the INC hosts of Ang Tamang
Daan. But on the night he uttered them in The argument is without merit.
his television program, the word simply
came out as profane language, without any In Edu v. Ericta, the Court discussed
warning or guidance for undiscerning ears. the matter of undue delegation of legislative
power in the following wise:
As to petitioners other argument about
having been denied due process and equal
protection of the law, suffice it to state that
we have at length debunked similar It is a fundamental principle
arguments in G.R. No. 164785. There is no flowing from the doctrine of
separation of powers that Congress
need to further delve into the fact that may not delegate its legislative power
petitioner was afforded due process when he to the two other branches of the
attended the hearing of the MTRCB, and government, subject to the exception
that he was unable to demonstrate that he that local governments may over local
was unjustly discriminated against in the affairs participate in its exercise.
MTRCB proceedings. What cannot be delegated is the
authority under the Constitution to
make laws and to alter and repeal
Finally, petitioner argues that there has been them; the test is the completeness of
undue delegation of legislative power, as PD the statute in all its term and
1986 does not provide for the range of provisions when it leaves the hands of
imposable penalties that may be applied the legislature. To determine whether
or not there is an undue delegation of
with respect to violations of the provisions legislative power, the inquiry must be
of the law. directed to the scope and definiteness
of the measure enacted. The
legislature does not abdicate its the legislature itself determines
functions when it describes what job matters of principle and lays down
must be done, who is to do it, and fundamental policy. Otherwise, the
what is the scope of his authority. For charge of complete abdication may be
a complex economy, that may indeed hard to repel. A standard thus defines
be the only way in which the legislative policy, marks its limits,
legislative process can go forward. A maps out its boundaries and specifies
distinction has rightfully been made the public agency to apply it. It
between delegation of power to make indicates the circumstances under
laws which necessarily involves a which the legislative command is to
discretion as to what it shall be, which be effected. It is the criterion by
constitutionally may not be done, and which legislative purpose may be
delegation of authority or discretion carried out. Thereafter, the executive
as to its execution to be exercised or administrative office designated
under and in pursuance of the law, to may in pursuance of the above
which no valid objection can be guidelines promulgate supplemental
made. The Constitution is thus not to rules and regulations.[if !supportFootnotes][67]
[endif]
be regarded as denying the legislature
the necessary resources of flexibility
and practicability.
[if !supportFootnotes][7][endif]
Id. at 141-151.
Id. at 152-154.
[if !supportFootnotes][8][endif]
Id. at 166-252.
[if !supportFootnotes][9][endif]
[if !supportFootnotes][10][endif]
Id. at 378.
Id. at 182.
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the [if !supportFootnotes][11][endif]
Id. at 46.
Constitution, it is hereby certified that the [if !supportFootnotes][12][endif]
Azarcon v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 116033,
February 26, 1997, 268 SCRA 747.
conclusions in the above Decision were [if !supportFootnotes][13][endif]
Pimentel v. COMELEC, Nos. L-53581-83,
reached in consultation before the case was December 19, 1980, 101 SCRA 769.
[if !supportFootnotes][14][endif]
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Agpalo, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (2005);
citing Matienzon v. Abellera, G.R. No. 77632, June 8, 1988, 162
Court. SCRA 1.
[if !supportFootnotes][15][endif]
Lastimoso v. Vasquez, G.R. No. 116801,
April 6, 1995, 243 SCRA 497.
[if !supportFootnotes][16][endif] [if !supportFootnotes][32][endif]
Alonzo v. Capulong, G.R. No. 110590, May Agpalo, PHILIPPINE
10, 1995, 244 SCRA 80; Beja v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 358 (2006).
[if !supportFootnotes][33][endif]
97149, March 31, 1992, 207 SCRA 689. Chaplinsky, supra note 31; cited in
[if !supportFootnotes][17][endif]
Chavez v. National Housing Authority, G.R. Bernas, supra note 27, at 248.
[if !supportFootnotes][34][endif]
No. 164527, August 15, 2007, 530 SCRA 235, 295-296; citing Bernas, supra note 27, at 248.
[if !supportFootnotes][35][endif]
Azarcon, supra note 12, at 761; Radio Communications of the G.R. No. 159751, December 6, 2006, 510
Philippines, Inc. v. Santiago, Nos. L-29236 & 29247, August 21, SCRA 351, 360-361.
[if !supportFootnotes][36][endif]
1974, 58 SCRA 493, 497. 413 U.S. 15.
[if !supportFootnotes][18][endif] [if !supportFootnotes][37][endif]
63 Phil. 139, 177 (1936). 438 U.S. 726.
[if !supportFootnotes][19][endif] [if !supportFootnotes][38][endif]
Rollo (G.R. No. 164785), p. 12. Supra note 25.
[if !supportFootnotes][20][endif] [if !supportFootnotes][39][endif]
Id. at 94. G.R. No. 168338, February 15, 2008, 545
[if !supportFootnotes][21][endif]
Id. at 95. SCRA 441.
[if !supportFootnotes][22][endif] [if !supportFootnotes][40][endif]
Beja, supra note 16; Espiritu v. Melgar, G.R. Shit, piss, fuck, tits, etc.
[if !supportFootnotes][41][endif]
No. 100874, February 13, 1992, 206 SCRA 256. Supra note 39.
[if !supportFootnotes][23][endif] [if !supportFootnotes][42][endif]
1 De Leon, PHILIPPINE Supra note 26.
[if !supportFootnotes][43][endif]
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 274 (2003). Gonzales v. Kalaw Katigbak, supra.
[if !supportFootnotes][24][endif] [if !supportFootnotes][44][endif]
Tiu v. Guingona, G.R. No. 127410, January Pharmaceutical and Health Care
20, 1999, 301 SCRA 278; citing Ichong v. Hernandez, 101 Phil. Association of the Philippines v. Health Secretary Francisco T.
1155 (1957) and other cases. Duque III, G.R. No. 173034, October 9, 2007, 535 SCRA 265.
[if !supportFootnotes][25][endif] [if !supportFootnotes][45][endif]
US v. Paramount Pictures, 334 U.S. Bayan v. Ermita, G.R. No. 169838, April 25,
131; Eastern Broadcasting Corporation v. Dans, Jr., No. L- 2006, 488 SCRA 226.
[if !supportFootnotes][46][endif]
59329, July 19, 1985, 137 SCRA 628. 16A Am Jur. 2d Constitutional Law
[if !supportFootnotes][26][endif]
Eastern Broadcasting Corporation v. Dans, Sec. 493; Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47.
[if !supportFootnotes][47][endif]
Jr., supra note 25; citing FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. Bernas, supra note 27, at 219-220.
[if !supportFootnotes][48][endif]
726; Gonzales v. Kalaw Katigbak, No. L-69500, July 22, 1985, Gonzales v. COMELEC, No. L-
137 SCRA 717. 27833, April 18, 1969, 27 SCRA 835.
[if !supportFootnotes][27][endif] [if !supportFootnotes][49][endif]
J.G. Bernas, S.J., THE CONSTITUTION OF ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. v.
THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES: A COMMENTARY COMELEC, G.R. No. 133486, January 28, 2000, 323 SCRA 811;
205 (1996). Adiong v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 103956, March 31, 1992, 207
[if !supportFootnotes][28][endif]
Lagunsad v. Soto vda. De Gonzales, No. L- SCRA 712.
[if !supportFootnotes][50][endif]
32066, August 6, 1979, 92 SCRA 476. Zaldivar v. Sandiganbayan, G.R.
[if !supportFootnotes][29][endif]
Trohwerk v. United States, 249 U.S. 204 Nos. 79690-707 & 80578, February 1, 1989, 170 SCRA 1.
[if !supportFootnotes][51][endif]
(1919); cited in Bernas, supra at 218. Supra note 25, at 635.
[if !supportFootnotes][30][endif] [if !supportFootnotes][52][endif]
G.R. No. 136185, October 30, 2000, 344 No. L-82380, April 29, 1988, 160
SCRA 481, 490. SCRA 861.
[if !supportFootnotes][31][endif] [if !supportFootnotes][53][endif]
315 U.S. 568 (1942). Supra note 48.
[if !supportFootnotes][54][endif]
Supra at 898.
[if !supportFootnotes][55][endif]
Supra at 899-900.
[if !supportFootnotes][56][endif]
Kauper, CIVIL LIBERTIES AND
THE CONSTITUTION 113 (1966); cited in Gonzales v.
COMELEC, supra note 48; also cited in J.G. Bernas, S.J., THE
1987 CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES: A COMMENTARY (2003).
[if !supportFootnotes][57][endif]
Id.
[if !supportFootnotes][58][endif]
Bernas, supra note 27, at 81.
[if !supportFootnotes][59][endif]
CONSTITUTION, Art. II, Sec. 13.
[if !supportFootnotes][60][endif]
Id., id., Sec. 12.
[if !supportFootnotes][61][endif]
Id.
[if !supportFootnotes][62][endif]
Supra note 26, at 729.
[if !supportFootnotes][63][endif]
G.R. No. 119673, July 26, 1996, 259 SCRA
529, 544, 552.
[if !supportFootnotes][64][endif]
Supra note 56, at 235.
[if !supportFootnotes][65][endif]
G.R. No. 155282, January 17, 2005, 448
SCRA 575.
[if !supportFootnotes][66][endif]
Supra note 65.
[if !supportFootnotes][67][endif]
No. L-32096, October 24, 1970, 35 SCRA
481, 496-497.
[if !supportFootnotes][68][endif]
Supra note 17; citing Angara v. Electoral
Commission, 63 Phil. 139 (1936); Provident Tree Farms, Inc. v.
Batario, Jr., G.R. No. 92285, March 28, 1994, 231 SCRA 463.
[if !supportFootnotes][69][endif]
People v. Maceren, No. L-32166, October 18,
1977, 79 SCRA 450, 458.
[if !supportFootnotes][70][endif]
Id.
[if !supportFootnotes][71][endif]
Id. FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 151908 August 12, 2003
SMART COMMUNICATIONS, INC. (SMART) and
PILIPINO TELEPHONE CORPORATION (PILTEL),
petitioners,
vs.
NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
(NTC), respondent.
x---------------------------------------------------------x card is fully consumed but not beyond 2 years and 45
G.R. No. 152063 August 12, 2003 days from date of first use to replenish the SIM card,
GLOBE TELECOM, INC. (GLOBE) and ISLA otherwise the SIM card shall be rendered invalid. The
COMMUNICATIONS CO., INC. (ISLACOM), validity of an invalid SIM card, however, shall be
petitioners, installed upon request of the customer at no additional
vs. charge except the presentation of a valid prepaid call
COURT OF APPEALS (The Former 6th Division) card.
and the NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS (4) Subscribers shall be updated of the remaining
COMMISSION, respondents. value of their cards before the start of every call using
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: the cards.
Pursuant to its rule-making and regulatory powers, the (5) The unit of billing for the cellular mobile telephone
National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) service whether postpaid or prepaid shall be reduced
issued on June 16, 2000 Memorandum Circular No. from 1 minute per pulse to 6 seconds per pulse. The
13-6-2000, promulgating rules and regulations on the authorized rates per minute shall thus be divided by
billing of telecommunications services. Among its 10.1
pertinent provisions are the following: The Memorandum Circular provided that it shall take
(1) The billing statements shall be received by the effect 15 days after its publication in a newspaper of
subscriber of the telephone service not later than 30 general circulation and three certified true copies
days from the end of each billing cycle. In case the thereof furnished the UP Law Center. It was published
statement is received beyond this period, the in the newspaper, The Philippine Star, on June 22,
subscriber shall have a specified grace period within 2000.2 Meanwhile, the provisions of the Memorandum
which to pay the bill and the public telecommunications Circular pertaining to the sale and use of prepaid cards
entity (PTEs) shall not be allowed to disconnect the and the unit of billing for cellular mobile telephone
service within the grace period. service took effect 90 days from the effectivity of the
(2) There shall be no charge for calls that are diverted Memorandum Circular.
to a voice mailbox, voice prompt, recorded message or On August 30, 2000, the NTC issued a Memorandum
similar facility excluding the customer's own to all cellular mobile telephone service (CMTS)
equipment. operators which contained measures to minimize if not
(3) PTEs shall verify the identification and address of totally eliminate the incidence of stealing of cellular
each purchaser of prepaid SIM cards. Prepaid call phone units. The Memorandum directed CMTS
cards and SIM cards shall be valid for at least 2 years operators to:
from the date of first use. Holders of prepaid SIM cards a. strictly comply with Section B(1) of MC 13-6-2000
shall be given 45 days from the date the prepaid SIM requiring the presentation and verification of the
identity and addresses of prepaid SIM card customers; Commissioner Nestor C. Dacanay, an action for
b. require all your respective prepaid SIM cards declaration of nullity of NTC Memorandum Circular No.
dealers to comply with Section B(1) of MC 13-6-2000; 13-6-2000 (the Billing Circular) and the NTC
c. deny acceptance to your respective networks Memorandum dated October 6, 2000, with prayer for
prepaid and/or postpaid customers using stolen the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and
cellphone units or cellphone units registered to temporary restraining order. The complaint was
somebody other than the applicant when properly docketed as Civil Case No. Q-00-42221 at the
informed of all information relative to the stolen Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 77. 5
cellphone units; Petitioners Islacom and Piltel alleged, inter alia, that
d. share all necessary information of stolen cellphone the NTC has no jurisdiction to regulate the sale of
units to all other CMTS operators in order to prevent consumer goods such as the prepaid call cards since
the use of stolen cellphone units; and such jurisdiction belongs to the Department of Trade
e. require all your existing prepaid SIM card customers and Industry under the Consumer Act of the
to register and present valid identification cards. 3 Philippines; that the Billing Circular is oppressive,
This was followed by another Memorandum dated confiscatory and violative of the constitutional
October 6, 2000 addressed to all public prohibition against deprivation of property without due
telecommunications entities, which reads: process of law; that the Circular will result in the
This is to remind you that the validity of all prepaid impairment of the viability of the prepaid cellular
cards sold on 07 October 2000 and beyond shall be service by unduly prolonging the validity and expiration
valid for at least two (2) years from date of first use of the prepaid SIM and call cards; and that the
pursuant to MC 13-6-2000. requirements of identification of prepaid card buyers
In addition, all CMTS operators are reminded that all and call balance announcement are unreasonable.
