View full case

PHILIPPINE PRESS INSTITUTE v. COMELEC

FACTS:

The Philippine Press Institute (PPI) filed a petition challenging the constitutionality of Section 2 of Comelec Resolution No. 2772. This section requires publishers to provide free print space to Comelec for election-related purposes. PPI argues that this provision infringes on the freedom of the press guaranteed by the Constitution. PPI also argues that Section 8 of the same resolution, which gives Comelec the power to regulate print media enterprises, violates the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech, press, and expression.

The Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) enjoining Comelec from enforcing Section 2 and related directives addressed to print media enterprises. The Office of the Solicitor General filed a Comment on behalf of Comelec, claiming that the resolution does not impose any obligation on publishers and that even if it is mandatory, it is a valid exercise of police power. Comelec Chairman Bernardo Pardo assured the Court that the resolution was not intended to compel publishers to provide free print space and that a clarifying resolution would be adopted. Comelec Resolution No. 2772-A was subsequently issued, clarifying that Section 2 does not require publishers to provide print space under penalty of prosecution and that Section 8 does not constitute prior restraint on publishers.

Although the Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition could be considered moot due to the clarifying resolution, the Court decided to address the constitutional issue raised by PPI regarding Section 2 of Resolution No. 2772.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether Section 2 of Resolution No. 2772 violates the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of the press.

  2. Whether Section 2 of Resolution No. 2772 constitutes a "taking" of private property for public use.

  3. Whether Section 2 of Resolution No. 2772 is a valid exercise of the power of eminent domain.

  4. Whether Section 2 of Resolution No. 2772 can be sustained as a valid exercise of the police power of the State.

  5. Whether Section 8 of Resolution No. 2772 is consistent with the constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and of the press.

  6. Whether or not Section 2 of Resolution No. 2772 is constitutional.

  7. Whether or not the constitutional issue regarding Section 8 of Resolution No. 2772 is ripe for judicial review.

RULING:

  1. Yes, Section 2 of Resolution No. 2772 violates the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of the press. The provision, as presently worded and as interpreted and applied by the Comelec itself, is susceptible to the reading that it compels print media companies to donate free print space for election purposes. This coerces the companies and infringes on their right to determine the content of their publications.

  2. Yes, Section 2 of Resolution No. 2772 constitutes a "taking" of private property for public use. This provision compels print media companies to donate print space, which amounts to a deprivation of their private property rights. The extent and value of the compulsory "donation" are not insubstantial.

  3. Section 2 of Resolution No. 2772 does not constitute a valid exercise of the power of eminent domain.

  4. Section 2 of Resolution No. 2772 cannot be sustained as a valid exercise of the police power of the State.

  5. Section 8 of Resolution No. 2772 is inconsistent with the constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and of the press.

  6. Section 2 of Resolution No. 2772, in its present form, is unconstitutional and therefore, must be set aside and nullified.

  7. The constitutional issue regarding Section 8 of Resolution No. 2772 is not ripe for judicial review due to the lack of an actual case or controversy involving the constitutionality of Section 8.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Freedom of the press is constitutionally guaranteed and should not be unduly restricted or violated.

  • Private property may only be taken for public use through the power of eminent domain and upon payment of just compensation.

  • The economic costs of informing the general public about the qualifications and programs of those seeking elective office should be distributed as widely as possible throughout society by the utilization of public funds, rather than solely burdening print media enterprises.

  • Private property may be taken in the legitimate exercise of the police power of the state, but there must be compliance with the requisites of a lawful taking. In this case, there was no showing of a real and urgent necessity for the taking of print space by the Comelec.

  • Section 8 of Resolution No. 2772 should be viewed in the context of the distinction made in National Press Club v. Commission on Elections between paid political advertisements and the reporting of news, commentaries, and expressions of belief or opinion which are protected by the constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and of the press.

  • The distinction between paid political advertisements and news reports, commentaries, and expressions of belief or opinion by reporters, broadcasters, editors, etc. can only be given operative meaning in specific cases or controversies.

  • A constitutional issue should be ripe for judicial review and involve an actual case or controversy before it can be decided by the court.