Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 158 views

    National Press Club VS Comelec

    Uploaded by

    anna
    The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a provision that prohibits the selling or donating of space and time for political advertisements except through the COMELEC. The court found that there was no infringement of freedom of expression for several reasons: 1) The constitution authorizes COMELEC to regulate media outlets during elections. 2) Some limitation is expected when regulating media enterprises to ensure equal opportunities. 3) The provision is limited to the election period. 4) It only applies to paid advertisements and not general coverage or speeches. 5) It does not limit candidates' own free speech or access to media.

    Copyright:

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

    National Press Club VS Comelec

    Uploaded by

    anna
    158 views1 page
    The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a provision that prohibits the selling or donating of space and time for political advertisements except through the COMELEC. The court found that there was no infringement of freedom of expression for several reasons: 1) The constitution authorizes COMELEC to regulate media outlets during elections. 2) Some limitation is expected when regulating media enterprises to ensure equal opportunities. 3) The provision is limited to the election period. 4) It only applies to paid advertisements and not general coverage or speeches. 5) It does not limit candidates' own free speech or access to media.

    Original Title

    NATIONAL PRESS CLUB VS COMELEC

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a provision that prohibits the selling or donating of space and time for political advertisements except through the COMELEC. The court found that there was no infringement of freedom of expression for several reasons: 1) The constitution authorizes COMELEC to regulate media outlets during elections. 2) Some limitation is expected when regulating media enterprises to ensure equal opportunities. 3) The provision is limited to the election period. 4) It only applies to paid advertisements and not general coverage or speeches. 5) It does not limit candidates' own free speech or access to media.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    158 views1 page

    National Press Club VS Comelec

    Uploaded by

    anna
    The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a provision that prohibits the selling or donating of space and time for political advertisements except through the COMELEC. The court found that there was no infringement of freedom of expression for several reasons: 1) The constitution authorizes COMELEC to regulate media outlets during elections. 2) Some limitation is expected when regulating media enterprises to ensure equal opportunities. 3) The provision is limited to the election period. 4) It only applies to paid advertisements and not general coverage or speeches. 5) It does not limit candidates' own free speech or access to media.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    NATIONAL PRESS CLUB VS COMELEC

    207 SCRA 1

    Facts: Petitioner in these cases are questioning the validity of Sec. 11 (6) of RA
    6646 which prohibits the selling or donating space and time for political
    advertisements except to the COMELEC as provided under Sec. 90 and 92 of
    the Omnibus Election Code. Petitioner’s argue that the provision violates and
    invades the constitutional guarantees comprising Freedom of Expression; that
    it amounts to censorship, that the prohibition is in derogation of media’s role
    and function to provide adequate channels of public information and public
    opinion relevant to election issues.

    Held: No infringement of the Freedom of Expression.


    1. The constitution itself, has expressly authorized the COMELEC to
    supervise or regulate the enjoyment or utilization of franchises or permits
    for the operation of media of communication and information. (Art IX-C, 4).
    The fundamental purpose of that is to ensure equal opportunity, time and
    space and the right to reply, as well as uniform and reasonable rates of
    charges for the used of such media facilities, in connection with “public
    information campaigns and forums among candidates”.
    2. The technical effect of Art IX-C,4 of the Constitution may be seen to be
    that no presumption of invalidity arise in respect of exercises of
    supervisory or regulatory authority on the part of the COMELEC for the
    purpose of securing equal opportunity among candidates for political
    office, although such supervision or regulation may result in some
    limitation of the rights of free speech and free press. For supervision or
    regulation of the operations of media enterprises is scarcely inconceivable
    without accompanying limitation. Thus, the applicable rule is the general
    time honored one- that a statute is presumed to be constitutional and that
    the party asserting its unconstitutionality must discharge the burden of
    clearly and convincingly proving that assertion.
    3. The assailed provision is limited in the duration of its applicability and
    enforceability in time to election period.
    4. It is limited in scope of application. It applied only to sale and purchase,
    and donation of print space or airtime for campaign and other report or
    commentary or other coverage that, in responsible media, is not paid for
    by candidates advertisements of particular candidates.
    5. It does not limit the right of free speech and of access to mass media of the
    candidates themselves. The limitation however, bears a clear and
    reasonable connection with the constitutional objective. For it is precisely
    in the unlimited purchase of print space and radio and television time that
    the resources of the financially affluent candidates are likely to make a
    crucial difference.

    You might also like