SIM packs used by subscribers of prepaid cards sold Hence, they prayed that the Billing Circular be
on 07 October 2000 and beyond shall be valid for at declared null and void ab initio.
least two (2) years from date of first use. Also, the Soon thereafter, petitioners Globe Telecom, Inc and
billing unit shall be on a six (6) seconds pulse effective Smart Communications, Inc. filed a joint Motion for
07 October 2000. Leave to Intervene and to Admit Complaint-in-
For strict compliance.4 Intervention.6 This was granted by the trial court.
On October 20, 2000, petitioners Isla Communications On October 27, 2000, the trial court issued a
Co., Inc. and Pilipino Telephone Corporation filed temporary restraining order enjoining the NTC from
against the National Telecommunications Commission, implementing Memorandum Circular No. 13-6-2000
Commissioner Joseph A. Santiago, Deputy and the Memorandum dated October 6, 2000. 7
Commissioner Aurelio M. Umali and Deputy In the meantime, respondent NTC and its co-
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case on the ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The private respondents'
ground of petitioners' failure to exhaust administrative complaint and complaint-in-intervention below are
remedies. hereby DISMISSED, without prejudice to the referral of
Subsequently, after hearing petitioners' application for the private respondents' grievances and disputes on
preliminary injunction as well as respondent's motion to the assailed issuances of the NTC with the said
dismiss, the trial court issued on November 20, 2000 agency.
an Order, the dispositive portion of which reads: SO ORDERED.10
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the defendants' Petitioners' motions for reconsideration were denied in
motion to dismiss is hereby denied for lack of merit. a Resolution dated January 10, 2002 for lack of merit. 11
The plaintiffs' application for the issuance of a writ of Hence, the instant petition for review filed by Smart
preliminary injunction is hereby granted. Accordingly, and Piltel, which was docketed as G.R. No. 151908,
the defendants are hereby enjoined from implementing anchored on the following grounds:
NTC Memorandum Circular 13-6-2000 and the NTC A.
Memorandum, dated October 6, 2000, pending the THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY
issuance and finality of the decision in this case. The ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE NATIONAL
plaintiffs and intervenors are, however, required to file TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (NTC) AND
a bond in the sum of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND NOT THE REGULAR COURTS HAS JURISDICTION
PESOS (P500,000.00), Philippine currency. OVER THE CASE.
SO ORDERED.8 B.
Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration, which THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ALSO
was denied in an Order dated February 1, 2001. 9 GRAVELY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PRIVATE
Respondent NTC thus filed a special civil action for RESPONDENTS FAILED TO EXHAUST AN
certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals, AVAILABLE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY.
which was docketed as CA-G.R. SP. No. 64274. On C.
October 9, 2001, a decision was rendered, the decretal THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
portion of which reads: NOT HOLDING THAT THE BILLING CIRCULAR
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NTC IS
petition for certiorari and prohibition is GRANTED, in UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND CONTRARY TO LAW
that, the order of the court a quo denying the AND PUBLIC POLICY.
petitioner's motion to dismiss as well as the order of D.
the court a quo granting the private respondents' THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction, and the writ HOLDING THAT THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS
of preliminary injunction issued thereby, are hereby FAILED TO SHOW THEIR CLEAR POSITIVE RIGHT
TO WARRANT THE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF 5. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS SO
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION.12 GRAVELY ERRED IN ISSUING ITS QUESTIONED
Likewise, Globe and Islacom filed a petition for review, RULINGS IN THIS CASE BECAUSE GLOBE AND
docketed as G.R. No. 152063, assigning the following ISLA HAVE A CLEAR RIGHT TO AN INJUNCTION.13
errors: The two petitions were consolidated in a Resolution
1. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS SO dated February 17, 2003.14
GRAVELY ERRED BECAUSE THE DOCTRINES OF On March 24, 2003, the petitions were given due
PRIMARY JURISDICTION AND EXHAUSTION OF course and the parties were required to submit their
ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES DO NOT APPLY respective memoranda.15
SINCE THE INSTANT CASE IS FOR LEGAL We find merit in the petitions.
NULLIFICATION (BECAUSE OF LEGAL INFIRMITIES Administrative agencies possess quasi-legislative or
AND VIOLATIONS OF LAW) OF A PURELY rule-making powers and quasi-judicial or administrative
ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATION PROMULGATED adjudicatory powers. Quasi-legislative or rule-making
BY AN AGENCY IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS RULE power is the power to make rules and regulations
MAKING POWERS AND INVOLVES ONLY which results in delegated legislation that is within the
QUESTIONS OF LAW. confines of the granting statute and the doctrine of
2. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS SO non-delegability and separability of powers. 16
GRAVELY ERRED BECAUSE THE DOCTRINE ON The rules and regulations that administrative agencies
EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES promulgate, which are the product of a delegated
DOES NOT APPLY WHEN THE QUESTIONS legislative power to create new and additional legal
RAISED ARE PURELY LEGAL QUESTIONS. provisions that have the effect of law, should be within
3. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS SO the scope of the statutory authority granted by the
GRAVELY ERRED BECAUSE THE DOCTRINE OF legislature to the administrative agency. It is required
EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES that the regulation be germane to the objects and
DOES NOT APPLY WHERE THE ADMINISTRATIVE purposes of the law, and be not in contradiction to, but
ACTION IS COMPLETE AND EFFECTIVE, WHEN in conformity with, the standards prescribed by law. 17
THERE IS NO OTHER REMEDY, AND THE They must conform to and be consistent with the
PETITIONER STANDS TO SUFFER GRAVE AND provisions of the enabling statute in order for such rule
IRREPARABLE INJURY. or regulation to be valid. Constitutional and statutory
4. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS SO provisions control with respect to what rules and
GRAVELY ERRED BECAUSE PETITIONERS IN regulations may be promulgated by an administrative
FACT EXHAUSTED ALL ADMINISTRATIVE body, as well as with respect to what fields are subject
REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO THEM. to regulation by it. It may not make rules and
regulations which are inconsistent with the provisions Dessicators v. Philippine Coconut Authority,20 it was
of the Constitution or a statute, particularly the statute held:
it is administering or which created it, or which are in The rule of requiring exhaustion of administrative
derogation of, or defeat, the purpose of a statute. In remedies before a party may seek judicial review, so
case of conflict between a statute and an strenuously urged by the Solicitor General on behalf of
administrative order, the former must prevail.18 respondent, has obviously no application here. The
Not to be confused with the quasi-legislative or rule- resolution in question was issued by the PCA in the
making power of an administrative agency is its quasi- exercise of its rule- making or legislative power.
judicial or administrative adjudicatory power. This is the However, only judicial review of decisions of
power to hear and determine questions of fact to which administrative agencies made in the exercise of their
the legislative policy is to apply and to decide in quasi-judicial function is subject to the exhaustion
accordance with the standards laid down by the law doctrine.
itself in enforcing and administering the same law. The Even assuming arguendo that the principle of
administrative body exercises its quasi-judicial power exhaustion of administrative remedies apply in this
when it performs in a judicial manner an act which is case, the records reveal that petitioners sufficiently
essentially of an executive or administrative nature, complied with this requirement. Even during the
where the power to act in such manner is incidental to drafting and deliberation stages leading to the
or reasonably necessary for the performance of the issuance of Memorandum Circular No. 13-6-2000,
executive or administrative duty entrusted to it. In petitioners were able to register their protests to the
carrying out their quasi-judicial functions, the proposed billing guidelines. They submitted their
administrative officers or bodies are required to respective position papers setting forth their objections
investigate facts or ascertain the existence of facts, and submitting proposed schemes for the billing
hold hearings, weigh evidence, and draw conclusions circular.21 After the same was issued, petitioners wrote
from them as basis for their official action and exercise successive letters dated July 3, 2000 22 and July 5,
of discretion in a judicial nature.19 2000,23 asking for the suspension and reconsideration
In questioning the validity or constitutionality of a rule of the so-called Billing Circular. These letters were not
or regulation issued by an administrative agency, a acted upon until October 6, 2000, when respondent
party need not exhaust administrative remedies before NTC issued the second assailed Memorandum
going to court. This principle applies only where the act implementing certain provisions of the Billing Circular.
of the administrative agency concerned was performed This was taken by petitioners as a clear denial of the
pursuant to its quasi-judicial function, and not when the requests contained in their previous letters, thus
assailed act pertained to its rule-making or quasi- prompting them to seek judicial relief.
legislative power. In Association of Philippine Coconut In like manner, the doctrine of primary jurisdiction
applies only where the administrative agency exercises a specific rule or set of rules issued by an
its quasi-judicial or adjudicatory function. Thus, in administrative agency contravenes the law or the
cases involving specialized disputes, the practice has constitution is within the jurisdiction of the regular
been to refer the same to an administrative agency of courts. Indeed, the Constitution vests the power of
special competence pursuant to the doctrine of primary judicial review or the power to declare a law, treaty,
jurisdiction. The courts will not determine a controversy international or executive agreement, presidential
involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of decree, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation in
the administrative tribunal prior to the resolution of that the courts, including the regional trial courts. 25 This is
question by the administrative tribunal, where the within the scope of judicial power, which includes the
question demands the exercise of sound administrative authority of the courts to determine in an appropriate
discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience action the validity of the acts of the political
and services of the administrative tribunal to determine departments.26 Judicial power includes the duty of the
technical and intricate matters of fact, and a uniformity courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving
of ruling is essential to comply with the premises of the rights which are legally demandable and enforceable,
regulatory statute administered. The objective of the and to determine whether or not there has been a
doctrine of primary jurisdiction is to guide a court in grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
determining whether it should refrain from exercising of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
its jurisdiction until after an administrative agency has instrumentality of the Government.27
determined some question or some aspect of some In the case at bar, the issuance by the NTC of
question arising in the proceeding before the court. It Memorandum Circular No. 13-6-2000 and its
applies where the claim is originally cognizable in the Memorandum dated October 6, 2000 was pursuant to
courts and comes into play whenever enforcement of its quasi-legislative or rule-making power. As such,
the claim requires the resolution of issues which, under petitioners were justified in invoking the judicial power
a regulatory scheme, has been placed within the of the Regional Trial Court to assail the constitutionality
special competence of an administrative body; in such and validity of the said issuances. In Drilon v. Lim,28 it
case, the judicial process is suspended pending was held:
referral of such issues to the administrative body for its We stress at the outset that the lower court had
view.24 jurisdiction to consider the constitutionality of Section
However, where what is assailed is the validity or 187, this authority being embraced in the general
constitutionality of a rule or regulation issued by the definition of the judicial power to determine what are
administrative agency in the performance of its quasi- the valid and binding laws by the criterion of their
legislative function, the regular courts have jurisdiction conformity to the fundamental law. Specifically, B.P.
to pass upon the same. The determination of whether 129 vests in the regional trial courts jurisdiction over all
civil cases in which the subject of the litigation is consolidated petitions are GRANTED. The decision of
incapable of pecuniary estimation, even as the the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 64274 dated
accused in a criminal action has the right to question in October 9, 2001 and its Resolution dated January 10,
his defense the constitutionality of a law he is charged 2002 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Order
with violating and of the proceedings taken against dated November 20, 2000 of the Regional Trial Court
him, particularly as they contravene the Bill of Rights. of Quezon City, Branch 77, in Civil Case No. Q-00-
Moreover, Article X, Section 5(2), of the Constitution 42221 is REINSTATED. This case is REMANDED to
vests in the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction over the court a quo for continuation of the proceedings.
final judgments and orders of lower courts in all cases SO ORDERED.
in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, Davide, Jr., C.J., Vitug, and Carpio, JJ., concur.
international or executive agreement, law, presidential Azcuna, J., took no part.
decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or
regulation is in question.29 Footnotes
In their complaint before the Regional Trial Court, 1
Rollo, G.R. No. 151908, pp. 225-228.
petitioners averred that the Circular contravened Civil 2
Rollo, G.R. No. 152063, p. 112.
