FACTS:

The petitioner in this case, a newspaper columnist, filed a petition for certiorari to challenge the constitutionality of Section 19 of Comelec Resolution No. 2167. This provision prohibits mass media columnists, commentators, announcers, or personalities from using their platforms to campaign for or against plebiscite issues during the campaign period, the day before, and on plebiscite day. The petitioner argued that this provision violated the constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression and of the press.

According to the petitioner, as a columnist, his column reflects his personal opinions, views, and beliefs. He claimed that the provision in question constitutes a prior restraint on his freedom of the press. The petitioner further contended that allowing media practitioners to express their views on plebiscite issues would facilitate the government's dissemination of information and the discussion of all perspectives on the issue.

On the other hand, the respondent Commission on Elections (Comelec) argued that the provision is a valid exercise of its power to regulate media during election or plebiscite periods, as mandated by the Constitution. Additionally, they highlighted that the petitioner still had the opportunity to express his views or campaign for or against the Organic Act through the Comelec space and airtime, which is allocated equally and impartially among candidates within the coverage area of all radio and television stations.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not Section 19 of Comelec Resolution No. 2167 violates the constitutional guarantees of the freedom of expression and of the press.

RULING:

1. The Supreme Court held that Section 19 of Comelec Resolution No. 2167 is unconstitutional as it violates the constitutional guarantees of the freedom of expression and of the press. The provision constitutes a prior restraint on the petitioner's constitutionally-guaranteed freedom of the press. It also imposes subsequent punishment for violations, making it more oppressive. The Court emphasized that media practitioners should be allowed to express their views, beliefs, and opinions on issues submitted to a plebiscite as it supports the government's goal to disseminate information and encourage dialogue on both sides of the issue.

PRINCIPLES:

• Constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression and of the press

• Prior restraint on freedom of the press

• Imposition of subsequent punishment

• Government's duty to disseminate information and hear all sides of an issue