Telecommunications and Broadcast PHIL. PRESS INSTITUTE VS.
Attorneys of the Philippines, Inc. COMELEC
(TELAB) vs. COMELEC
Provisions: B.P. Blg. 881
SEC.90:
law prohibits mass media from selling or
donating print space and air time to the
candidates and requires the COMELEC
instead to procure print space and air
time for allocation to the candidates.
Sec. 92; requires the COMELEC to
procure print space which, as we have
held, should be paid for, §92 states that
air time shall be procured by the
COMELEC free of charge.
R.A. 6646 which prohibits the sale or
donation of print space or air time for
political ads, except to COMELEC under
sec.90, of B.P. No. 881, the Omnibus
Election Code, with respect to print
media, and Sec.92, with respect to
broadcast media.
Argument: A. takes property without due process of
Petitioner law; B. violates the eminent domain
PPI: clause of Constitution which provides for
the payment of just compensation; C.
denies broadcast media the equal
protection of the laws;
D. in any event, it violates the terms of
the franchise of petitioner GMA
Network, Inc.
E. that it is in excess of the power given
Resolution No. 2772:
Sec. 2. Comelec Space. — The
Commission shall procure free print
space of not less than one half (1/2)
page in at least one newspaper of
general circulation in every province
or city for use as "Comelec
Space" from March 6, 1995 in the
case of candidates for senator and
from March 21, 1995 until May 12,
1995. In the absence of said
newspaper, "Comelec Space" shall be
obtained from any magazine or
periodical of said province or city.
Sec. 3. Uses of Comelec Space. —
"Comelec Space" shall be allocated by
the Commission, free of charge,
among all candidates within the area
in which the newspaper, magazine or
periodical is circulated to enable the
candidates to make known their
qualifications, their stand on public
issues and their platforms and
programs of government.
"Comelec Space" shall also be used by
the Commission for dissemination of
vital election information.
Sec. 4. Allocation of Comelec Space. —
(a) "Comelec Space" shall also
be available to all candidates during
the periods stated.
Sec. 8. Undue Reference to
Candidates/Political Parties in
Newspapers
A.Resolution No. 2772
unconstitutional and void on the
ground that it violates the prohibition
imposed by the Constitution upon the
government, and any of its agencies,
against the taking of private property
for public use without just
compensation
B.nvoluntary servitude, contrary to
 to the COMELEC to supervise or regulate the provisions of Section 18 (2),
the operation of media of Article III of the 1987 Constitution.
communication or information during
the period of election.

GMA CONTENDED:
to require these stations to provide free
air time is to authorize a taking which is
not "a de minimis temporary limitation
or restraint upon the use of private
property.

Argument >radio and television broadcasting A.does not  impose upon the

Respondent: companies, which are given franchises,
do not own the airwaves and frequencies
through which they transmit broadcast
signals and images.
They are merely given the temporary
privilege of using them. Since a franchise
is a mere privilege, the exercise of the
privilege may reasonably be burdened
with the performance by the grantee of
some form of public service
regulation of the use and ownership of
telecommunications systems is in the
exercise of the plenary police power of
the State for the promotion of the
general welfare
publishers any obligation to provide
free print space in the newspapers as
it does not provide any criminal or
administrative sanction for non-
compliance with that Resolution
B. merely established guidelines to be
followed in connection with the
procurement of "Comelec space,"
C. It is a permissible exercise of the
power of supervision or regulation of
the Comelec over the communication
and information operations of print
media enterprises during the election
period to safeguard and ensure a fair,
impartial and credible election

>licenses to broadcast do not confer

ownership of designated frequencies,
but only the temporary privilege of using
them
>broadcast station to provide COMELEC
Time free of charge is not new. It goes
back to the Election Code of 1971.
Facts: TELAB: no standing to the case since Philippine Press Institute, Inc. ("PPI")
not personally suffered some actual or assailing the constitutional validity of
threatened injury and have no interest Resolution No. 2772 issued by
as registered voters since this case does COMELEC.
not concern their right of suffrage.

GMA has interest to thec ase who is

affected.