Code provisions on sales and violated the 3
Rollo, G.R. No. 151908, p. 229.
constitutional prohibition against the deprivation of 4
Id., p. 230.
property without due process of law. These are within 5
Id., pp. 231-247.
the competence of the trial judge. Contrary to the 6
Id., pp. 248-270.
finding of the Court of Appeals, the issues raised in the 7
Id., pp. 271-273, at 273; penned by Judge Vivencio S.
complaint do not entail highly technical matters. Baclig.
Rather, what is required of the judge who will resolve 8
Id., pp. 274-277.
this issue is a basic familiarity with the workings of the 9
Id., p. 278.
cellular telephone service, including prepaid SIM and 10
Id., pp. 123-132, at 131-132; penned by Associate
call cards – and this is judicially known to be within the Justice Rodrigo V. Cosico, concurred in by Associate
knowledge of a good percentage of our population – Justices Ramon A. Barcelona and Alicia L. Santos.
and expertise in fundamental principles of civil law and 11
Id., pp. 134-136.
the Constitution. 12
Id., pp. 23-24.
Hence, the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction to hear 13
Rollo, G.R. No. 152063, pp. 14-15.
and decide Civil Case No. Q-00-42221. The Court of 14
Id., pp. 389-390.
Appeals erred in setting aside the orders of the trial 15
Id., pp. 391-392.
court and in dismissing the case. 16
Bellosillo, J., Separate Opinion, Commissioner of
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Internal Revenue v. Court of Appeals, 329 Phil. 987,
1017 [1996].
17
Romulo, Mabanta, Buenaventura, Sayoc and De Los
Angeles v. Home Development Mutual Fund, G.R. No.
131082, 19 June 2000, 333 SCRA 777, 785-786.
18
Conte, et al. v. Commission on Audit, 332 Phil. 20,
36 [1996].
19
Bellosillo, J., Separate Opinion, Commissioner of
Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 119761, 29 August 1996,
supra.
20
G.R. No. 110526, 10 February 1998, 286 SCRA 109,
117.
21
Rollo, G.R. No. 152063, pp. 57-78.
22
Id., pp. 79-86.
23
Id., pp. 87-89.
24
Fabia v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 132684, 11
September 2002.
25
Spouses Mirasol v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
128448, 1 February 2001, 351 SCRA 44, 51.
26
Santiago v. Guingona, Jr., G.R. No. 134577, 18
November 1998, 298 SCRA 756, 774.
27
CONSTITUTION, Art. VIII, Sec. 1, second
paragraph.
28
G.R. No. 112497, 4 August 1994, 235 SCRA 135.
29
Id., at 139-140.
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 110193 January 27, 1994
THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, REGION VII OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND
SPORTS (DECS), MARCELO BALCASO, NUEVAS
MONTES AND GENEROSO CAPUYAN, petitioners,
vs.
THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. JESUS L. We state at the outset that this particular case is also
TABILON, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of an offshoot of the same factual incidents that have
RTC Branch 42, Dumaguete City, and CONSEJO given rise to the consolidated cases of "Vidad, et al. vs.
CATACUTAN, ANECIA LABE, EVELYN RTC of Negros Oriental, et al.," etc., in G.R. Nos.
TAMPARONG, VIOLETA CELIS, ANAVILLA G. TIZO, 98084-98922 and 100300-03, already decided by this
ANATOLIO DELVO, JESSICA DELVO, EMILY Court on 18 October 1993.
ABERDE, AURELIO PARPAN, LUTHGARDA ABLIR, The facts may be recalled, thus:
BEMBO TANGERES, AIDA CATAN, ISABELITA The private respondents, together with other Negros
CALUNSAG, MARIPOSA MENDOLA, JOSEPHINE Oriental public school teachers, held, starting 19
BELLO, GEREMIA UMBAC, ARCELA September 1990 and lasting until 21 September 1990,
GORDONCILLO, NESTOR GONZALES, GAUDIOSA a mass action, or a strike from their school classes, to
MARTINEZ, ELEUTERIO MERCADO, GENOVEVA demand the release of their salaries by the Department
CORNELIA, DALISAY B. PINILI, BETSY FEROLINO, of Budget.
FRANCO MANANQUIL, RUBEN A. OMANA, JAMES A return-to-work order was promptly issued by one of
B. CARAMPATANA, NENITA B. PALARPALAR, the petitioners, Regional Director Teofilo Gomez of the
ILUMINADO KABRISTANTE, ERLINDA MOLETA, Department of Education, Culture and Sports
DINAH SARSAGA, PERLA HERNANDEZ, ROWENA ("DECS"), with a warning that if the "striking" school
VAILOCES, GREGORIA CADALLO, AGRIPINA teachers were not to resume their classes within
LIBRADO, ZENAIDA TULABING, AND ELVIRA twenty-four hours, administrative charges would be
LINGCONG, respondents. filed. Since the order was not heeded, administrative
The Solicitor General for petitioners. complaints against the teachers concerned were
Francisco D. Yap for private respondents. thereupon filed. The teachers were each given five
RESOLUTION days from receipt of said complaints within which to
submit their respective answers and supporting
VITUG, J.: documents. An investigation panel, composed of three
Ascribing grave abuse of discretion on the part of DECS lawyers (the other petitioners herein), namely,
respondent Court of Appeals, in its decision 1 of 06 May Marcelo Baclaso, Nieva Montes and Generoso
1993, the petitioners have come to this Court in a petition Capuyan, was constituted to look into the case.
for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus. The appealed Prior to the start of the hearings by the DECS
decision has turned down herein petitioners' petition for Investigating Team, the private respondents filed with
certiorari assailing the Order, 2 dated 24 June 1991, of the the Regional Trial Court of Negros Oriental, Branch 42,
court a quo that, in turn, denied petitioners' motion to Dumaguete City, a complaint for injunction, prohibition
dismiss the complaint in Civil Case No. 9884 of the and damages with prayer for preliminary injunction. On
Regional Trial Court of Negros Oriental.
26 March 1991, the court a quo issued the writ of ventilate their respective claims;
preliminary injunction. (2) Public officials are not necessarily immune from
The petitioners filed their answer, later followed by a damages in their personal capacities arising from acts
motion to dismiss. On 24 June 1991, the trial court done in bad faith, for if malice is indeed established,
denied the motion to dismiss and set the case for pre- public officials can no longer be said to have acted
trial hearing, holding that the complaint stated a cause within the scope of official authority so as to still find
of action and that the court had jurisdiction thereover. 3 protection under the mantle of immunity for official
The pre-trail, however, was pre-empted by the actions;
petitioners when they filed with this Court a petition for (3) The issuance, however, of the restraining orders by
certiorari, prohibition and mandamus on 25 July 1991 the lower court against further proceedings of the
and so docketed as G.R. No. 100781. 4 In a resolution, administrative complaints is inappropriate inasmuch as
dated 5 August 1991, the Court referred the petition to the the authority of the DECS Regional Director to issue
Court of Appeals. the return to work memorandum, to initiate the
On 6 May 1993, the Court of Appeals promulgated its administrative charges, as well as to constitute the
assailed investigating panel, can hardly be disputed; and
decision, 5 denying the petition. (4) The court cases and the administrative matters
In the instant appeal, the petitioners raise the same being closely interrelated, if not interlinked, it behooves
issues that have heretofore been resolved by us in the the court, in the interest of good order and conformably
now decided case of "Vidad, et al. vs. RTC of Negros with the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, to suspend its
Oriental, et al." and companion cases aforementioned. action on the cases before it pending the final outcome
There, we have ruled that it has indeed been of the administrative charges.
precipitate for the DECS officials to seek the dismissal Accordingly, we here reiterate that the court a quo did
of the complaints filed in court by the school teachers not err in denying petitioners' motion to dismiss the
even as no restraining order could lawfully issue complaint in Civil Case No. 9884 although it did not
against the continuation of the administrative commit error in issuing its restraining further
investigations. This Court has rationalized, thus — proceedings on the administrative investigation being
(1) There being no dispute that the root of the cases conducted by DECS.
filed before the court a quo deals on the performance WHEREFORE, the decision of 6 May 1993 of the
of official functions by the DECS officials, there cannot Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED insofar as it, in effect,
be a full determination on whether the actions taken by denied the dismissal of the complaint in Civil Case No.
them have been proper or improper, or whether they 9884. The writ of preliminary injunction issued by the
have acted in good faith or bad faith, pending a full Regional Trial Court of Negros Oriental, Branch 42,
hearing that would give all the parties a chance to however, is hereby ordered DISSOLVED and its is
DIRECTED to suspend further hearings in said Civil
Case No. 9884, until after a final determination on the
administrative proceedings would have been made. No
costs.
SO ORDERED.
Feliciano, Bidin, Romero and Melo, JJ., concur.
#Footnotes
1 Penned by Justice Justo Torres, Jr., concurred in by
Justices Reynato Puno and Pacita Cañizares-Nye.
2 Per Judge Jesus Tabilon.
3 Rollo, pp. 41-45.
4 Rollo, pp. 55-73.
5 Rollo, pp. 36-40.
NEWSOUNDS BROADCASTING NETWORK, INC., of a republican and democratic state, together with its
3
minutes that candidates may use for television and however, respondent COMELEC promulgated
radio advertisements, as provided in Section 6 of Resolution No. 9615 dated January 15, 2013,
Republic Act No. 9006 (R.A. No. 9006), otherwise changing the interpretation of said candidates' and
known as the Fair Election Act. Pertinent portions of political parties' airtime limitation for political
said provision state, thus: campaigns or advertisements from a "per station"
Sec. 6. Equal Access to Media Time and Space. - All basis, to a "total aggregate" basis.
registered parties and bona fide candidates shall have Petitioners ABS-CBN Corporation (ABS-CBN), ABC
equal access to media time and space. The following Development Corporation (ABC), GMA Network,
guidelines may be amplified on by the COMELEC: Incorporated ( GMA), Manila Broadcasting Company,
xxxx Inc. (MBC), Newsounds Broadcasting Network, Inc.
6.2 (a) Each bona fide candidate or registered political (NBN), and Radio Mindanao Network, Inc. (RMN) are
party for a nationally elective office shall be entitled to owners/operators of radio and television networks in
not more than one hundred twenty (120) minutes of the Philippines, while petitioner Kapisanan ng mga
television advertisement and one hundred eighty (180) Brodkaster ng Pilipinas (KBP) is the national
minutes of radio advertisement whether by purchase or organization of broadcasting companies in the
donation. Philippines representing operators of radio and
b. Each bona fide candidate or registered political party television stations and said stations themselves. They
for a locally elective office shall be entitled to not more sent their respective letters to the COMELEC
than sixty ( 60) minutes of television advertisement and questioning the provisions of the aforementioned
Resolution, thus, the COMELEC held public hearings. the interpretation of candidates' and political parties'
Thereafter, on February 1, 2013, respondent issued airtime limitation for political campaigns or
Resolution No. 9631 amending provisions of advertisements from a "per station" basis, to a "total
Resolution No. 9615. Nevertheless, petitioners still aggregate" basis. Petitioners allege that Resolutions
found the provisions objectionable and oppressive, No. 9615 and 9631, amending the earlier Resolution,
hence, the present petitions. are unconstitutional and issued without jurisdiction or
All of the petitioners assail the following provisions of with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
the Resolution: excess of jurisdiction, for the reasons set forth
a) Section 7 (d), which provides for a penalty of
8
hereunder.
suspension or revocation of an offender's franchise or Petitioners posit that Section 9 (a) of the assailed
permit, imposes criminal liability against broadcasting Resolution provides for a very restrictive aggregate
entities and their officers in the event they sell airtime airtime limit and a vague meaning for a proper
in excess of the size, duration, or frequency authorized computation of "aggregate total" airtime, and violates
in the new rules; the equal protection guarantee, thereby defeating the
b) Section 9 (a), which provides for an "aggregate
9
intent and purpose of R.A. No. 9006.
total" airtime instead of the previous "per station" Petitioners contend that Section 9 (a), which imposes a
airtime for political campaigns or dvertisements, and notice requirement, is vague and infringes on the
also required prior COMELEC approval for candidates' constitutionally protected freedom of speech, of the
television and radio guestings and appearances; and press and of expression, and on the right of people to
c) Section 14, which provides for a candidate's "right
10
be informed on matters of public concern
to reply." Also, Section 9 (a) is a cruel and oppressive regulation
In addition, petitioner ABC also questions Section 1 (4) as it imposes an unreasonable and almost impossible
11
thereof, which defines the term "political burden on broadcast mass media of monitoring a
advertisement" or "election propaganda," while candidate's or political party's aggregate airtime,
petitioner GMA further assails Section 35, which
12
otherwise, it may incur administrative and criminal
states that any violation of said Rules shall constitute liability.
an election offense. Further, petitioners claim that Section 7 (d) is null and
On March 15, 2013, Senator Alan Peter S. Cayetano void for unlawfully criminalizing acts not prohibited and
(Petitioner-Intervenor) filed a Motion for Leave to penalized as criminal offenses by R.A. No. 9006.
