G.R. No. L-11994 May 22, 1995
PHILIPPINE PRESS INSTITUTE, INC., petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent.

FACTS

The Philippine Press Institute (PPI), a non-stock organization of newspaper and magazine publishers, filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition challenging the constitutionality of COMELEC Resolution No. 2772 and its implementing letter-directives dated March 22, 1995. The Resolution required newspapers to provide free print space of at least half a page for use as “COMELEC Space” from specified dates until May 12, 1995. This space was to be allocated equally among candidates to present their qualifications and platforms. The implementing letters directed publishers to provide this space, reminiscent of support given in a prior election, and to process candidate-submitted materials for publication.
PPI contended that the compulsory provision of print space without compensation constituted a taking of private property for public use without just compensation, violating the Constitution. It also argued that requiring publishers to process raw data imposed involuntary servitude. Finally, PPI challenged Section 8 of the Resolution, which prohibited newspapers from publishing accounts that “manifestly favor or oppose” any candidate by undue or repeated reference, as a violation of freedom of speech and of the press.

ISSUE

The primary issue was whether COMELEC Resolution No. 2772, specifically Section 2 and its implementing directives, which compelled print media to provide free advertising space to candidates, was constitutional.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition in part, declaring Section 2 of Resolution No. 2772 and the related letter-directives null and void. The Court ruled that the compulsory “donation” of print space constituted a taking of private property. Print space is a proprietary asset of publishers, and mandating its free provision for candidate use is a form of expropriation. The power of eminent domain requires payment of just compensation. COMELEC’s action did not fall under police power, as the regulation of electoral processes, while a valid state interest, does not justify the uncompensated appropriation of private property. The state cannot compel publishers to subsidize the dissemination of candidate information without compensation, as this imposes a forced contribution rather than a reasonable regulation.
Regarding the challenge to Section 8 (the “undue reference” provision), the Court DISMISSED this part of the petition for lack of an actual case or controversy. No specific enforcement action or threat against a publisher under this section was presented, making the challenge premature and not justiciable. The Temporary Restraining Order was made permanent concerning the void provisions.