Mallorca - Sanidad Vs Comelec

SANIDAD vs.
COMELEC
G.R. 90878, January 29, 1990
SYRINE M. MALLORCA
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.
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.
“Section 19. Prohibition on columnist, commentators
COMELEC Resolution 2167 period,
or announcers.- During the plebiscite campaign
on the day before and on plebiscite day, no
Freedom of Expression and of the Press mass media columnist, commentator, announcer or
personality shall use his column or radio or television
time to campaign for or against the plebiscite
issues.”
SECTION 19
PABLITO SANIDAD Resolution 2167
Columnist “Section 19. Prohibition on columnist,
filed a petition for prohibition and
commentators or announcers.- During
temporary restraining order or a writ
the plebiscite campaign period, on the
of preliminary injunction against
day before and on plebiscite day, no
COMELEC claiming that the said
mass media columnist, commentator,
provision violates his constitutional
announcer or personality shall use his
freedom of expression and of the
column or radio or television time to
press.
campaign for or against the plebiscite
issues.”
FACTS OF THE CASE
RA 6766
- On October 23, 1989, RA 6766, entitled “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 SC’s TRO
Provinces of Benguet, Abra, Mt. Province, Ifugao
and Kalinga-Apayao, all comprising the On November 28, 1989, the Supreme
autonomous region shall take part in a plebiscite Court issued a temporary restraining
originally scheduled for December 27, 1989 but order enjoining the respondent from
was reset to January 30, 1990 specifically for the enforcing Section 19 of Resolution No.
ratification or rejection of the said act; 2167;
- By virtue of the 1987 Constitution and the
Omnibus Election Code (BP 881), the Comelec
issued Comelec Resolution No. 2167.
COMELEC SPACE
On January 9, 1990, Comelec through the
Petition for Prohibition Solicitor General filed its Comment and
moved for the dismissal of the petition on
On November 20, 1989, petitioner PABLITO the ground that Section 19 of Resolution
V. SANIDAD filed a petition for Prohibition No. 2167 does not absolutely bar the
with prayer for the issuance of a temporary petitioner from expressing his views
restraining order or a writ of preliminary because under Section 90 and 92 of BP
injunction against the Comelec to enjoin 881, he may still express his views or
the latter from enforcing Section 19 of campaign for or against the act through the
resolution No. 2167. Comelec space and airtime.
MAIN ISSUE
Whether or not Section 19 of

resolution No. 2167 is violative of
the constitutional freedom of
expression and of the press
RULING – YES, VIOLATIVE
YES. What is granted by Art. IX-C of the Constitution to the

Comelec is 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 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
insured. The evil sought to be prevented by this provision is
the possibility that a franchise holder may favor or give
undue advantage to a candidate in terms of advertising time
and space. This is also the reason why a columnist,
commentator or announcer is required to take a leave of
absence from his work during the campaign period if he is a
candidate.
OVERARCHING PRINCIPLES
HOWEVER, NEITHER ARTICLE IX-C OF THE CONSTITUTION
NOR SECTION 11(B), 2ND PAR. OF RA 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 THE PLEBISCITE
PERIODS. Media practitioners exercising their freedom of
expression during the plebiscite periods are neither the
franchise holders nor the candidates. In fact, there are no
candidates in a plebiscite.
While it is true that the petitioner is not absolutely barred

from campaigning for or against the Organic Act, said fact
does not cure the constitutional infirmity of Section 19,
Comelec Resolution No. 2167. This is so because IT IS STILL A
RESTRICTION ON HIS CHOICE OF THE FORUM WHERE HE
MAY EXPRESS HIS VIEW.
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.
FINAL JUDGEMENT
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.
THANK YOU

Mallorca - Sanidad Vs Comelec

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mallorca - Sanidad Vs Comelec

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mallorca - Sanidad Vs Comelec

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SANIDAD vs.

This is a petition for certiorari assailing the constitutionality of Section 19 of COMELEC

Whether or not Section 19 of

YES. What is granted by Art. IX-C of the Constitution to the

While it is true that the petitioner is not absolutely barred

Plebiscite issues are matters of public concern and

You might also like