GMA CLAIM:
it suffered losses million pesos in
 providing COMELEC Time during 1992
presidential election and the 1995
senatorial election and will suffer even
more should it be required to do so again
this year.
Issue:
Ruling: As radio and television broadcast
stations do not own the airwaves, no
private property is taken by the
requirement that they provide air
time to the COMELEC.
>COMELEC does not take over the
operation of radio and television
stations but only the allocation of air
time to the candidates for the purpose of
ensuring, among other things, equal
opportunity, time, and the right to reply
as mandated by the Constitution
>duty imposed on the GMA Network, Inc.
by its franchise to render "adequate
public service time"
>no suppression of political ads but only
a regulation of the time and manner of
advertising.
Principle: radio and television broadcasting
companies, which are given
franchises, do not own the airwaves
and frequencies only given temporary
privilege to use them. Duty of these
companies to help in the
dissemination of electoral candidacy.
Resolution No. 2772 is void on the
ground of deprivation of use w/o
compensation of newspaper?
NO. resolution does not constitute a
valid exercise of the power of
eminent domain.
To compel print media companies to
donate “Comelec-space” amounts to
“taking” of private personal property
for public use or purposes without
the requisite just compensation.
The element of necessity for the
taking has not been shown by
respondent Comelec. It has not been
suggested that the members. one is
the necessity for the taking; another
is the legal authority to effect the
taking.
taking” of private personal
property for public use or
purposes without the requisite just
compensation.
-resolution amounts to taking of
private property without just
compensation
-unlike sa usa, walay franchise2
needed
FEB. 13 DISCUSSION:
Rotational scheme
If vacant e appointment the remaining term sa gi pulihan or ni end na ang term e appoint sunod is 7
yrs.
Example appoint for 5 years then kulang 1 yr. then ang e appoint ang remaining 1 yr nalang.
Reason: as much as possible avoidv situation usa ra nga president mu appoint sa tanan reason gi
lahi2 sya nay uban 3 yrs.,
-no caretaker is allowed, no OIC
What is purpose no constitutional permission to appoint a temporary commissioner

2 modes of appointment:
When congress in session – functional ang commission appointment, mode of appointment: regular
app. President mu app. Nimo and submit to commission, then e approve ka or reject

congress not in session on recess, “AD INTERIM “in the meantime” APPOINMENT “ - Ad interim
considered abandoned the previous position in govt. office if approve na since if not there will be
incompatibility.

SOURCES POWER OF COMELEC

1. Consti Art. IX,
2.Statutory: Omnibus Election Code, B.P 881 and special laws

JURISDICTION:
Orig. exclusive jurisdiction- cannot be filed someone else, to that jurisdiction only ; ALL
CONTESTS with regards to the elections; All issues, Certificate of candidacy, disqualification,
nuisance, petition of due course all FILE IN COMELEC as long as no proclamation or winner.

1. Municipality, City and Provincial, Mayor ; file COMELEC; apply only if there is already
proclaimed candidate
Member of congress, house rep. ; shall file with HRET Electoral tribunal
PET which is compose of SC Electoral Tribunal of Pres & VP and Senators– Sec. 4 par. 7 of art. 7

Case Poe: if not declare then file COMELEC.

before election day should be file in the COMELEC but once proclaim then refer above
differences;

COMELEC EN BANC: where to file PETITION.

Dismiss wrong remedy if file on wrong jurisdiction

Appeal supposed file to CA but since SPECIAL LAW then file to COMELEC EN BANC, not motion for
reconsideration but PETITION FOR CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 65

Court of general jurisdiction - RTC

Court of Limited jurisdiction – MTC

WHERE TO FILE ELECTION CONTEST:

File election contest example: contest proclamation of municipal mayor > file it to RTC basta
elective provincial official
Elective Brgy. official – MTC
Elective brgy. Officials decided by trial court of limited jurisdiction (including SK elective officials by
special law )

Pildi then na dismiss ang protest – file it to COMELEC

Elective City deretso COMELEC
Municipal officials – file RTC
Brgy. official official – file MTC

FLOW OF FILING CASE:

COMELEC APPELATE JURISIDCTION>COMELEC EN BANC> if pildi cannot file to SC since
FINAL&EXECUTORY decision > instead file remedy: petition for certiorari under rule 65 “grave
abuse of jurisdiction”

Certiorari – is not an appeal and SC is never deprive of its jurisdiction; under sec. 1 of Art. 8 ;

Who appoint to teacher -, choice polling places, acquire equipment needed, where to register –
COMELEC or (ERB) (Election Registration Board) – compose COMELEC chairman if city apil city
fiscal or superintendent, the board who approves the registration

INCLUSION/EXCLUSION:
Board disapproves your registration; remedy? Where to file?
File to: MTC
cause of action: Petition for exclusion/inclusion (e apil or remove sa book of voters)

if disapprove ghapon sa MTC > then file with RTC to appeal> if dismiss petition w/ RTC > NO
MORE APPEAL but can file always certiorari with SC under rule 65

Example: (flying voters) Registered in new place, can file PETITION FOR EXCLUSION file to MTC if
grant by court then mu order sila sa ERB board to exclude those people.