Z.
Gerilla
UNITED DEMOCRATIC
OPPOSITION (UNIDO), Petitioner,
vs. 
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
(COMELEC), Respondent
G.R. No. 56515
April 3, 1981
Petitioner UNIDO filed an appeal
before COMELEC to request for the
same air-time as then, President
Ferdinand Marcos’ Pulong-Pulong sa
Pangulo program.
DOCTRINE
Doctrine of Proper Submission
The plebiscite may be held on the
same day as regular election
(Gonzales v COMELEC) provided
the people are sufficiently informed of
the amendments to be voted upon, to
conscientiously deliberate thereon, to
express their will in a genuine
manner. Submission of piecemeal
amendments is unconstitutional. All
amendments must be submitted for
ratification at one plebiscite only
(Tolentino v COMELEC)
FACTS:
1. Petitioner, United Democratic
Oppossition (UNIDO), is a political
organization campaigning for “NO”
votes
2. On the other hand, President/ Prime
Minister Marcos will lead the “YES”
votes in his program Pulong-Pulong
ng Pangulo
3. COMELEC issued three resolutions
as follows: 1.) 'equal opportunity' on
public discussions and debates on the
plebiscite questions to be submitted to
the people, 2.) "equal time on the use
of the broadcast media, 3.) "equal
space on the use of the print media
3. UNIDO requested COMELEC for
the same opportunity, the same prime
time and the same number of
television and radio stations all over
the country to be used in its campaign
for "NO" votes in the plebiscite for
the amendments to the 1973
Constitution
4. COMELEC denied the request and
the succeeding appeals.
ISSUE
WON UNIDO was denied equal
opportunity accorded to President/PM
Marcos by virtue of COMELEC’s
denial of their request
RULING:
NO. UNIDO was not denied equal
opportunity as it is undeniable but
natural that the head of state of every
country in the world must from the
very nature of his position, be
accorded certain privileges not
equally available to those who are
opposed to him.
Section 5, Article XII-C CLAUSE
“FREE ORDERLY AND HONEST
ELECTIONS”
The Court views this also applies to
plebiscites, particularly one relative to
constitutional amendments. Be borne
in my mind that one of the most
steadfast ruling of the Court is that it
is indispensable for plebiscite that it
be properly characterized to be fair
submission – which means that the
voters must of necessity have had
adequate opportunity to cast their
votes with sufficient understanding of
what they are voting on.
1
Z. Gerilla

The provisions of all election laws

regulating propaganda through the
mass media must be deemed
applicable to plebiscites. Therefore, it
is the duty of the Comelec to see to it
that the sale of air time by TV and
radio stations insures that time equal
as to duration and quality is available
to all candidates for the same office or
political parties, groups or
aggrupations at the same rates or
given free of charge.

However, it is undeniable and but

natural that the head of state of every
country in the world must from the
very nature of his position, be
accorded certain privileges not
equally available to those who are
opposed to him in the sense that, since
the head of state has the grave and
tremendous responsibility of planning
and implementing the plan of
government itself, either by virtue of
the popular mandate given to him
under the corresponding provisions of
the Constitution and the laws or any
other duly recognized grant of power
and authority, the opposition cannot
be placed at par with him, since
logically the opposition can only
fiscalize the administration and
punctualize its errors and
shortcomings to the end that when the
duly scheduled time for the people to
exercise their inalienable power to
make a better choice, the opposition
may have the chance to make them
accept the alternative they can offer.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is

dismissed