Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 52 views

    Pablito V. Sanidad vs. The Commission On Elections: Facts

    Uploaded by

    Kate Shine Malinao
    This case involves a challenge by petitioner Pablito V. Sanidad, a newspaper columnist, to Section 19 of Comelec Resolution No. 2167, which prohibits media personalities from using their columns or airtime to campaign for or against issues in a upcoming plebiscite. While the Comelec argues the provision is a valid exercise of its power to regulate elections, the court finds it places an unjustified restriction on freedom of expression. The court rules Section 19 is unconstitutional and makes permanent its restraining order prohibiting the Comelec from enforcing the provision.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Pablito V. Sanidad vs. The Commission On Elections: Facts

    Uploaded by

    Kate Shine Malinao
    52 views4 pages
    This case involves a challenge by petitioner Pablito V. Sanidad, a newspaper columnist, to Section 19 of Comelec Resolution No. 2167, which prohibits media personalities from using their columns or airtime to campaign for or against issues in a upcoming plebiscite. While the Comelec argues the provision is a valid exercise of its power to regulate elections, the court finds it places an unjustified restriction on freedom of expression. The court rules Section 19 is unconstitutional and makes permanent its restraining order prohibiting the Comelec from enforcing the provision.

    Original Description:

    Case Digest

    Original Title

    MALINAO2

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a challenge by petitioner Pablito V. Sanidad, a newspaper columnist, to Section 19 of Comelec Resolution No. 2167, which prohibits media personalities from using their columns or airtime to campaign for or against issues in a upcoming plebiscite. While the Comelec argues the provision is a valid exercise of its power to regulate elections, the court finds it places an unjustified restriction on freedom of expression. The court rules Section 19 is unconstitutional and makes permanent its restraining order prohibiting the Comelec from enforcing the provision.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    52 views4 pages

    Pablito V. Sanidad vs. The Commission On Elections: Facts

    Uploaded by

    Kate Shine Malinao
    This case involves a challenge by petitioner Pablito V. Sanidad, a newspaper columnist, to Section 19 of Comelec Resolution No. 2167, which prohibits media personalities from using their columns or airtime to campaign for or against issues in a upcoming plebiscite. While the Comelec argues the provision is a valid exercise of its power to regulate elections, the court finds it places an unjustified restriction on freedom of expression. The court rules Section 19 is unconstitutional and makes permanent its restraining order prohibiting the Comelec from enforcing the provision.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 4

    MALINAO, CRISEL B.

    BA JOURN 3-2
    201912677 ASSIGNMENT #2

    PABLITO V. SANIDAD vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

    FACTS

    Republic Act No. 6766, titled "AN ACT PROVIDING FOR AN ORGANIC ACT FOR THE
    CORDILLERA AUTONOMOUS REGION," was signed into law on October 23, 1989. As per
    said law, the City of Baguio and the Cordilleras, which include the provinces of Benguet,
    Mountain Province, Ifugao, Abra, and Kalinga-Apayao, all of which are part of the Cordillera
    Autonomous Region, will participate in a plebiscite for the ratification of said Organic Act. The
    Commission on Elections promulgated Resolution No. 2167 to administer the plebiscite on the
    said Organic Act for the Cordillera Autonomous Region, based on the jurisdiction granted in it by
    the 1987 Constitution, the Omnibus Election Code (BP 881), said RA 6766, and other relevant
    election legislation.

    Petitioner Pablito V. Sanidad, who claims to be a newspaper writer for the BAGUIO MIDLAND
    COURIER, a weekly newspaper issued in the City of Baguio and the Cordilleras, challenged the
    validity of Section 19 of Comelec Resolution No. 2167 in a petition dated November 20, 1989.

    Section 19 - Prohibition on columnist, commentators or announcers. During the plebiscite


    campaign period, on the day before and on plebiscite day, no mass media columnist,
    commentator, announcer, or personality shall use his column or radio or television times to
    campaign for or against the plebiscite issues.

    This is a certiorari petition challenging the constitutionality of Section 19 of Comelec Resolution


    No. 2167, claiming that it violates on the legal protections of freedom of expression and the
    press.

    However, the petitioner claims that the provision is void and unconstitutional since it breaches
    the Constitution's protections of freedom of expression and the press. The provision of
    COMELEC Resolution No. 2167, according to the petitioner, imposes a prior constraint on his
    constitutionally granted freedom of the press. Petitioner also contends that allowing media
    professionals to express their ideas, thoughts, and opinions on the subject of the plebiscite
    would aid the government's objective to disseminate information and hear, as well as ventilate,
    all sides of the issue.
    ISSUE

    Is Pablito V. Sanidad eligible to be charged in the case referred to in Section 19 of Comelec


    Resolution No. 2167?

