Rappler V Bautista

RAPPLER, INC., petitioner, vs. ANDRES D. BAUTISTA, respondent.
G.R. No. 222702 April 5, 2016
FACTS:
 Rappler, Inc. filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition against Andres D. Bautista, in
his capacity as Chairman of the COMELEC. The petition seeks to nullify Part VI (C),
paragraph 19 and Part VI (D), paragraph 20 of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
on the 2016 presidential and vice-presidential debates, for violating the fundamental
rights of petitioner protected under the Constitution.
 The MOA was executed by the COMELEC and the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng
Pilipinas (KBP), and the various media networks. Under the MOA, the KBP was
designated as Debate Coordinator while ABS-CBN, GMA, Nine Media, and TV5,
together with their respective print media partners were designated as Lead Networks.
 Before the execution of the MOA, Chairman Bautista called for a meeting with various
media outlets to discuss the "Pilipinas 2016 Debates" which the COMELEC was
organizing. Chairman Bautista proposed that petitioner and Google, Inc. be in charge of
online and social media engagement.
 Another meeting was held at the COMELEC office to discuss a draft MOA on the
debates. In the draft, petitioner and Google's participation were dropped in favor of the
online outlets owned by the Lead Networks. Petitioner alleged that the draft MOA
permitted online streaming provided proper attribution is given the Lead Network.
 The draft MOA was emailed to petitioner on the evening of 12 January 2016, and was
scheduled for signing the following day. Petitioner communicated with Chairman
Bautista its concerns regarding certain provisions of the MOA particularly regarding
online streaming and the imposition of a maximum limit of two minutes of debate
excerpts for news reporting. Chairman Bautista assured petitioner that its concerns will
be addressed afterwards, but it has to sign the MOA because time was of the essence.
 On January 13, 2016, petitioner, along with other media networks executed the MOA.
Petitioner alleged that it made several communications with Chairman Bautista and the
COMELEC Commissioners regarding its concerns on some of the MOA provisions, but
petitioner received no response.
 Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether Bautista exceeded the scope of his authority in executing the MOA
RULING:
The Memorandum of Agreement refers to Section 7.3 of Republic Act No. 9006, otherwise
known as the Fair Elections Act. This provision states that “[t]he COMELEC [Commission on
Elections] may require national television and radio networks to sponsor at least three (3)
national debates among presidential candidates and at least one (1) national debate among
vice presidential candidates[.]”
Section 7.3 clearly empowers the Commission on Elections acting as a constitutional

commission — and not the Commission on Elections Chair — to require networks to sponsor
these debates. The alleged authority of the Chair was only “to create the Technical Working
Group for the conduct of the presidential debate in connection with the May 9, 2016 election.”
Authority to create a technical working group does not equate to authority to enter into the
assailed Memorandum of Agreement with the Lead Networks.
Even the Civil Code provides that “[i]f the agent contracts in the name of the principal,
exceeding the scope of his [or her] authority, and the principal does not ratify the contract, it
shall be void if the party with whom the agent contracted is aware of the limits of the powers
granted by the principal[.]”There is no showing that a Commission on Elections resolution
explicitly authorizing respondent to enter the Memorandum of Agreement was attached to the
Agreement as to assure the parties of respondent’s authority to sign on behalf of the
Commission on Elections. There is also no showing that the Commission on Elections has
resolved to approve or ratify the Memorandum of Agreement respondent signed.
Undoubtedly, respondent as Chair and without proper authorization from the Commission on
Elections En Banc facilitated and endorsed a contract that favored lead networks at the expense
of smaller internet-based media outlets like petitioner.
The respondent Andres D. Bautista, as Chair of the Commission on Elections, is directed to

implement Part VI(C), paragraph 19 of the Memorandum of Agreement, which allows the
debates to be shown or live-streamed unaltered in petitioner’s and other websites subject to the
copyright condition that the source is clearly indicated.
Petition partially granted.

Rappler V Bautista

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rappler V Bautista

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rappler V Bautista

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RAPPLER, INC., petitioner, vs. ANDRES D. BAUTISTA, respondent.

G.R. No. 222702 April 5, 2016

Section 7.3 clearly empowers the Commission on Elections acting as a constitutional

The respondent Andres D. Bautista, as Chair of the Commission on Elections, is directed to

Petition partially granted.

You might also like