Social Weather Stations Vs COMELEC
Social Weather Stations Vs COMELEC
Social Weather Stations Vs COMELEC
COMELEC
G.R. No. 147571 May 5, 2001
Mendoza, J:
(DIAO)
FACTS:
On the one hand, Social Weather Stations (SWS) is an institution conducting surveys in various fields.
Kamahalan Publishing Corp., on the other hand, publishes the Manila Standard which is a newspaper of
general circulation and features items of information including election surveys. Both SWS and
Kamahalan are contesting the validity and enforcement of R.A. 9006 (Fair Election Act), especially
section 5.4 which provides that surveys affecting national candidates shall not be published 15 days
before an election and surveys affecting local candidates shall not be published 7 days before the election.
SWS wanted to conduct an election survey throughout the period of the elections both at the national and
local levels and release to the media the results of such survey as well as publish them directly.
Kamahalan, for its part, intends to publish election survey results up to the last day of the elections on
May 14, 2001.
Petitioners argue that the restriction on the publication of election survey results constitutes a prior
restraint on the exercise of freedom of speech without any clear and present danger to justify such
restraint. They claim that SWS and other pollsters conducted and published the results of surveys prior to
the 1992, 1995, and 1998 elections up to as close as two days before the election day without causing
confusion among the voters and that there is neither empirical nor historical evidence to support the
conclusion that there is an immediate and inevitable danger to tile voting process posed by election
surveys. No similar restriction is imposed on politicians from explaining their opinion or on newspapers
or broadcast media from writing and publishing articles concerning political issues up to the day of the
election. They contend that there is no reason for ordinary voters to be denied access to the results of
election surveys, which are relatively objective.
Respondent Commission on Elections justifies the restrictions in §5.4 of R.A. No. 9006 as necessary to
prevent the manipulation and corruption of the electoral process by unscrupulous and erroneous surveys
just before the election. It contends that (1) the prohibition on the publication of election survey results
during the period proscribed by law bears a rational connection to the objective of the law, i.e., the
prevention of the debasement of the electoral process resulting from manipulated surveys, bandwagon
effect, and absence of reply; (2) it is narrowly tailored to meet the "evils" sought to be prevented; and (3)
the impairment of freedom of expression is minimal, the restriction being limited both in duration, i.e., the
last 15 days before the national election and the last 7 days before a local election, and in scope as it does
not prohibit election survey results but only require timeliness.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the restriction on the publication of election survey constitutes a prior restraint on the
exercise of freedom of speech without any clear and present danger to justify such restraint
RULING/RATIO:
Yes, Section 5.4 of R.A. 9006 constitutes an unconstitutional abridgement of freedom of speech,
expression, and the press.
The power of the COMELEC over media franchises is limited to ensuring equal opportunity, time, space,
and the right to reply, as well as to fix reasonable rates of charge for the use of media facilities for public
information and forms among candidates.
Here, the prohibition of speech is direct, absolute, and substantial. Nor does this section pass the O’brient
test for content related regulation because (1) it suppresses one type of expression while allowing other
types such as editorials, etc.; and (2) the restriction is greater than what is needed to protect government
interest because the interest can e protected by narrower restrictions such as subsequent punishment.
Note: Justice Kapunan’s dissenting opinion basically says that the test of clear and present danger is
inappropriate to use in order to test the validity of this section. Instead, he purports to engage in a form of
balancing by weighing and balancing the circumstances to determine whether public interest is served by
the regulation of the free enjoyment of the rights. However, he failed to show why, on the balance, the
other considerations (for example, prevention of last minute pressure on voters) should outweigh the
value of freedom of expression.