    Is Petitioner Sanidad's right to express his thoughts and/or advocate for against the Organic Act
    indeed a violation?

    Does Comelec Resolution 2167 completely prevent the petitioner-columnist from expressing his
    views?

    RULE OF LAW

    This is the same case as Badoy, Jr. v. Comelec, L-32546, Oct. 16, 1970, in which they ruled
    that the prohibition of certain forms of election propaganda is a valid exercise of the state's
    police power "to prevent the perversion and prostitution of the electoral apparatus and the
    denial of equal protection of the laws."

    APPLICATION

    They imposed a temporary restraining order on November 28, 1989, prohibiting the respondent
    Commission on Elections from executing or implementing Section 19 of Resolution No. 2167.
    The respondent was likewise compelled to respond to the petition. Respondent Commission on
    Elections submitted its Comment on January 9, 1990, through the Office of the Solicitor
    General. Respondent Comelec contends that the provision in dispute in Comelec Resolution
    No. 2167 does not violate the constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression and the press.
    Rather, it is a valid implementation of the Comelec's authority to supervise and regulate the
    media during election or plebiscite periods, as enunciated in Article IX-C, Section 4 of the 1987
    Philippine Constitution.

    Respondent also claims that Resolution 2167 does not preclude petitioner from expressing his
    opinions and/or advocating for or against the Organic Act. Through Comelec space and airtime,
    he can still voice his opinions and fight for or against the act. Sections 90 and 92 of BP 881
    provision for this. Respondent Comelec has made extensive use of Article IX-C of the 1987
    Constitution as well as Section 11 of R.A. 6646 as the basis for the promulgation of the
    questioned Section 19 of Comelec Resolution 2167, similarly to Section 11 of Republic Act No.
    6646 (The Electoral Reform Law of 1987.
    In the 1987 Constitution, Article IX-C of the Comelec was granted the power to supervise and
    regulate the use and enjoyment of franchises, permits or other grants. The evil sought to be
    prevented is the possibility that a franchise holder may favor or give any undue advantage to a
    candidate in advertising space or radio or television time. This is also why a "columnist,
    commentator, announcer, or personality who is a candidate for any elective office is required to
    take a leave of absence from his work during the campaign period" (2nd par. Section 11(b) R.A.
    6646) cannot be overstated.

    CONCLUSION

    They hold that this form of regulation is tantamount to a restriction of petitioner's freedom of
    expression for no justifiable reason. While the limitation does not absolutely bar petitioner's
    freedom of expression, it is still a restriction on his choice of the forum where he may express
    his view. No reason was advanced by respondent to justify such abridgement. Respondent's
    argument that Section 19 of Comelec Resolution 2167 does not absolutely bar petitioner-
    columnist from expressing his views is not meritorious.

    Plebiscite issues are matters of public concern and importance. The people's right to be
    informed and to make a decision would be better served by access to an unabridged discussion
    of the issues, including the forum. The people affected by the issues presented in a plebiscite
    should not be burdened by restrictions on the forum where the right to expression may be
    exercised. Comelec spaces and Comelec radio time may provide a forum for expression, but
    they do not ensure full dissemination of information to the public because they are limited to
    specific sections of newspapers or radio or television times.

    All over, the instant petition is GRANTED. Section 19 of Comelec Resolution No. 2167 has been
    declared null and void as well as unconstitutional. The restraining order issued in this case is
    made permanent by this action.

    ADDITIONAL COMMENTS/PERSONAL IMPRESSION

    As I read this case, I realized it’s really hard to be a media practitioner, journalist or reporter
    because there's always a law behind you. I also observed in Section 19 of Comelec Resolution
    No. 2167 there’s a statement said that “During the plebiscite campaign period, on the day
    before and on plebiscite day, no mass media columnist, commentator, announcer, or
    personality shall use his column or radio or television times to campaign for or against the
    plebiscite issues” but the respondent Comelec contends that the provision in dispute does not
    violate the constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression and the press. A journalist can
    still voice his opinions and fight for or against the act. Freedom of express can save us in this
    time that government attack us by telling the truth. The law allegedly violated by Sanidad has
    yet to be validated because the ruling said Section 19 of Comelec Resolution No. 2167 has
    been declared null and void as well as unconstitutional.

    You might also like