7/11/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 181

VOL. 181, JANUARY 30, 1990 529

Sanidad vs. Commission on Elections

*
G.R. No. 90878. January 29, 1990.

PABLITO V. SANIDAD, petitioner, vs. THE

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent.

Election Law; Political Law; Police Power; Prohibition

regarding certain forms of election propaganda is a valid exercise
of police power of the state to prevent perversion and prostitution of
the electoral process.—In the case of Badoy, Jr. v. Comelec, L-
32546, Oct. 16, 1970, where the constitutionality of the
prohibition of certain forms of election propaganda was assailed,
We ruled therein that the prohibition is a valid exercise of the
police power of the state “to prevent the perversion and
prostitution of the electoral apparatus and of the denial of equal
protection of the laws.” The evil sought to be prevented in an
election which led to Our ruling in that case does not obtain in a
plebiscite. In a plebiscite, votes are taken in an area on some
special political matter unlike in an election where votes are cast
in favor of specific persons for some office. In other words, the
electorate is asked to vote for or against issues, not candidates in
a plebiscite.
Same; Sec. 19 of Comelec Resolution No. 2167 prohibiting
columnists, commentators or announcers from using their columns
to campaign for or against the plebiscite issues is a restriction of
freedom of expression.—Anent Respondent Comelec’s argument
that Section 19 of Comelec Resolution 2167 does not absolutely
bar petitioner-columnist from expressing his views and/or from
campaigning for or against the organic act because he may do so
through the Comelec space and/ or Comelec radio/television time,
the same is not meritorious. 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

_____________

* EN BANC.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016bde20dcfb7a0025d2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/8
7/11/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 181

530

530 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Sanidad vs. Commission on Elections

express his view. No reason was advanced by respondent to justify

such abridgement. We hold that this form of regulation is
tantamount to a restriction of petitioner’s freedom of expression
for no justifiable reason.
Same; Same; Sec. 19 of Comelec Resolution No. 2167 is void
and unconstitutional.—Plebiscite issues are matters of public
concern and importance. The people’s right to be informed and to
be able to freely and intelligently 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 unduly 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 guarantee full dissemination of
information to the public concerned because they are limited to
either specific portions in newspapers or to specific radio or
television times. Accordingly, the instant petition is GRANTED.
Section 19 of Comelec Resolution No. 2167 is declared null and
void and unconstitutional.

PETITION for certiorari to review the resolution of the

Commission on Elections.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

MEDIALDEA, J.:

This is a petition for certiorari assailing the

constitutionality of Section 19 of Comelec Resolution No.
2167 on the ground that it violates the constitutional
guarantees of the freedom of expression and of the press.
On October 23, 1989, Republic Act No. 6766, entitiled
“AN ACT PROVIDING FOR AN ORGANIC ACT FOR THE
CORDILLERA AUTONOMOUS REGION” was enacted
into law. Pursuant to said law, the City of Baguio and the
Cordilleras which consist of the provinces of Benguet,
Mountain Province, Ifugao, Abra and Kalinga-Apayao, all
comprising the Cordillera Autonomous Region, shall take
part in a plebiscite for the ratification of said Organic Act
originally scheduled last December 27, 1989 which was,

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016bde20dcfb7a0025d2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/8
7/11/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 181

however, reset to January 30, 1990 by virtue of Comelec

Resolution No. 2226 dated December 27, 1989.
The Commission on Elections, by virtue of the power
vested

531

VOL. 181, JANUARY 30, 1990 531

Sanidad vs. Commission on Elections

by the 1987 Constitution, the Omnibus Election Code (BP

881), said R.A. 6766 and other pertinent election laws,
promulgated Resolution No. 2167, to govern the conduct of
the plebiscite on the said Organic Act for the Cordillera
Autonomous Region.
In a petition dated November 20, 1989, herein petitioner
Pablito V. Sanidad, who claims to be a newspaper
columnist of the “OVERVIEW” for the BAGUIO MIDLAND
COURIER, a weekly newspaper circulated in the City of
Baguio and the Cordilleras, assailed the constitutionality of
Section 19 of Comelec Resolution No. 2167, which provides:

“Section 19. Prohibition on columnists, 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 time to campaign for or against the plebiscite
issues.”

