GR 133486; (January, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 133486 January 28, 2000
ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent.
FACTS
The Commission on Elections (Comelec) issued Resolution No. 98-1419, approving a restraining order to stop ABS-CBN or any other group from conducting an exit survey during the May 11, 1998 elections. The Comelec acted on information that ABS-CBN planned to conduct and broadcast exit poll results for national officials. The poll body believed such a project might conflict with the official Comelec count and the unofficial quick count by Namfrel, and noted it had not authorized the petitioner to undertake the survey. ABS-CBN filed a Petition for Certiorari, arguing the Comelec’s resolution constituted grave abuse of discretion. This Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order against the Comelec’s directive, and the exit polls were subsequently conducted without incident.
ISSUE
Whether the Comelec acted with grave abuse of discretion in approving the issuance of a restraining order to enjoin the conduct of exit polls during the elections.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion. The holding of exit polls and the dissemination of their results constitute an essential part of the freedoms of speech and of the press. An exit poll, defined as a survey asking voters whom they voted for immediately after casting their ballots, is a vital tool for providing electoral information and can help eliminate election-fixing and fraud. The Comelec’s total ban was an invalid prior restraint on these fundamental freedoms. While the Comelec has the constitutional duty to ensure clean, honest, orderly, and credible elections, any regulation on speech must be narrowly tailored to address a specific substantive evil without unnecessarily restricting protected expression. The mere possibility that exit poll results might conflict with other counts is insufficient justification for a blanket prohibition. The Court emphasized that narrowly tailored countermeasures could be prescribed to address incidental problems, such as preventing voter intimidation or maintaining order near polling places, but a complete ban transgresses constitutional rights. The procedural issues of mootness and prematurity were also overruled, as the case involved transcendental constitutional principles guiding future elections.