Intervene and to File and Admit the Petition-in- Section 14 of Resolution No. 9615, providing for a
Intervention, which was granted by the Court per its candidate's or political party's "right to reply," is
Resolution dated March 19, 2013. Petitioner-Intervenor likewise assailed to be unconstitutional for being an
also assails Section 9 (a) of the Resolution changing improper exercise of the COMELEC's regulatory
powers; for constituting prior restraint and infringing alleged infirmities of the Resolution's provisions.
petitioners' freedom of expression, speech and the Respondent maintains that the per candidate rule or
press; and for being violative of the equal protection total aggregate airtime limit is in accordance with R.A.
guarantee. In addition to the foregoing, petitioner GMA No. 9006 as this would truly give life to the
further argues that the Resolution was promulgated constitutional objective to equalize access to media
without public consultations, in violation of petitioners' during elections. It sees this as a more effective way of
right to due process. Petitioner ABC also avers that the levelling the playing field between candidates/political
Resolution's definition of the terms "political parties with enormous resources and those without
advertisement" and "election propaganda" suffers from much. Moreover, the COMELEC's issuance of the
overbreadth, thereby producing a "chilling effect," assailed Resolution is pursuant to Section 4, Article IX
constituting prior restraint. (C) of the Constitution which vests on the COMELEC
On the other hand, respondent posits in its Comment the power to supervise and regulate, during election
and Opposition dated March 8, 2013, that the petition
13
periods, transportation and other public utilities, as well
should be denied based on the following reasons: as mass media, to wit:
Respondent contends that the remedies of certiorari Sec. 4. The Commission may, during the election
and prohibition are not available to petitioners, period, supervise or regulate the enjoyment or
because the writ of certiorari is only available against utilization of all franchises or permits for the operation
the COMELEC's adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers, of transportation and other public utilities, media of
while the writ of prohibition only lies against the communication or information, all grants, special
exercise of judicial, quasijudicial or ministerial privileges, or concessions granted by the Government
functions. Said writs do not lie against the COMELEC's or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof,
administrative or rule-making powers. including any government-owned or controlled
Respondent likewise alleges that petitioners do not corporation or its subsidiary. Such supervision or
have locus standi, as the constitutional rights and regulation shall aim to ensure equal opportunity, and
freedoms they enumerate are not personal to them, equal rates therefor, for public information campaigns
rather, they belong to candidates, political parties and and forums among candidates in connection with the
the Filipino electorate in general, as the limitations are objective of holding free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and
imposed on candidates, not on media outlets. It argues credible elections.
that petitioners' alleged risk of exposure to criminal This being the case, then the Resolutions cannot be
liability is insufficient to give them legal standing as said to have been issued with grave abuse of
said "fear of injury" is highly speculative and contingent discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
on a future act. Next, respondent claims that the provisions are not
Respondent then parries petitioners' attack on the vague because the assailed Resolutions have given
clear and adequate mechanisms to protect broadcast also does not consider it as restrictive of the airing of
stations from potential liability arising from a bona fide news broadcasts. More importantly, it
candidate's or party's violation of airtime limits by stressed, the right to reply is enshrined in the
putting in the proviso that the station "may require Constitution, and the assailed Resolutions provide that
buyer to warrant under oath that such purchase [of said right can only be had after going through
airtime] is not in excess of size, duration or frequency administrative due process. The provision was also
authorized by law or these rules." Furthermore, words merely lifted from Section 10 of R.A. No. 9006, hence,
should be understood in the sense that they have in petitioner ABC is actually attacking the constitutionality
common usage, and should be given their ordinary of R.A. No. 9006, which cannot be done through a
meaning. Thus, in the provision for the right to reply, collateral attack.
"charges" against candidates or parties must be Next, respondent counters that there is no merit to
understood in the ordinary sense, referring to ABC's claim that the Resolutions' definition of "political
accusations or criticisms. advertisement" or "election propaganda" suffers from
Respondent also sees no prior restraint in the overbreadth, as the extent or scope of what falls under
provisions requiring notice to the COMELEC for said terms is clearly stated in Section 1 (4) of
appearances or guestings of candidates in bona fide Resolution No. 9615.
news broadcasts. It points out that the fact that notice It is also respondent's view that the nationwide
may be given 24 hours after first broadcast only proves aggregate total airtime does not violate the equal
that the mechanism is for monitoring purposes only, protection clause, because it does not make any
not for censorship. Further, respondent argues, that for substantial distinctions between national and regional
there to be prior restraint, official governmental and/or local broadcast stations, and even without the
restrictions on the press or other forms of expression aggregate total airtime rule, candidates and parties are
must be done in advance of actual publication or likely to be more inclined to advertise in national
dissemination. Moreover, petitioners are only required broadcast stations. Respondent likewise sees no merit
to inform the COMELEC of candidates'/parties' in petitioners' claim that the Resolutions amount to
guestings, but there is no regulation as to the content taking of private property without just compensation.
of the news or the expressions in news interviews or Respondent emphasizes that radio and television
news documentaries. Respondent then emphasized broadcasting companies do not own the airwaves and
that the Supreme Court has held that freedom of frequencies through which they transmit broadcast
speech and the press may be limited in light of the duty signals; they are merely given the temporary privilege
of the COMELEC to ensure equal access to to use the same. Since they are merely enjoying a
opportunities for public service. privilege, the same may be reasonably burdened with
With regard to the right to reply provision, respondent some form of public service, in this case, to provide
candidates with the opportunity to reply to charges Rule 37 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure which
aired against them. provides:
Lastly, respondent contends that the public Section 1. Petition for Certiorari,· and Time to File. -
consultation requirement does not apply to Unless otherwise provided by law, or by any specific
constitutional commissions such as the COMELEC, provisions in these Rules, any decision, order or ruling
pursuant to Section 1, Chapter I, Book VII of the of the Commission may be brought to the Supreme
Administrative Code of 1987. Indeed, Section 9, Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty
Chapter II, Book VII of said Code provides, thus: (30) days from its promulgation.
Section 9. Public Participation. - (1) If not otherwise GMA further stressed that this case involves national
required by law, an agency shall, as far as practicable, interest, and the urgency of the matter justifies its
publish or circulate notices of proposed rules and resort to the remedy of a petition for certiorari.
afford interested parties the opportunity to submit their Therefore, GMA disagrees with the COMELEC's
views prior to the adoption of any rule. position that the proper remedy is a petition for
However, Section 1, Chapter 1, Book VII of said Code declaratory relief because such action only asks the
clearly provides: court to make a proper interpretation of the rights of
Section 1. Scope. -This Book shall be applicable to all parties under a statute or regulation. Such a petition
agencies as defined in the next succeeding section, does not nullify the assailed statute or regulation, or
except the Congress, the Judiciary, the Constitutional grant injunctive relief, which petitioners are praying for
Commissions, military establishments in all matters in their petition. Thus, GMA maintains that a petition for
relating exclusively to Armed Forces personnel, the certiorari is the proper remedy.
Board of Pardons and Parole, and state universities GMA further denies that it is making a collateral attack
and colleges. on the Fair Election Act, as it is not attacking said law.
Nevertheless, even if public participation is not GMA points out that it has stated in its petition that the
required, respondent still conducted a meeting with law in fact allows the sale or donation of airtime for
representatives of the KBP and various media outfits political advertisements and does not impose criminal
on December 26, 2012, almost a month before the liability against radio and television stations. What it is
issuance of Resolution No. 9615. assailing is the COMELEC's erroneous interpretation
On April 2, 2013, petitioner GMA filed its Reply, where
14
of the law's provisions by declaring such sale and/or
it advanced the following counter-arguments: donation of airtime unlawful, which is contrary to the
According to GMA, a petition for certiorari is the proper purpose of the Fair Election Act.
remedy to question the herein assailed Resolutions, GMA then claims that it has legal standing to bring the
which should be considered as a "decision, order or present suit because:
ruling of the Commission" as mentioned in Section 1, x x x First, it has personally suffered a threatened
injury in the form of risk of criminal liability because of It is likewise insisted by GMA that the assailed
the alleged unconstitutional and unlawful conduct of Resolutions impose an unconstitutional burden on
respondent COMELEC in expanding what was them, because their failure to strictly monitor the
provided for in R.A. No. 9006. Second, the injury is duration of total airtime that each candidate has
traceable to the challenged action of respondent purchased even from other stations would expose their
COMELEC, that is, the issuance of the assailed officials to criminal liability and risk losing the station's
Resolutions. Third, the injury is likely to be redressed good reputation and goodwill, as well as its franchise.
by the remedy sought in petitioner GMA's Petition, It argues that the wordings of the Resolutions belie the
among others, for the Honorable Court to nullify the COMELEC's claim that petitioners would only incur
challenged pertinent provisions of the assailed liability if they "knowingly" sell airtime beyond the limits
Resolutions. 15
imposed by the Resolutions, because the element of
On substantive issues, GMA first argues that the knowledge is clearly absent from the provisions
questioned Resolutions are contrary to the objective thereof. This makes the provisions have the nature of
and purpose of the Fair Election Act. It points out that malum prohibitum.
the Fair Election Act even repealed the political ad ban Next, GMA also says that the application of the
found in the earlier law, R.A. No. 6646. The Fair aggregate airtime limit constitutes prior restraint and is
Election Act also speaks of "equal opportunity" and unconstitutional, opining that "[t]he reviewing power of
"equal access,'' but said law never mentioned respondent COMELEC and its sole judgment of a
equalizing the economic station of the rich and the news event as a political advertisement are so
poor, as a declared policy. Furthermore, in its opinion, pervasive under the assailed Resolutions, and provoke
the supposed correlation between candidates' the distastes or chilling effect of prior restraint" as
16
expenditures for TV ads and actually winning the even a legitimate exercise of a constitutional right
elections, is a mere illusion, as there are other various might expose it to legal sanction. Thus, the
factors responsible for a candidate's winning the governmental interest of leveling the playing field
election. GMA then cites portions of the deliberations between rich and poor candidates cannot justify the
of the Bicameral Conference Committee on the bills restriction on the freedoms of expression, speech and
that led to the enactment of the Fair Election Act, and of the press.
alleges that this shows the legislative intent that airtime On the issue of lack of prior public participation, GMA
allocation should be on a "per station" basis. Thus, cites Section 82 of the Omnibus Election Code,
GMA claims it was arbitrary and a grave abuse of pertinent portions of which provide, thus:
discretion for the COMELEC to issue the present Section 82. Lawful election propaganda. - Lawful
Resolutions imposing airtime limitations on an election propaganda shall include:
"aggregate total" basis. xxxx
All other forms of election propaganda not prohibited basis, rather than on a per station basis. Furthermore,
by this Code as the Commission may authorize after the COMELEC states that petitioner intervenor Senator
due notice to all interested parties and hearing where Cayetano is wrong in arguing that there should be
all the interested parties were given an equal empirical data to support the need to change the
opportunity to be heard: Provided, That the computation of airtime limits from a per station basis to
Commission's authorization shall be published in two a per candidate basis, because nothing in law
newspapers of general circulation throughout the obligates the COMELEC to support its Resolutions
nation for at least twice within one week after the with empirical data, as said airtime limit was a policy
authorization has been granted. decision dictated by the legislature itself, which had the
There having been no prior public consultation held, necessary empirical and other data upon which to
GMA contends that the COMELEC is guilty of base said policy decision.
depriving petitioners of its right to due process of law. The COMELEC then points out that Section 2 (7), 18
GMA then concludes that it is also entitled to a Article IX (C) of the Constitution empowers it to
temporary restraining order, because the recommend to Congress effective measures to
implementation of the Resolutions in question will minimize election spending and in furtherance of such
cause grave and irreparable damage to it by disrupting constitutional power, the COMELEC issued the
and emasculating its mandate to provide television and questioned Resolutions, in faithful implementation of
radio services to the public, and by exposing it to the the legislative intent and objectives of the Fair Election
risk of incurring criminal and administrative liability by Act.
