View full case

TELECOMMUNICATIONS v. COMELEC

FACTS:

The case concerns the validity of Section 92 of Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 881, requiring radio and television broadcast companies to provide free airtime to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) for use during election campaigns. TELEBAP and GMA Network, Inc. challenged the constitutionality of this provision on three grounds. However, the court ruled that TELEBAP lacked standing to assert any injuries or rights, while GMA Network, Inc. had standing due to previous losses suffered and potential future losses. GMA Network, Inc. argued that the requirement for free airtime violated their constitutional rights.

In relation to the same case, it involves the constitutionality of Section 92 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, which obliges radio and television stations to provide free airtime, known as "Comelec Time," to candidates during election campaigns. The petitioners argued that this provision violated the due process clause and eminent domain provision of the Constitution because it took airtime from broadcasting stations without just compensation. However, the government contended that broadcasting is a licensed privilege subject to amendment for the common good. The court found that the requirement for free airtime served the common good by allowing voters to be fully informed and had been in place since 1971 without previous objections. It deemed the provision constitutional as it served the rights of viewers and listeners, and allowed for the amendment of franchises in the interest of the common good.

The case also addressed government controls on broadcast media and the regulation of telecommunications systems in the Philippines. PLDT challenged the NTC's order requiring the interconnection of its domestic telephone system with the international gateway facility of Eastern Telecom. The Court referenced previous cases recognizing the government's power to impose reasonable conditions on licenses and franchises. It acknowledged that the exercise of privileges granted to broadcasting and telecommunications companies may be subject to public service obligations. The Court further noted that the Constitution allows for state intervention in property rights if it promotes the common good. The interconnection requirement imposed on PLDT was considered a form of intervention intended to promote the expansion of telecommunications services and ensure access for all users.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the interconnection of telephone systems is allowed under the legislative franchise.

  2. Whether the requirement to provide free airtime for the COMELEC is a valid exercise of police power.

  3. Whether the requirement to provide free airtime constitutes a taking of property without just compensation.

  4. Whether §92 of B.P. Blg. 881 is an invalid amendment of petitioner's franchise

  5. Whether the amendment providing for the payment of "just compensation" for COMELEC Time is valid

  6. Whether the provision in COMELEC Resolution No. 2983-A, which requires radio and television stations to provide free airtime for political candidates, is valid.

  7. Whether the differential treatment of broadcast media as compared to print media in providing free airtime is justified.

  8. Whether the requirement of COMELEC Time is a reasonable exercise of the state's power to regulate the use of franchises.

  9. Whether the power to regulate includes the power to prohibit.

  10. Whether Section 11(b) of R.A. No. 6646, which prohibits the sale or donation of print space and airtime for political ads, is a valid exercise of regulatory power.

RULING:

  1. The interconnection of telephone systems is allowed under the legislative franchise.

  2. The requirement to provide free airtime for the COMELEC is a valid exercise of police power.

  3. The requirement to provide free airtime does not constitute a taking of property without just compensation.

  4. §92 of B.P. Blg. 881 is not an invalid amendment of petitioner's franchise but the enforcement of a duty voluntarily assumed by petitioner in accepting a public grant of privilege.

  5. The amendment providing for the payment of "just compensation" for COMELEC Time is invalid and contravenes §92 of B.P. Blg. 881 which provides that radio and television time given during the period of the campaign shall be "free of charge."

  6. The provision in COMELEC Resolution No. 2983-A, which requires radio and television stations to provide free airtime for political candidates, is valid. The amendment made by an administrative agency cannot amend a statute of Congress. Therefore, since the provision is invalid, it cannot be invoked by the parties.

  7. The differential treatment of broadcast media as compared to print media in providing free airtime is justified. This is because of the physical limitations of the broadcast spectrum, which require the government to allocate broadcast frequencies. There is no similar justification for government allocation and regulation of the print media. Additionally, the unique and pervasive influence of the broadcast media and their impact on the lives of Filipinos justify the differential treatment.

  8. The requirement of COMELEC Time is a reasonable exercise of the state's power to regulate the use of franchises. It is a fair exchange for what the broadcast industry receives. Furthermore, Congress enacted R.A. No. 6646 to reform the old regime where moneyed candidates could monopolize media advertising, and the Court cannot set aside the judgment of Congress.

  9. The Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the validity of Section 11(b) of R.A. No. 6646.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The interconnection of telephone systems is allowed to promote the efficient provision of telecommunications services and ensure access for all users.

  • The state has the power to regulate telecommunications networks in the exercise of its police power for the promotion of the general welfare.

  • Licenses to broadcast do not confer ownership of frequencies, but only the temporary privilege of using them. Therefore, broadcasters are obligated to provide airtime for public service purposes.

  • Radio and television stations do not own the airwaves, so requiring them to provide airtime does not constitute a taking of private property.

  • The cost of producing programs for the COMELEC should be the responsibility of the candidates themselves. Broadcasters should not charge discriminatory fees or provide discriminatory terms for campaign-related services.

  • The duty imposed on a broadcasting network to render "adequate public service time" implements §92 of B.P. Blg. 881 and enables the government to communicate with the people on matters of public interest.

  • The COMELEC Time provided under §92 of B.P. Blg. 881 and COMELEC Resolution No. 2983-A is considered part of the public service time required to be furnished by broadcasting stations under their respective franchises or permits.

  • Radio and television time given during the campaign period should be given "free of charge" and may not be subject to just compensation.

  • An administrative agency cannot amend a statute of Congress.

  • Differential treatment of broadcast media as compared to print media is justified due to the unique characteristics and influence of the broadcast media.

  • The requirement of COMELEC Time is a reasonable exercise of the state's power to regulate the use of franchises.

  • The power to regulate includes the power to prohibit, as long as the objects of regulation and prohibition are different.

  • Section 11(b) of R.A. No. 6646 is a regulatory provision that not only prohibits the sale or donation of print space and airtime to political candidates but also mandates the COMELEC to procure and allocate such space and time to candidates.

  • The regulation of media advertising by candidates through the COMELEC Time and COMELEC Space is necessary to ensure free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections.

  • The right of the people to information on matters of public concern and the duty of the State to promote distributive justice and intervene for the common good justify the regulation of media advertising.

  • Broadcast media, as public trustees, have the duty to ensure that the people have access to diverse views on political issues, which is paramount to their autonomy.

  • The use of property bears a social function and is subject to the state's duty to intervene for the common good.