It is alleged by petitioner that said provision is void and

unconstitutional because it violates the constitutional
guarantees of the freedom of expression and of the press
enshrined in the Constitution.
Unlike a regular newsreporter or news correspondent
who merely reports the news, petitioner maintains that as
a columnist, his column obviously and necessarily contains
and reflects his opinions, views and beliefs on any issue or
subject about which he writes. Petitioner believes that said
provision of COMELEC Resolution No. 2167 constitutes a
prior restraint on his constitutionally-guaranteed freedom
of the press and further imposes subsequent punishment
for those who may violate it because it contains a penal
provision, as follows:

“Article XIII, Section 122, Election Offenses and Banned Acts or

Activities.—Except to the extent that the same may not be
applicable to a plebiscite, the banned acts/activities and offenses
defined in and penalized by the Omnibus Election Code (Sections
261, 262, 263 and 264, Article XXII, B.P. Blg. 881) and the
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016bde20dcfb7a0025d2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/8
7/11/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 181

pertinent provisions of R.A. No. 6646 shall be applicable to the

plebiscite governed by this Resolution.”

Petitioner likewise maintains that if media practitioners

were allowed to express their views, beliefs and opinions on
the issue

532

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 532

Sanidad vs. Commission on Elections

submitted to a plebiscite, it would in fact help in the

government drive and desire to disseminate information,
and hear, as well as ventilate, all sides of the issue.
On November 28, 1989, We issued a temporary
restraining order enjoining respondent Commission on
Elections from enforcing and implementing Section 19 of
Resolution No. 2167. We also required the respondent to
comment on the petition.
On January 9, 1990, respondent Commission on
Elections, through the Office of the Solicitor General filed
its Comment.
Respondent Comelec maintains that the questioned
provision of Comelec Resolution No. 2167 is not violative of
the constitutional guarantees of the freedom of expression
and of the press. Rather, it is a valid implementation of the
power of the Comelec to supervise and regulate media
during election or plebiscite periods as enunciated in
Article IX-C, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution of the
Republic of the Philippines.
It is stated further by respondent that Resolution 2167
does not absolutely bar petitioner from expressing his
views and/or from campaigning for or against the Organic
Act. He may still express his views or campaign for or
against the act through the Comelec space and airtime.
This is provided under Sections 90 and 92 of BP 881:

“Section 90. Comelec Space.—The Commission shall procure space

in at least one newspaper of general circulation in every province
or city: Provided, however, That in the absence of said newspaper,
publication shall be done in any other magazine or periodical in
said province or city, which shall be known as “Comelec Space”
wherein candidates can announce their candidacy. Said space
shall be allocated, free of charge, equally and impartially within
the area in which the newspaper is circulated.
“Section 92. Comelec Time.—The Commission shall procure
radio and television time to be known as “Comelec Time” which

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016bde20dcfb7a0025d2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/8
7/11/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 181

shall be allocated equally and impartially among the candidates

within the area of coverage of all radio and television stations. For
this purpose, the franchise of all radio broadcasting and television
stations are hereby amended so as to provide radio or television
time, free of charge, during the period of the campaign.”

Respondent Comelec has relied much on Article IX-C of the

1987 Constitution and Section 11 of R.A. 6646 as the basis
for

533

VOL. 181, JANUARY 30, 1990 533

Sanidad vs. Commission on Elections

the promulgation of the questioned Section 19 of Comelec

Resolution 2167.
Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution provides:

“The Commission may, during the election period, supervise or

regulate the enjoyment or utilization of all franchises or permits
for the operation of transportation and other public utilities,
media of communication or information, all grants, special
privileges, or concessions granted by the Government or any
subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including any
government-owned or controlled corporation or its subsidiary.
Such supervision or regulation shall aim to ensure equal
opportunity, time, and space, and the right to reply, including
reasonable, equal rates therefor, for public information campaigns
and forums among candidates in connection with the objective of
holding free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections.”

