G.R. No. 222702 , April 5, 2016
Rappler, Inc. vs. Andres D. Bautista

FACTS

Petitioner Rappler, Inc. filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition against Andres D. Bautista, in his capacity as Chairman of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). The petition seeks to nullify specific provisions of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) signed on January 13, 2016, between COMELEC, the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas (KBP), and various media networks, including Rappler. The MOA was for the conduct of the 2016 presidential and vice-presidential debates. Rappler alleged that during meetings starting September 21, 2015, COMELEC initially proposed that Rappler and Google, Inc. handle online and social media engagement, but this was later dropped in a draft MOA in favor of online outlets owned by the designated “Lead Networks” (ABS-CBN, GMA, Nine Media, and TV5, along with their print partners). Rappler was to co-sponsor the vice-presidential debate. Upon receiving the draft MOA on January 12, 2016, Rappler raised concerns about provisions limiting online streaming and news excerpts but signed the MOA the next day after respondent Bautista assured that concerns would be addressed later. Rappler received no response to its subsequent communications, prompting the petition. The assailed provisions are Part VI (C), paragraph 19, which subjects online streaming of debates on other websites to “copyright conditions or separate negotiations with the Lead Networks,” and Part VI (D), paragraph 20, which allows a maximum of two minutes of debate excerpts for news reporting, with longer use subject to Lead Network consent.

ISSUE

Whether the petition should be granted despite procedural defects and whether the assailed MOA provisions violate constitutional rights.

RULING

The Supreme Court resolved to act on the petition despite procedural technicalities, citing the transcendental public importance of the issues and the time constraints of the ongoing election debates. On the merits, the Court interpreted the MOA provisions. For Part VI (C), paragraph 19, the Court held that the phrase “subject to copyright conditions or separate negotiations” means compliance with the “copyright conditions” under Section 184.1(c) of the Intellectual Property Code is sufficient for Rappler to live stream the debates. The debates qualify as “addresses and other works of the same nature” deliverable in public. The conditions are: (1) use is for information purposes; (2) the work has not been expressly reserved; and (3) the source is clearly indicated. The Court found all conditions met: Rappler’s streaming is for information; the MOA expressly allows streaming on other websites, meaning no express reservation; and Rappler can clearly indicate the source. Thus, Rappler has a contractual right under the MOA to live stream the debates by simply complying with these copyright conditions, without need for separate negotiations. The Court did not find a constitutional violation, as the right emanates from contract and copyright law. The petition was rendered moot by supervening events as the debates were ongoing, but the Court issued the ruling to guide future conduct.