GR 102653; (March, 1992) (Digest)
G.R. No. 102653, 102925, 102983 March 5, 1992
NATIONAL PRESS CLUB, PHILIPPINE PRESS INSTITUTE, KAPISANAN NG MGA BRODKASTERS SA PILIPINAS, ET AL., petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioners, consisting of representatives of the mass media, candidates for office, and taxpayers/voters, filed consolidated petitions challenging the constitutionality of Section 11(b) of Republic Act No. 6646 (the Electoral Reforms Law of 1987). The provision prohibits newspapers, radio/television stations, other mass media, or any person using mass media from selling or giving free of charge print space or air time for campaign or other political purposes, except to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) as provided under Sections 90 and 92 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 (the Omnibus Election Code). Sections 90 and 92 require COMELEC to procure “COMELEC space” in newspapers and “COMELEC time” on radio and television, to be allocated free of charge, equally and impartially among all candidates. Petitioners argue that Section 11(b) violates constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression, amounts to censorship, abridges the freedom of speech of candidates, and curtails the voters’ right to information.
ISSUE
Whether or not Section 11(b) of Republic Act No. 6646 is unconstitutional for violating freedom of speech, expression, and the press.
RULING
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 11(b) of R.A. No. 6646. The Court ruled that the provision is a permissible exercise of the COMELEC’s constitutional power to supervise or regulate media of communication during the election period to ensure equal opportunity, time, and space among candidates, as expressly authorized by Article IX(C)(4) of the 1987 Constitution. The objective of the law—to equalize the situation of rich and poor candidates by preventing the undue advantage of huge campaign funds—is a legitimate and constitutionally recognized state interest. The restriction on freedom of speech and press is circumscribed, limited in duration (the election period), and applies only to paid political advertisements, not to the reporting of news or commentaries. The Court found that the provision does not constitute censorship or repression but a valid regulation to ensure free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections. The presumption of constitutionality stands, and petitioners failed to discharge the burden of proving its invalidity.