requiring it to perform the impossible task of The COMELEC also dismisses Senator Cayetano's
surveillance and monitoring, or the broadcasts of other fears that unauthorized or inadvertent inclusion of his
radio and television stations. name, initial, image, brand, logo, insignia and/or
Thereafter, on April 4, 2013, the COMELEC, through symbol in tandem advertisements will be charged
the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed a against his airtime limits by pointing out that what will
Supplemental Comment and Opposition where it
17
be counted against a candidate's airtime and
further expounded on the legislative intent behind the expenditures are those advertisements that have been
Fair Election Act, also quoting portions of the paid for or donated to them to which the candidate has
deliberations of the Bicameral Conference Committee, given consent.
allegedly adopting the Senate Bill version setting the With regard to the attack that the total aggregate
computation of airtime limits on a per candidate, not airtime limit constitutes prior restraint or undue
per station, basis. Thus, as enacted into law, the abridgement of the freedom of speech and expression,
wordings of Section 6 of the Fair Election Act shows the COMELEC counters that "the Resolutions enjoy
that the airtime limit is imposed on a per candidate constitutional and congressional imprimatur. It is the
Constitution itself that imposes the restriction on the Resolutions and that petitioners ABS-CBN and KBP
freedoms of speech and expression, during election have no locus standi to file the present petition.
period, to promote an important and significant Respondent posits that contrary to the contention of
governmental interest, which is to equalize, as far as petitioners, the legislative history of R.A. No. 9006
practicable, the situation of rich and poor candidates conclusively shows that congress intended the airtime
by preventing the former from enjoying the undue limits to be computed on a "per candidate" and not on
advantage offered by huge campaign 'war chests."' 19
a "per station" basis. In addition, the legal duty of
Lastly, the COMELEC also emphasizes that there is no monitoring lies with the COMELEC. Broadcast stations
impairment of the people's right to information on are merely required to submit certain documents to aid
matters of public concern, because in this case, the the COMELEC in ensuring that candidates are not sold
COMELEC is not withholding access to any public airtime in excess of the allowed limits.
record. Also, as discussed in the earlier Comment, the prior
On April 16, 2013, this Court issued a Temporary notice requirement is a mechanism designed to inform
Restraining Order (TRO) in view of the urgency
20
the COMELEC of the appearances or guesting of
involved and to prevent irreparable injury that may be candidates in bona fide news broadcasts. It is for
caused to the petitioners if respondent COMELEC is monitoring purposes only, not censorship. It does not
not enjoined from implementing Resolution No. 9615. control the subject matter of news broadcasts in
On April 19, 2013 respondent filed an Urgent Motion to anyway. Neither does it prevent media outlets from
Lift Temporary Restraining Order and Motion for Early covering candidates in news interviews, news events,
Resolution of the Consolidated Petitions.21
and news documentaries, nor prevent the candidates
On May 8, 2013, petitioners ABS-CBN and the KBP from appearing thereon.
filed its Opposition/Comment to the said Motion. Not
22
As for the right to reply, respondent insists that the
long after, ABC followed suit and filed its own right to reply provision cannot be considered a prior
Opposition to the Motion filed by the respondent.
23
restraint on the freedoms of expression, speech and
In the interim, respondent filed a Second Supplemental the press, as it does not in any way restrict the airing of
Comment and Opposition dated April 8, 2013.
24
bona fide new broadcasts. Media entities are free to
In the Second Supplemental Comment and report any news event, even if it should turn out to be
Opposition, respondent delved on points which were unfavourable to a candidate or party. The assailed
not previously discussed in its earlier Comment and Resolutions merely give the candidate or party the
Supplemental Comment, particularly those raised in right to reply to such charges published or aired
the petition filed by petitioner ABS-CBN and KBP. against them in news broadcasts.
Respondent maintains that certiorari in not the proper Moreover, respondent contends that the imposition of
remedy to question the Constitutionality of the assailed the penalty of suspension and revocation of franchise
or permit for the sale or donation of airtime beyond the transcendental importance are presented before the
allowable limits is sanctioned by the Omnibus Election Court. So the Court does again in this particular case.
Code. Proper Remedy
Meanwhile, RMN filed its Petition on April 8, 2013. On Respondent claims that certiorari and prohibition are
June 4, 2013, the Court issued a Resolution 25
not the proper remedies that petitioners have taken to
consolidating the case with the rest of the petitions and question the assailed Resolutions of the COMELEC.
requiring respondent to comment thereon. Technically, respondent may have a point. However,
On October 10, 2013, respondent filed its Third considering the very important and pivotal issues
Supplemental Comment and Opposition. Therein,
26
raised, and the limited time, such technicality should
respondent stated that the petition filed by RMN not deter the Court from having to make the final and
repeats the issues that were raised in the previous definitive pronouncement that everyone else depends
petitions. Respondent, likewise, reiterated its for enlightenment and guidance. "[T]his Court has in
arguments that certiorari in not the proper remedy to the past seen fit to step in and resolve petitions despite
question the assailed resolutions and that RMN has no their being the subject of an improper remedy, in view
locus standi to file the present petition. Respondent of the public importance of the tile issues raised
maintains that the arguments raised by RMN, like therein.
27
those raised by the other petitioners are without merit It has been in the past, we do so again.
and that RMN is not entitled to the injunctive relief Locus Standi
sought. Every time a constitutional issue is brought before the
The petition is partly meritorious. Court, the issue of locus standi is raised to question
At the outset, although the subject of the present the personality of the parties invoking the Court's
petit10ns are Resolutions promulgated by the jurisdiction. The Court has routinely made reference to
COMELEC relative to the conduct of the 2013 national a liberalized stance when it comes to petitions raising
and local elections, nevertheless the issues raised by issues of transcendental importance to the country.
the petitioners have not been rendered moot and Invariably, after some discussions, the Court would
academic by the conclusion of the 2013 elections. eventually grant standing. 28
Considering that the matters elevated to the Court for In this particular case, respondent also questions the
resolution are susceptible to repetition in the conduct standing of the petitioners. We rule for the petitioners.
of future electoral exercises, these issues will be For petitioner-intervenor Senator Cayetano, he
resolved in the present action. undoubtedly has standing since he is a candidate
PROCEDURAL ASPECTS whose ability to reach out to the electorate is impacted
Matters of procedure and technicalities normally take a by the assailed Resolutions.
backseat when issues of substantial and For the broadcast companies, they similarly have the
standing in view of the direct injury they may suffer doctrine incorporates concepts which concededly are
relative to their ability to carry out their tasks of not susceptible of precise definition. In this jurisdiction,
disseminating information because of the burdens the extancy of "a direct and personal interest" presents
imposed on them. Nevertheless, even in regard to the the most obvious cause, as well as the standard test
broadcast companies invoking the injury that may be for a petitioner's standing. In a similar vein, the United
caused to their customers or the public - those who States Supreme Court reviewed and elaborated on the
buy advertisements and the people who rely on their meaning of the three constitutional standing
broadcasts - what the Court said in White Light requirements of injury, causation, and redressability in
Corporation v. City of Manila may dispose of the
29
Allen v. Wright.
question. In that case, there was an issue as to Nonetheless, the general rules on standing admit of
whether owners of establishments offering "wash-up" several exceptions such as the overbreadth doctrine,
rates may have the requisite standing on behalf of their taxpayer suits, third party standing and, especially in
patrons' equal protection claims relative to an the Philippines, the doctrine of transcendental
ordinance of the City of Manila which prohibited "short- importance.
time" or "wash-up" accommodation in motels and For this particular set of facts, the concept of third party
similar establishments. The Court essentially standing as an exception and the overbreadth doctrine
condensed the issue in this manner: "[T]he crux of the are appropriate. x x x
matter is whether or not these establishments have the xxxx
requisite standing to plead for protection of their American jurisprudence is replete with examples where
patrons' equal protection rights." The Court then went
30
parties-ininterest were allowed standing to advocate or
on to hold: invoke the fundamental due process or equal
Standing or locus standi is the ability of a party to protection claims of other persons or classes of
demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and persons injured by state action. x x x
harm from the law or action challenged to support that xxxx
party's participation in the case. More importantly, the Assuming arguendo that petitioners do not have a
doctrine of standing is built on the principle of relationship with their patrons for the former to assert
separation of powers, sparing as it does unnecessary the rights of the latter, the overbreadth doctrine comes
interference or invalidation by the judicial branch of the into play. In overbreadth analysis, challengers to
actions rendered by its co-equal branches of government action are in effect permitted to raise the
government. rights of third parties. Generally applied to statutes
The requirement of standing is a core component of infringing on the freedom of speech, the overbreadth
the judicial system derived directly from the doctrine applies when a statute needlessly restrains
Constitution. The constitutional component of standing even constitutionally guaranteed rights. In this case,
the petitioners claim that the Ordinance makes a The authority of the COMELEC to impose airtime limits
sweeping intrusion into the right to liberty of their directly flows from the Fair Election Act (R.A. No. 9006
clients. We can see that based on the allegations in [2001]) - one hundred (120) minutes of television
32
the petition, the Ordinance suffers from overbreadth. advertisement and one-hundred· eighty (180) minutes
We thus recognize that the petitioners have a right to for radio advertisement. For the 2004 elections, the
assert the constitutional rights of their clients to respondent COMELEC promulgated Resolution No.
patronize their establishments for a "wash-rate" time 6520 implementing the airtime limits by applying said
33
frame.31
limitation on a per station basis. Such manner of
34
If in regard to commercial undertakings, the owners determining airtime limits was likewise adopted for the
may have the right to assert a constitutional right of 2007 elections, through Resolution No. 7767. In the 35
their clients, with more reason should establishments 2010 elections, under Resolution No. 8758, the same
36
which publish and broadcast have the standing to was again adopted. But for the 2013 elections, the
assert the constitutional freedom of speech of COMELEC, through Resolution No. 9615, as amended
candidates and of the right to information of the public, by Resolution No. 9631, chose to aggregate the total
not to speak of their own freedom of the press. So, we broadcast time among the different broadcast media,
uphold the standing of petitioners on that basis. thus: Section 9. Requirements and/or Limitations on
SUBSTANTIVE ASPECTS the Use of Election Propaganda through Mass Media. -
Aggregate Time Limits All parties and bona fide candidates shall have equal
COMELEC Resolution No. 9615 introduced a radical access to media time and space for their election
departure from the previous COMELEC resolutions propaganda during the campaign period subject to the
relative to the airtime limitations on political following requirements and/or limitations:
advertisements. This essentially consists in computing a. Broadcast Election Propaganda
the airtime on an aggregate basis involving all the The duration of an air time that a candidate, or party
media of broadcast communications compared to the may use for their broadcast advertisements or election
past where it was done on a per station basis. Thus, it propaganda shall be, as follows:
becomes immediately obvious that there was effected For Not more than an aggregate total of o
a drastic reduction of the allowable minutes within Candidates/Registere (120) minutes of television advertising
which candidates and political parties would be able to d Political parties for a appearing on national, regional, or loc
campaign through the air. The question is accordingly National Elective television, and one hundred eighty (1
whether this is within the power of the COMELEC to do Position radio advertising, whether airing on n
or not. The Court holds that it is not within the power of or local radio, whether by purchase o
the COMELEC to do so.
a. Past elections and airtime limits For Not more than an aggregate total of s
Candidates/Registere of television advertising, whether appearing particularizing
on the empirical data upon which such a
sweeping
d Political parties for a national, regional, or local, free or cable statement
television, and was based. This was evident in
Local Elective Position ninety (90) minutes of radio advertising, the whether
public hearing
airing held on 31 January 2013 where
petitioner
on national, regional, or local radio, whether byGMA, thru counsel, explained that no
purchase or donation. empirical data on he excesses or abuses of broadcast
media were brought to the attention of the public by
In cases where two or more candidates or parties respondent Comelec, or even stated in the Comelec
whose names, initials, images, brands, logos, Resolution No. 9615. Thus –
insignias, color motifs, symbols, or forms of graphical xxxx
representations are displayed, exhibited, used, or Chairman Brillantes
mentioned together in the broadcast election So if we can regulate and amplify, we may amplify
propaganda or advertisements, the length of time meaning we can expand if we want to. But the
during which they appear or are being mentioned or authority of the Commission is if we do not want to
promoted will be counted against the airtime limits amplify and we think that the 120 or 180 is okay we
allotted for the said candidates or parties and the cost cannot be compelled to amplify. We think that 120 or
of the said advertisement will likewise be considered 180 is okay, is enough.
as their expenditures, regardless of whoever paid for Atty. Lucila
the advertisements or to whom the said But with due respect Your Honor, I think the basis of
advertisements were donated. the resolution is found in the law and the law has been
xxxx 37
enterpreted (sic) before in 2010 to be 120 per station,
Corollarily, petitioner-intervenor, Senator Cayetano, so why the change, your Honor?
alleges: Chairman Brillantes
6.15. The change in the implementation of Section 6 of No, the change is not there, the right to amplify is with
R.A. 9006 was undertaken by respondent Comelec the Commission on Elections. Nobody can encroach in
without consultation with the candidates for the 2013 our right to amplify. Now, if in 2010 the Commission
elections, affected parties such as media felt that per station or per network is the rule then that
organizations, as well as the general public. Worse, is the prerogative of the Commission then they could
said change was put into effect without explaining the amplify it to expand it. If the current Commission feels
basis therefor and without showing any data in support that 120 is enough for the particular medium like TV
of such change. Respondent Comelec merely and 180 for radio, that is our prerogative. How can you
maintained that such action "is meant to level the encroach and what is unconstitutional about it?
playing field between the moneyed candidates and Atty. Lucila
those who don i have enough resources," without We are not questioning the authority of the Honorable
Commission to regulate Your Honor, we are just because you will be getting some affirmative action
raising our concern on the manner of regulation time coming from the media itself and Comelec time
because as it is right now, there is a changing mode or coming from the media itself. So we could like to be
sentiments of the Commission and the public has the both involved in the whole process of the exercise of
right to know, was there rampant overspending on the freedom of suffrage Your Honor.
political ads in 2010, we were not informed Your Chairman Brillantes
Honor. Was there abuse of the media in 2010, we Yes, but the very essence of the Constitutional
were not informed Your Honor. So we would like to provision as well as the provision of 9006 is actually to
know what is the basis of the sudden change in this level the playing field. That should be the paramount
limitation, Your Honor .. And law must have a consideration. If we allow everybody to make use of all
consistent interpretation that [is]our position, Your their time and all radio time and TV time then there will
Honor. be practically unlimited use of the mass media ....
