National Press Club v COMELEC

GR No. 102653

Facts

The case is a consolidation of three cases from petitioners who assailed the constitutionality of
Sec. 11(b) of RA 6646 or the Electoral Reforms Law. The provision in question prohibits election
propaganda by disallowing the sale or donation of print space in newspapers or air time in networks for
campaigning and other political purposes, except those from the COMELEC themselves pursuant to Sec.
90 and 92 of the same bill. The petitioners of each individual case are comprised of representatives from
the media, two candidates running for office, and taxpayers.

The petitioners contend that the provision at bar is violative if the constitutional right of
freedom of expression, with the media petitioners comparing the prohibition to censorship. The
taxpayer petitioners also contend that the disallowance of election material contributes to the lack of
information for citizens when it comes to the upcoming elections, and the imposition of the provision in
question is harmful towards the goal of an informed election.

The COMELEC response emphasizes on the role of Sec. 11(b) as a way to make the figurative
electoral playing field fair, as not to give advantage to candidates who can afford the exorbitant fees
necessary for print space and air time.

Issue

WON Sec. 11(b) is violative of the petitioners’ freedom of speech.

Ruling

In the Supreme Court ruling, the rationale of the COMELEC in the above response is reiterated.
The ponente Justice Feliciano argues the animating force behind the provision is the removal of the
disparity of income and budget between the different candidates. Justice Feliciano also provides that
the COMELEC is only exercising their constitutionally-granted powers, invoking Sec. 4 of Article IX(C) of
the 1987 Constitution, which states:
“Section 4. The Commission may, during the election period, supervise or regulate the enjoyment or
utilization of all franchises or permits for the operation of transportation and other public utilities, media
of communication or information, all grants, special privileges, or concessions granted by the Government
or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including any government-owned or controlled
corporation or its subsidiary. Such supervision or regulation shall aim to ensure equal opportunity, time,
and space ,and the right to reply, including reasonable, equal rates therefor, for public information
campaigns and forums among candidates in connection with the objective of holding free, orderly,
honest, peaceful, and credible elections.”

While the provision does provide for a minor curtailment of the above’s rights, the COMELEC’s
monopoly on airtime and print space is subject to limitation, in that the previously acquired are to be
allocated among individual candidates on a fair and equal basis, no charge to the candidates themselves.

The Supreme Court rules in favor of the respondent, dismissing the petition for a lack of merit.