Philippine Press Institute vs.

Comelec
244 SCRA 272. May 22, 1995

Facts:

The Philippine Press Institute, Inc. ("PPI") is before this Court assailing the constitutional
validity of Resolution No. 2772 issued by respondent Commission on Elections ("Comelec") and
its corresponding Comelec directive dated 22 March 1995, through a
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition.  Petitioner PPI is a non-stock, non-profit organization of
newspaper and magazine publishers.
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 Commission for dissemination of vital election
information.
PPI asks us to declare Comelec 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.
On 20 April 1995, this Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining Comelec from
enforcing and implementing Section 2 of Resolution No. 2772, as well as the Comelec directives
addressed to various print media enterprises all dated 22 March 1995. The Court also required...
the respondent to file a Comment on the Petition.
The Office of the Solicitor General filed its Comment on behalf of respondent Comelec alleging
that Comelec Resolution No. 2772 does not impose upon the 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.
the Solicitor General argues that even if the questioned Resolution and its implementing letter
directives are viewed as... mandatory, the same would nevertheless be valid as an exercise of the
police power of the State.
Issues:
constitute impositions of involuntary servitude, contrary to the provisions of Section 18 (2),
Article III of the 1987 Constitution.
Ruling:
To compel print media companies to donate "Comelec space" of the dimensions specified in
Section 2 of Resolution No. 2772 (not less than one-half page), amounts to "taking" of private
personal property for public use or purposes.  Section 2 failed... to specify the intended
frequency of such compulsory "donation:" only once during the period from 6 March 1995 (or
21 March 1995) until 12 May 1995?  or everyday or once a week?  or as often as Comelec may
direct during the same period?  The extent of the taking... or deprivation is not insubstantial; this
is not a case of a de minimis temporary limitation or restraint upon the use of private property.  
The monetary value of the compulsory "donation," measured by the advertising rates ordinarily
charged by newspaper... publishers whether in cities or in non-urban areas, may be very
substantial indeed.
The taking of print space here sought to be effected may first be appraised under the rubric of
expropriation of private personal property for public use.  The threshold requisites for a lawful
taking of private property for public use need to be examined here:  one is... the necessity for the
taking; another is the legal authority to effect the taking.  The element of necessity for the taking
has not been shown by respondent Comelec.  It has not been suggested that the members of PPI
are unwilling to sell print space at... their normal rates to Comelec for election purposes.  Indeed,
the unwillingness or reluctance of Comelec to buy print space lies at the heart of the problem.[3]
Similarly, it has not been suggested, let alone demonstrated, that Comelec has... been granted the
power of eminent domain either by the Constitution or by the legislative authority.  A reasonable
relationship between that power and the enforcement and administration of election laws by
Comelec must be shown; it is not casually to be assumed.
That the taking is designed to subserve "public use" is not contested by petitioner PPI.  We note
only that, under Section 3 of Resolution No. 2772, the free "Comelec space" sought by the
respondent Commission would be used not only for informing the public about the... identities,
qualifications and programs of government of candidates for elective office but also for
"dissemination of vital election information" (including, presumably, circulars, regulations,
notices, directives, etc. issued by Comelec).  It seems to the Court a matter... of judicial notice
that government offices and agencies (including the Supreme Court) simply purchase print
space, in the ordinary course of events, when their rules and regulations, circulars, notices and so
forth need officially to be brought to the attention of the general... public.
The taking of private property for public use is, of course, authorized by the Constitution, but not
without payment of "just compensation" (Article III, Section 9). And apparently the necessity of
paying compensation for "Comelec space" is precisely what is sought to be avoided... by
respondent Commission, whether Section 2 of Resolution No. 2772 is read as petitioner PPI
reads it, as an assertion of authority to require newspaper publishers to "donate" free print space
for Comelec purposes, or as an exhortation, or perhaps an appeal, to publishers to... donate free
print space, as Section 1 of Resolution No. 2772-A attempts to suggest.  There is nothing at all to
prevent newspaper and magazine publishers from voluntarily giving free print space to Comelec
for the purposes contemplated in Resolution No. 2772.  Section
2 of Resolution No. 2772 does not, however, provide a constitutional basis for compelling
publishers, against their will, in the kind of factual context here present, to provide free print
space for Comelec purposes.  Section 2 does not constitute a valid exercise of the... power of
eminent domain.
WHEREFORE,for all the foregoing, the Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition is GRANTED in
part and Section 2 of Resolution No. 2772 in its present form and the related letter-directives
dated 22 March 1995 are hereby SET ASIDE as null and void, and the Temporary
Restraining Order is hereby MADE PERMANENT. The Petition is DISMISSED in part, to the
extent it relates to Section 8 of Resolution No. 2772.  No pronouncement as to costs