Chairman Brillantes Atty. Lucila
But my initial interpretation, this is personal to this Was there in 2010 Your Honor, was there any data to
representation counsel, is that if the Constitution allows support that there was an unlimited and abuse of a
us to regulate and then it gives us the prerogative to (sic) political ads in the mass media that became the
amplify then the prerogative to amplify you should basis of this change in interpretation Your Honor? We
leave this to the discretion of the Commission. Which would like to know about it Your Honor.
means if previous Commissions felt that expanding it Chairman Brillantes
should be part of our authority that was a valid What do you think there was no abuse in 201 O?
exercise if we reduce it to what is provided for by law Atty. Lucila
which is 120-180 per medium, TV, radio, that is also As far as the network is concern, there was none Your
within the law and that is still within our prerogative as Honor.
provided for by the Constitution. If you say we have to Chairman Brillantes
expose the candidates to the public then I think the There was none ..... .
reaction should come, the negative reaction should Atty. Lucila
come from the candidates not from the media, unless I'm sorry, Your Honor ...
you have some interest to protect directly. Is there any Chairman Brillantes
interest on the part of the media to expand it? Yes, there was no abuse, okay, but there was some
Atty. Lucila advantage given to those who took ... who had the
Well, our interest Your Honor is to participate in this more moneyed candidates took advantage of it.
election Your Honor and we have been constantly (sic) Atty. Lucila
as the resolution says and even in the part involved But that is the fact in life, Your Honor there are poor
candidates, there are rich candidates. No amount of implementation of the airtime limits
law or regulation can even level the playing filed (sic) There is no question that the COMELEC is the office
as far as the economic station in life of the candidates constitutionally and statutorily authorized to enforce
are concern (sic) our Honor. 38
election laws but it cannot exercise its powers without
Given the foregoing observations about what limitations - or reasonable basis. It could not simply
happened during the hearing, Petitioner-Intervenor adopt measures or regulations just because it feels
went on to allege that: that it is the right thing to do, in so far as it might be
6.16. Without any empirical data upon which to base concerned. It does have discretion, but such discretion
the regulatory measures in Section 9 (a), respondent is something that must be exercised within the bounds
Comelec arbitrarily changed the rule from per station and intent of the law. The COMELEC is not free to
basis to aggregate airtime basis. Indeed, no credence simply change the rules especially if it has consistently
should be given to the cliched explanation of interpreted a legal provision in a particular manner in
respondent Comelec (i.e. leveling the playing field) in the past. If ever it has to change the rules, the same
its published statements which in itself is a mere must be properly explained with sufficient basis.
reiteration of the rationale for the enactment of the Based on the transcripts of the hearing conducted by
political ad ban of Republic Act No. 6646, and which the COMELEC after it had already promulgated the
has likewise been foisted when said political ad ban Resolution, the respondent did not fully explain or
was lifted by R.A. 9006.39
justify the change in computing the airtime allowed
From the foregoing, it does appear that the COMELEC candidates and political parties, except to make
did not have any other basis for coming up with a new reference to the need to "level the playing field." If the
manner of determining allowable time limits except its "per station" basis was deemed enough to comply with
own idea as to what should be the maximum number that objective in the past, why should it now be
of minutes based on its exercise of discretion as to suddenly inadequate? And, the short answer to that
how to level the playing field. The same could be from the respondent, in a manner which smacks of
encapsulized in the remark of the COMELEC overbearing exercise of discretion, is that it is within
Chairman that "if the Constitution allows us to regulate the discretion of the COMELEC. As quoted in the
and then it gives us the prerogative to amplify then the transcript, "the right to amplify is with the COMELEC.
prerogative to amplify you should leave this to the Nobody can encroach in our right to amplify. Now, if in
discretion of the Commission." 40
2010 the Commission felt that per station or per
The Court could not agree with what appears as a network is the rule then that is the prerogative of the
nonchalant exercise of discretion, as expounded anon. Commission then they could amplify it to expand it. If
b. COMELEC is duty bound to come up with the current Commission feels that 120 is enough for
reasonable basis for changing the interpretation and the particular medium like TV and 180 for radio, that is
our prerogative. How can you encroach and what is The law, which is the basis of the regulation subject of
unconstitutional about it?"
41
these petitions, pertinently provides:
There is something basically wrong with that manner of 6.2. (a) Each bona fide candidate or registered political
explaining changes in administrative rules. For one, it party for a nationally elective office shall be entitled to
does not really provide a good basis for change. For not more than one hundred twenty (120) minutes of
another, those affected by such rules must be given a television advertisement and one hundred eighty (180)
better explanation why the previous rules are no longer minutes of radio advertisement whether by purchase or
good enough. As the Court has said in one case: donation.
While stability in the law, particularly in the business (b) Each bona fide candidate or registered political
field, is desirable, there is no demand that the NTC party for a locally elective office shall be entitled to not
slavishly follow precedent. However, we think it more than sixty (60) minutes of television
essential, for the sake of clarity and intellectual advertisement and ninety (90) minutes of radio
honesty, that if an administrative agency decides advertisement whether by purchase or donation; x x x
inconsistently with previous action, that it explain The law, on its face, does not justify a conclusion that
thoroughly why a different result is warranted, or ?f the maximum allowable airtime should be based on the
need be, why the previous standards should no longer totality of possible broadcast in all television or radio
apply or should be overturned. Such explanation is stations. Senator Cayetano has called our attention to
warranted in order to sufficiently establish a decision the legislative intent relative to the airtime allowed -
as having rational basis. Any inconsistent decision that it should be on a "per station" basis.43
lacking thorough, ratiocination in support may be This is further buttressed by the fact that the Fair
struck down as being arbitrary. And any decision with Election Act (R.A. No. 9006) actually repealed the
absolutely nothing to support it is a nullity.
42
previous provision, Section ll(b) of Republic Act No.
What the COMELEC came up with does not measure 6646, which prohibited direct political advertisements
44
up to that level of requirement and accountability which -the so-called "political ad ban." If under the previous
elevates administrative rules to the level of law, no candidate was allowed to directly buy or
respectability and acceptability. Those governed by procure on his own his broadcast or print campaign
administrative regulations are entitled to a reasonable advertisements, and that he must get it through the
and rational basis for any changes in those rules by COMELEC Time or COMELEC Space, R.A. No. 9006
which they are supposed to live by, especially if there relieved him or her from that restriction and allowed
is a radical departure from the previous ones. him or her to broadcast time or print space subject to
c. The COMELEC went beyond the authority granted it the limitations set out in the law. Congress, in enacting
by the law in adopting "aggregate" basis in the R.A. No. 9006, felt that the previous law was not an
determination of allowable airtime effective and efficient way of giving voice to the people.
Noting the debilitating effects of the previous law on propaganda for or against any candidate by means of
the right of suffrage and Philippine democracy, cinematography, audio-visual units or other screen
Congress decided to repeal such rule by enacting the projections except telecasts which may be allowed as
Fair Election Act. hereinafter provided; and
In regard to the enactment of the new law, taken in the "(e) For any radio broadcasting or television station to
context of the restrictive nature of the previous law, the sell or give free of charge airtime for campaign and
sponsorship speech of Senator Raul Roco is other political purposes except as authorized in this
enlightening: Code under the rules and regulations promulgated by
The bill seeks to repeal Section 85 of the Omnibus the Commission pursuant thereto;
Election Code and Sections 10 and 11 of RA 6646. In "Any prohibited election propaganda gadget or
view of the importance of their appeal in connection advertisement shall be stopped, confiscated or tom
with the thrusts of the bill, I hereby quote these down by the representative of the Commission upon
sections in full: specific authority of the Commission." "SEC. 10.
"SEC. 85. Prohibited forms of election propaganda. - It Common Poster Areas. - The Commission shall
shall be unlawful: designate common poster areas in strategic public
"(a) To print, publish, post or distribute any poster, places such as markets, barangay centers and the like
pamphlet, circular, handbill, or printed matter urging wherein candidates can post, display or exhibit election
voters to vote for or against any candidate unless they propaganda to announce or further their candidacy.
hear the names and addresses of the printed and "Whenever feasible, common billboards may be
payor as required in Section 84 hereof; installed by the Commission and/or non-partisan
"(b) To erect, put up, make use of, attach, float or private or civic organizations which the Commission
display any billboard, tinplate-poster, balloons and the may authorize whenever available, after due notice
like, of whatever size, shape, form or kind, advertising and hearing, in strategic areas where it may readily be
for or against any candidate or political party; seen or read, with the heaviest pedestrian and/or
"(c) To purchase, manufacture, request, distribute or vehicular traffic in the city or municipality.
accept electoral propaganda gadgets, such as pens, The space in such common poster areas or billboards
lighters, fans of whatever nature, flashlights, athletic shall be allocated free of charge, if feasible, equitably
goods or materials, wallets, shirts, hats, bandannas, and impartially among the candidates in the province,
matches, cigarettes and the like, except that campaign city or municipality. "SEC. 11. Prohibite,d Forms of
supporters accompanying a candidate shall be allowed Election Propaganda. - In addition to the forms of
to wear hats and/or shirts or T-shirts advertising a election propaganda prohibited under Section 85 of
candidate; Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, it shall be unlawful: (a) to
"(d) To show or display publicly any advertisement or draw, paint, inscribe, write, post, display or puolicly
exhibit any election propaganda in any place, whether designated areas provided for by the COMELEC itself
private or public, except in common poster areas is null and void on constitutional grounds.
and/or billboards provided in the immediately For the foregoing reasons, we commend to our
preceding section, at the candidate's own residence, or colleagues the early passage of Senate Bill No. 1742.
at the campaign headquarters of the candidate or In so doing, we move one step towards further
political party: Provided, That such posters or election ensuring "free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible
propaganda shall in no case exceed two (2) feet by elections" as mandated by the Constitution. 45
three (3) feet in area; Provided, further, That at the site Given the foregoing background, it is therefore
of and on the occasion of a public meeting or rally, ineluctable to conclude that Congress intended to
streamers, not more than two (2) feet and not provide a more expansive and liberal means by which
exceeding three (3) feet by eight (8) each may be the candidates, political parties, citizens and other
displayed five (5) days before the date of the meeting stake holders in the periodic electoral exercise may be
or rally, and shall be removed within twenty-four (24) given a chance to fully explain and expound on their
hours after said meeting or rally; and candidacies and platforms of governance, and for the
"(b) For any newspapers, radio broadcasting or electorate to be given a chance to know better the
television station, or other mass media, or any person personalities behind the candidates. In this regard, the
making use of the mass media to sell or give for free of media is also given a very important part in that
charge print space or air time for campaign or other undertaking of providing the means by which the
political purposes except to the Commission as political exercise becomes an interactive process. All
provided under Section 90 and 92 of Batas Pambansa of these would be undermined and frustrated with the
Big. 881. Any mass media columnist, commentator, kind of regulation that the respondent came up with.
announcer or personality who is a candidate for any The respondent gave its own understanding of the
elective public office shall take a leave of absence from import of the legislative deliberations on the adoption
his work as such during the campaign." of R.A. No. 9006 as follows:
The repeal of the provision on the Common Poster The legislative history of R.A. 9006 clearly shows that
Area implements the strong recommendations of the Congress intended to impose the per candidate or
Commission on Elections during the hearings. It also political party aggregate total airtime limits on political
seeks to apply the doctrine enunciated by the Supreme advertisements and election propaganda. This is
Court in the case of Blo Umpar Adiong vs. Commission evidenced by the dropping of the "per day per station"
on Elections, 207 SCRA 712, 31 March 1992. Here a language embodied in both versions of the House of
unanimous Supreme Court ruled: The COMELEC's Representatives and Senate bills in favour of the "each
prohibition on the posting of decals and stickers on candidate" and "not more than" limitations now found
"mobile" places whether public or private except [in] in Section 6 of R.A. 9006.