Similarly, Section 11 of Republic Act No. 6646 (The

Electoral Reform Law of 1987) likewise provides:

“Prohibited forms of election Propaganda.—In addition to the

forms of election propaganda prohibited under Section 85 of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 881, it shall be unlawful: x x x
“(b) for any newspaper, radio, broadcasting or television
station, or other mass media, or any person making use of the
mass media to sell or to give free of charge print space or air time
for campaign or other political purposes except to the Commission
as provided under Sections 90 and 92 of Batas Pambansa Blg.
881. Any mass media columnist, commentator, announcer, or
personality who is a candidate for any elective office shall take a
leave of absence from his work as such during the campaign
period.” (Emphasis ours)

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016bde20dcfb7a0025d2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/8
7/11/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 181

However, it is clear from Art. IX-C of the 1987 Constitution

that what was granted to the Comelec was the power to
supervise and regulate the use and enjoyment of
franchises, permits or other grants issued for the operation
of transportation or other public utilities, media of
communication or information to the end that equal
opportunity, time and space, and the right to reply,
including reasonable, equal rates therefor, for public
information campaigns and forums among candidates are
ensured. The evil sought to be prevented by this provision
is the possibility that a franchise holder may favor or give
any undue
534

534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Sanidad vs. Commission on Elections

advantage to a candidate in terms of advertising space or

radio or television time. This is also the reason 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). It cannot be gainsaid that a
columnist or commentator who is also a candidate would be
more exposed to the voters to the prejudice of other
candidates unless required to take a leave of absence.
However, neither Article IX-C of the Constitution nor
Section 11(b), 2nd par. of R.A. 6646 can be construed to
mean that the Comelec has also been granted the right to
supervise and regulate the exercise by media practitioners
themselves of their right to expression during plebiscite
periods. Media practitioners exercising their freedom of
expression during plebiscite periods are neither the
franchise holders nor the candidates. In fact, there are no
candidates involved in a plebiscite. Therefore, Section 19 of
Comelec Resolution No. 2167 has no statutory basis.
In the case of Badoy, Jr. v. Comelec, L-32546, Oct. 16,
1970, where the constitutionality of the prohibition of
certain forms of election propaganda was assailed, We
ruled therein that the prohibition is a valid exercise of the
police power of the state “to prevent the perversion and
prostitution of the electoral apparatus and of the denial of
equal protection of the laws.” The evil sought to be
prevented in an election which led to Our ruling in that
case does not obtain in a plebiscite. In a plebiscite, votes
are taken in an area on some special political matter unlike
in an election where votes are cast in favor of specific
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016bde20dcfb7a0025d2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/8
7/11/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 181

persons for some office. In other words, the electorate is

asked to vote for or against issues, not candidates in a
plebiscite.
Anent respondent Comelec’s argument that Section 19 of
Comelec Resolution 2167 does not absolutely bar
petitioner-columnist from expressing his views and/or from
campaigning for or against the organic act because he may
do so through the Comelec space and/or Comelec
radio/television time, the same is not meritorious. 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. We
535

VOL. 181, JANUARY 30, 1990 535

Sanidad vs. Commission on Elections

hold that this form of regulation is tantamount to a

restriction of petitioner’s freedom of expression for no
justifiable reason.
Plebiscite issues are matters of public concern and
importance. The people’s right to be informed and to be
able to freely and intelligently 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 unduly
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 guarantee full dissemination of information to the
public concerned because they are limited to either specific
portions in newspapers or to specific radio or television
times.
ACCORDINGLY, the instant petition is GRANTED.
Section 19 of Comelec Resolution No. 2167 is declared null
and void and unconstitutional. The restraining order
herein issued is hereby made permanent.
SO ORDERED.

          Fernan (C.J.), Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera,

Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla,
Bidin, Sarmiento, Cortés, Griño-Aquino and Regalado, JJ.,
concur.

Petition granted.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016bde20dcfb7a0025d2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/8
7/11/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 181

Note.—45-day period of campaign under Sec. 4 of the

1978 Election Code is not violative of Sec. 6 of Art. XII of
the New Constitution. (Occena vs. COMELEC, 95 SCRA
755).

——o0o——

536

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016bde20dcfb7a0025d2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/8