The pertinent portions of House Bill No. 9000 and COMELEC wants this Court to put on the final
Senate Bill No. 1742 read as follows: language of the law. If anything, the change in
House Bill No. 9000: language meant that the computation must not be
SEC. 4. Section 86 of the same Batas is hereby based on a "per day" basis for each television or radio
amended to read as follows: station. The same could not therefore lend itself to an
Sec. 86. Regulation of Election Propaganda Through understanding that the total allowable time is to be
Mass Media. done on an aggregate basis for all television or radio
x x x x x x x x x stations. Clearly, the respondent in this instance went
A) The total airtime available to the candidate and beyond its legal mandate when it provided for rules
political party, whether by purchase or by donation, beyond what was contemplated by the law it is
shall be limited to five (5) minutes per day in each supposed to implement. As we held in Lakin, Jr. v.
television, cable television and radio stations during Commission on Elections: 47
the applicable campaign period. The COMELEC, despite its role as the implementing
Senate Bill No. 1742: arm of the Government in the enforcement and
SEC. 5. Equal Access to Media Space and Time. -All administration of all laws and regulations relative to the
registered parties and bona fide candidates shall have conduct of an election, has neither the authority nor the
equal access to media space and time. The following license to expand, extend, or add anything to the law it
guidelines may be amplified by the COMELEC. seeks to implement thereby. The IRRs the COMELEC
x x x x x x x x x issued for that purpose should always be in accord
2. The total airtime available for each registered party with the law to be implemented, and should not
and bona fide candidate whether by purchase or override, supplant, or modify the law. It is basic that the
donation shall not exceed a total of one (1) minute per IRRs should remain consistent with the law they intend
day per television or radio station. (Emphasis to carry out.
supplied.) Indeed, administrative IRRs adopted by a particular
As Section 6 of R.A. 9006 is presently worded, it can department of the Government under legislative
be clearly seen that the legislature intended the authority must be in harmony with the provisions of the
aggregate airtime limits to be computed on per law, and should be for the sole purpose of carrying the
candidate or party basis. Otherwise, if the legislature law's general provisions into effect. The law itself
intended the computation to be on per station basis, it cannot be expanded by such IRRs, because an
could have left the original "per day per station" administrative agency cannot amend an act of
formulation.46
Congress. 48
The Court does not agree. It cannot bring itself to read In the case of Lakin, Jr., the COMELEC's explanation
the changes in the bill as disclosing an intent that the that the Resolution then in question did not add
anything but merely reworded and rephrased the said. And where there is a need to reach a large
statutory provision did not persuade the Court. With audience, the need to access the means and media for
more reason here since the COMELEC not only such dissemination becomes critical. This is where the
reworded or rephrased the statutory provision - it press and broadcast media come along. At the same
practically replaced it with its own idea of what the law time, the right to speak and to reach out would not be
should be, a matter that certainly is not within its meaningful if it is just a token ability to be heard by a
authority. As the Court said in Villegas v. Subido:
49
few. It must be coupled with substantially reasonable
One last word. Nothing is better settled in the law than means by which the communicator and the audience
that a public official exercises power, not rights. The could effectively interact. Section 9 (a) of COMELEC
government itself is merely an agency through which Resolution No. 9615, with its adoption of the
the will of the state is expressed and enforced. Its "aggregate-based" airtime limits unreasonably restricts
officers therefore are likewise agents entrusted with the guaranteed freedom of speech and of the press.
the responsibility of discharging its functions. As such Political speech is one of the most important
there is no presumption that they are empowered to expressions protected by the Fundamental Law.
act. There must be a delegation of such authority, "[F]reedom of speech, of expression, and of the press
either express or implied. In the absence of a valid are at the core of civil liberties and have to be
grant, they are devoid of power. What they do suffers protected at all costs for the sake of democracy."51
from a fatal infirmity. That principle cannot be Accordingly, the same must remain unfettered unless
sufficiently stressed. In the appropriate language of otherwise justified by a compelling state interest.
Chief Justice Hughes: "It must be conceded that In regard to limitations on political speech relative to
departmental zeal may not be permitted to outrun the other state interests, an American case observed:
authority conferred by statute." Neither the high dignity A restriction on the amount of money a person or
of the office nor the righteousness of the motive then is group can spend on political communication during a
an acceptable substitute. Otherwise the rule of law campaign necessarily reduces the quantity of
becomes a myth. Such an eventuality, we must take all expression by restricting the number of issues
pains to avoid.50
discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size
So it was then. So does the rule still remains the same. of the audience reached. This is because virtually
d. Section 9 (a) of COMELEC Resolution No. 9615 on every means of communicating ideas in today's mass
airtime limits also goes against the constitutional society requires the expenditure of money. The
guaranty of freedom of expression, of speech and of distribution of the humblest handbill or leaflet entails
the press printing, paper, and circulation costs. Speeches and
The guaranty of freedom to speak is useless without rallies generally necessitate hiring a hall and
the ability to communicate and disseminate what is publicizing the event. The electorate's increasing
dependence on television, radio, and other mass advertisements in the 3 major TV networks in equal
media for news and information has made these allocation, he will only have 27.27 seconds of airtime
expensive modes of communication indispensable per network per day. This barely translates to 1
instruments of effective political speech. advertisement spot on a 30-second spot basis in
The expenditure limitations contained in the Act television.
represent substantial, rather than merely theoretical 5.9. With a 20-hour programming per day and
restraints on the quantity and diversity of political considering the limits of a station's coverage, it will be
speech. The $1,000 ceiling on spending "relative to a difficult for 1 advertising spot to make a sensible and
clearly identified candidate," 18 U.S.C. § 608(e)(l) feasible communication to the public, or in political
(1970 ed., Supp. IV), would appear to exclude all propaganda, to "make known [a candidate's]
citizens and groups except candidates, political parties, qualifications and stand on public issues".
and the institutional press from any significant use of 5.10 If a candidate loads all of his 81.81 seconds per
the most effective modes of communication. Although day in one network, this will translate to barely three
the Act's limitations on expenditures by campaign 30-second advertising spots in television on a daily
organizations and political parties provide substantially basis using the same assumptions above.
greater room for discussion and debate, they would 5.11 Based on the data from the 2012 Nielsen TV
have required restrictions in the scope of a number of audience measurement in Mega Manila, the
past congressional and Presidential campaigns and commercial advertisements in television are viewed by
would operate to constrain campaigning by candidates only 39.2% of the average total day household
who raise sums in excess of the spending ceiling. 52
audience if such advertisements are placed with
Section 9 (a) ofCOMELEC Resolution No. 9615 comes petitioner GMA, the leading television network
up with what is challenged as being an unreasonable nationwide and in Mega Manila. In effect, under the
basis for determining the allowable air time that restrictive aggregate airtime limits in the New Rules,
candidates and political parties may avail of. Petitioner the three 30-second political advertisements of a
GMA came up with its analysis of the practical effects candidate in petitioner GMA will only be communicated
of such a regulation: to barely 40% of the viewing audience, not even the
5.8. Given the reduction of a candidate's airtime voting population, but only in Mega Manila, which is
minutes in the New Rules, petitioner GMA estimates defined by AGB Nielsen Philippines to cover Metro
that a national candidate will only have 120 minutes to Manila and certain urban areas in the provinces of
utilize for his political advertisements in television Bulacan, Cavite, Laguna, Rizal, Batangas and
during the whole campaign period of 88 days, or will Pampanga. Consequently, given the voting population
only have 81.81 seconds per day TV exposure distribution and the drastically reduced supply of
allotment. If he chooses to place his political airtime as a result of the New Rules' aggregate airtime
limits, a national candidate will be forced to use all of advertisements in languages and dialects that the
his airtime for political advertisements in television only people may more readily understand and relate to. To
in urban areas such as Mega Manila as a political add all of these airtimes in different dialects would
campaign tool to achieve maximum exposure. greatly hamper the ability of such candidate to express
5.12 To be sure, the people outside of Mega Manila or himself - a form of suppression of his political speech.
other urban areas deserve to be informed of the Respondent itself states that "[t]elevision is arguably
candidates in the national elections, and the said the most costeffective medium of dissemination. Even
candidates also enjoy the right to be voted upon by a slight increase in television exposure can
these informed populace. 53
significantly boost a candidate's popularity, name recall
The Court agrees. The assailed rule on "aggregate- and electability." If that be so, then drastically
54
based" airtime limits is unreasonable and arbitrary as it curtailing the ability of a candidate to effectively reach
unduly restricts and constrains the ability of candidates out to the electorate would unjustifiably curtail his
and political parties to reach out and communicate with freedom to speak as a means of connecting with the
the people. Here, the adverted reason for imposing the people.
"aggregate-based" airtime limits - leveling the playing Finally on this matter, it is pertinent to quote what
field - does not constitute a compelling state interest Justice Black wrote in his concurring opinion in the
which would justify such a substantial restriction on the landmark Pentagon Papers case: "In the First
freedom of candidates and political parties to Amendment, the Founding Fathers gave the free press
communicate their ideas, philosophies, platforms and the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in
programs of government. And, this is specially so in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed,
the absence of a clear-cut basis for the imposition of not the governors. The Government's power to censor
such a prohibitive measure. In this particular instance, the press was abolished so that the press would
what the COMELEC has done is analogous to letting a remain forever free to censure the Government. The
bird fly after one has clipped its wings. press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of
It is also particularly unreasonable and whimsical to government and inform the people. Only a free and
adopt the aggregate-based time limits on broadcast unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in
time when we consider that the Philippines is not only government." 55
composed of so many islands. There are also a lot of In the ultimate analysis, when the press is silenced, or
languages and dialects spoken among the citizens otherwise muffled in its undertaking of acting as a
across the country. Accordingly, for a national sounding board, the people ultimately would be the
candidate to really reach out to as many of the victims.
electorates as possible, then it might also be e. Section 9 (a) of Resolution 9615 is violative of the
necessary that he conveys his message through his people's right to suffrage
Fundamental to the idea of a democratic and advertisements in the broadcast media.
republican state is the right of the people to determine f. Resolution No. 9615 needs prior hearing before
their own destiny through the choice of leaders they adoption
may have in government. Thus, the primordial The COMELEC promulgated Resolution No. 9615 on
importance of suffrage and the concomitant right of the January 15, 2013 then came up with a public hearing
people to be adequately informed for the intelligent on January 31, 2013 to explain what it had done,
exercise of such birthright. It was said that: particularly on the aggregate-based air time limits. This
x x x As long as popular government is an end to be circumstance also renders the new regulation,
achieved and safeguarded, suffrage, whatever may be particularly on the adoption of the aggregate-based
the modality and form devised, must continue to be the airtime limit, questionable. It must not be overlooked
means by which the great reservoir of power must be that the new Resolution introduced a radical change in
emptied into the receptacular agencies wrought by the the manner in which the rules on airtime for political
people through their Constitution in the interest of good advertisements are to be reckoned. As such there is a
government and the common weal. Republicanism, in need for adequate and effective means by which they
so far as it implies the adoption of a representative may be adopted, disseminated and implemented. In
type of government, necessarily points to the this regard, it is not enough that they be published - or
enfranchised citizen as a particle of popular explained - after they have been adopted.
sovereignty and as the ultimate source of the While it is true that the COMELEC is an independent
established authority. He has a voice in his office and not a mere administrative agency under the
Government and whenever possible it is the solemn Executive Department, rules which apply to the latter
duty of the judiciary, when called upon to act in must also be deemed to similarly apply to the former,
justifiable cases, to give it efficacy and not to stifle or not as a matter of administrative convenience but as a
frustrate it. This, fundamentally, is the reason for the dictate of due process. And this assumes greater
rule that ballots should be read and appreciated, if not significance considering the important and pivotal role
with utmost, with reasonable, liberality. x x x It has
56
that the COMELEC plays in the life of the nation. Thus,
also been said that "[ c ]ompetition in ideas and whatever might have been said in Commissioner of
governmental policies is at the core of our electoral Internal Revenue v. Court of Appeals, should also
58
liability would be unfair, cruel and oppressive. 5.46 In order to carry-out the obligations imposed by
x x x x. the New Rules, petitioner OMA further estimates that it
5.43 In the present situation wherein airtime minutes would need to engage and train 39,055 additional
shall be shared by all television and radio stations, persons on an eight-hour shift, and assign them all
broadcast mass media organizations would surely over the country to perform the required monitoring of
encounter insurmountable difficulties in monitoring the radio, television and cable TV broadcasts. In addition,
airtime minutes spent by the numerous candidates for it would likewise need to allot radio, television,
various elective positions, in real time. recording equipment and computers, as well as
5.44 An inquiry with the National Telecommunications telecommunications equipment, for this surveillance
Commission (NTC) bears out that there are 372 and monitoring exercise, thus imputing additional costs
television stations and 398 AM and 800 FM radio to the company. Attached herewith are the
stations nationwide as of June 2012. In addition, there computations explaining how the afore-said figures
are 1, 113 cable TV providers authorized by the NTC were derived and the conservative assumptions made
to operate within the country as of the said date. by petitioner OMA in reaching said figures, as Annex
5.45 Given such numbers of broadcast entities and the "H".
necessity to monitor political advertisements pursuant 5.47 Needless to say, such time, manpower
to the New Rules, petitioner OMA estimates that requirements, expense and effort would have to be
monitoring television broadcasts of all authorized replicated by each and every radio station to ensure
television station would involve 7,440 manhours per that they have properly monitored around 33 national
day. To aggravate matters, since a candidate may also and more than 40,000 local candidates' airtime
spend his/her broadcasting minutes on cable TV, minutes and thus, prevent any risk of administrative
additional 281,040 manhours per day would have to be and criminal liability.
60
spent in monitoring the various channels carried by The Court cannot agree with the contentions of GMA.
cable TV throughout the Philippines. As far as radio The apprehensions of the petitioner appear more to be
broadcasts (both AM and FM stations) are concerned, the result of a misappreciation of the real import of the
regulation rather than a real and present threat to its is incidental to the presentation of the subject or
broadcast activities. The Court is more in agreement subjects covered by the news documentary, or on-the-
with the respondent when it explained that: spot coverage of bona fide news events, including but
The legal duty of monitoring lies with the Comelec. not limited to events sanctioned by the Commission on
Broadcast stations are merely required to submit Elections, political conventions, and similar activities,
certain documents to aid the Comelec in ensuring that shall not be deemed to be broadcast election
candidates are not sold airtime in excess of the propaganda within the meaning of this provision. For
allowed limits. These documents include: (1) certified purposes of monitoring by the COMELEC and
true copies of broadcast logs, certificates of ensuring that parties and candidates were afforded
performance, and certificates of acceptance, or other equal opportunities to promote their candidacy, the
analogous record on specified dates (Section 9[d][3], media entity shall give prior notice to the COMELEC,
Resolution No. 9615, in relation to Section 6.2, R.A. through the appropriate Regional Election Director
9006; and (2) copies of all contract for advertising, (RED), or in the case of the National Capital Region
promoting or opposing any political party or the (NCR), the Education and Information Department
candidacy of any person for public office within five (5) (EID). If such prior notice is not feasible or practicable,
days after its signing (Section 6.3, R.A. 9006). the notice shall be sent within twenty-four (24) hours
***** from the first broadcast or publication. Nothing in the
1awp++i1
[T]here is absolutely no duty on the broadcast stations foregoing sentence shall be construed as relieving
to do monitoring, much less monitoring in real time. broadcasters, in connection with the presentation of
GMA grossly exaggerates when it claims that the non- newscasts, news interviews, news documentaries, and
existent duty would require them to hire and train an on-the-spot coverage of news events, from the
astounding additional 39,055 personnel working on obligation imposed upon them under Sections 10 and
eight-hour shifts all over the country.
61
14 of these Rules." 63
The Court holds, accordingly, that, contrary to Further, the petitioner in G.R. No. 205374 assails the
petitioners' contention, the Reporting Requirement for constitutionality of such monitoring requirement,
the COMELEC's monitoring is reasonable. contending, among others, that it constitutes prior
Further, it is apropos to note that, pursuant to restraint. The Court finds otherwise. Such a
Resolution No. 9631, the respondent revised the third
62
requirement is a reasonable means adopted by the
paragraph of Section 9 (a). As revised, the provision COMELEC to ensure that parties and candidates are
now reads: afforded equal opportunities to promote their
Appearance or guesting by a candidate on any bona respective candidacies. Unlike the restrictive
fide newscast, bona fide news interview, bona fide aggregate-based airtime limits, the directive to give
news documentary, if the appearance of the candidate prior notice is not unduly burdensome and
unreasonable, much less could it be characterized as regulation designed to assist the poll body to
prior restraint since there is no restriction on undertake its job of ensuring fair elections without
dissemination of information before broadcast. having to undertake any chore of approving or
Additionally, it is relevant to point out that in the original disapproving certain expressions.
Resolution No. 9615, the paragraph in issue was Also, the right to reply provision is reasonable
worded in this wise: In the same way that the Court finds the "prior notice"
Appearance or guesting by a candidate on any bona requirement as not constitutionally infirm, it similarly
fide newscast, bona fide news interview, bona fide concludes that the "right to reply" provision is
news documentary, if the appearance of the candidate reasonable and consistent with the constitutional
is incidental to the presentation of the subject or mandate.
subjects covered by the news documentary, or on-the- Section 14 of Resolution No. 9615, as revised by
spot coverage of bona fide news events, including but Resolution No. 9631, provides:
not limited to events sanctioned by the Commission on SECTION 14. Right to Reply. - All registered political
Elections, political conventions, and similar activities, parties, party-list groups or coalitions and bona fide
shall not be deemed to be broadcast election candidates shall have the right to reply to charges
propaganda within the meaning of this provision. To published or aired against them. The reply shall be
determine whether the appearance or guesting in a given publicity by the newspaper, television, and/or
program is bona fide, the broadcast stations or entities radio station which first printed or aired the charges
must show that (1) prior approval of the Commission with the same prominence or in the same page or
was secured; and (2) candidates and parties were section or in the same time slot as the first statement.
afforded equal opportunities to promote their Registered political parties, party-list groups or
candidacy. Nothing in the foregoing sentence shall be coalitions and bona fide candidates may invoke the
construed as relieving broadcasters, in connection with right to reply by submitting within a nonextendible
the presentation of newscasts, news interviews, news period of forty-eight hours from first broadcast or
documentaries, and on-the-spot coverage of news publication, a formal verified claim against the media
events, from the obligation imposed upon them under outlet to the COMELEC, through the appropriate RED.
Sections 10 and 14 of these Rules. 64
The claim shall include a detailed enumeration of the
Comparing the original with the revised paragraph, one circumstances and occurrences which warrant the
could readily appreciate what the COMELEC had done invocation of the right to reply and must be
- to modify the requirement from "prior approval" to accompanied by supporting evidence, such a copy of
"prior notice." While the former may be suggestive of a the publication or recording of the television or radio
censorial tone, thus inviting a charge of prior restraint, broadcast, as the case may be. If the supporting
the latter is more in the nature of a content-neutral evidence is not yet available due to circumstances
beyond the power of the claimant, the latter shall Reply, as provided for in the Assailed Resolution, is an
supplement his claim as soon as the supporting impermissible restraint on these fundamental
evidence becomes available, without delay on the part freedoms.
of the claimant. The claimant must likewise furnish a 5.146. An evaluation of the factors set forth in Soriano
copy of the verified claim and its attachments to the (for the balancing of interests test) with respect to the
media outlet concerned prior to the filing of the claim present controversy will show that the Constitution
with the COMELEC. does not tilt the balance in favor of the Right to Reply
The COMELEC, through the RED, shall view the provision in the Assailed Resolution and the supposed
verified claim within forty-eight ( 48) hours from receipt governmental interest it attempts to further.65
thereof, including supporting evidence, and if The Constitution itself provides as part of the means to
circumstances warrant, give notice to the media outlet ensure free, orderly, honest, fair and credible elections,
involved for appropriate action, which shall, within a task addressed to the COMELEC to provide for a
forty-eight ( 48) hours, submit its comment, answer or right to reply. Given that express constitutional
66
response to the RED, explaining the action it has taken mandate, it could be seen that the Fundamental Law
to address the claim. The media outlet must likewise itself has weighed in on the balance to be struck
furnish a copy of the said comment, answer or between the freedom of the press and the right to
response to the claimant invoking the right to reply. reply. Accordingly, one is not merely to see the
Should the claimant insist that his/her right to reply was equation as purely between the press and the right to
not addressed, he/she may file the appropriate petition reply. Instead, the constitutionallymandated desiderata
and/or complaint before the Commission on Elections of free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible
or its field offices, which shall be endorsed to the Clerk elections would necessarily have to be factored in
of Court. trying to see where the balance lies between press and
The attack on the validity of the "right to reply" the demands of a right-to-reply.
provision is primarily anchored on the alleged ground Moreover, as already discussed by the Court in
of prior restraint, specifically in so far as such a Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of the
requirement may have a chilling effect on speech or of Philippines, Inc. v. Commission on Elections. 67
the freedom of the press. In truth, radio and television broadcasting companies,
Petitioner ABC states, inter alia: which are given franchises, do not own the airwaves
5 .14 5. A "conscious and detailed consideration" of the and frequencies through which they transmit broadcast
interplay of the relevant interests - the constitutional signals and images. They are merely given the
mandate granting candidates the right to reply and the temporary privilege of using them. Since a franchise is
inviolability of the constitutional freedom of expression, a mere privilege, the exercise of the privilege may
speech, and the press - will show that the Right to reasonably be burdened with the performance by the
grantee of some form of public service. x x x 68
First Amendment rights of an intruder. Rowan v. Post
Relevant to this aspect are these passages from an Office Dept., 397 US 728, 25 L Ed 2d 736, 90 S Ct
American Supreme Court decision with regard to 1484. Because the broadcast audience is constantly
broadcasting, right to reply requirements, and the tuning in and out, prior warnings cannot completely
limitations on speech: protect the listener or viewer from unexpected program
We have long recognized that each medium of content. To say that one may avoid further offense by
expression presents special First Amendment turning off the radio when he hears indecent language
problems. Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 US 495, is like saying that the remedy for an assault is to run
502-503, 96 L Ed 1098, 72 S Ct 777. And of all forms away after the first blow. One may hang up on an
of communication, it is broadcasting that has received indecent phone call, but that option does not give the
the most limited First Amendment protection. Thus, caller a constitutional immunity or avoid a harm that
although other speakers cannot be licensed except has already taken place.
under laws that carefully define and narrow official Second, broadcasting is uniquely accessible to
discretion, a broadcaster may be deprived of his children, even those too young to read. Although
license and his forum if the Commission decides that Cohen's written message might have been
such an action would serve "the public interest, incomprehensible to a first grader, Pacifica's broadcast
convenience, and necessity." Similarly, although the could have enlarged a child's vocabulary in an instant.
First Amendment protects newspaper publishers from Other forms of offensive expression may be withheld
being required to print the replies of those whom they from the young without restricting the expression at its
criticize, Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 source. Bookstores and motion picture theaters, for
US 241, 41 L Ed 2d 730, 94 S Ct 2831, it affords no example, may be prohibited from making indecent
such protection to broadcasters; on the contrary, they material available to children. We held in Ginsberg v.
must give free time to the victims of their criticism. Red New York, 390 US 629, that the government's interest
Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 US. 367, 23 L Ed in the "well-being of its youth" and in supporting
2d 371, 89 S Ct 1794. "parents' claim to authority in their own household"
The reasons for these distinctions are complex, but justified the regulation of otherwise protected
two have relevance to the present case. First, the expression. The ease with which children may obtain
broadcast media have established a uniquely access to broadcast material, coupled with the
pervasive presence in the lives of all Americans. concerns recognized in Ginsberg, amply justify special
Patently offensive, indecent material presented over treatment of indecent broadcasting. 69
the airwaves confronts the citizen not only in public, Given the foregoing considerations, the traditional
but also in the privacy of the home, where the notions of preferring speech and the press over so
individual's right to be left alone plainly outweighs the many other values of society do not readily lend itself
to this particular matter. Instead, additional weight
should be accorded on the constitutional directive to See Saparate Concurring Opinion
afford a right to reply. If there was no such mandate, ANTONIO T. CARPIO **
P
then the submissions of petitioners may more easily Associate Justice
commend themselves for this Court's acceptance. But Acting Chief Justice
as noted above, this is not the case. Their arguments
simplistically provide minimal importance to that TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
constitutional command to the point of marginalizing its Associate Justice
importance in the equation.
In fine, when it comes to election and the exercise of LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
freedom of speech, of expression and of the press, the Associate Justice
latter must be properly viewed in context as being
necessarily made to accommodate the imperatives of MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.
fairness by giving teeth and substance to the right to Associate Justice
reply requirement.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petitions are
PARTIALLY GRANTED, Section 9 (a) of Resolution JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA ****