Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 20 views

    COMPULSARY DONATION PPI v. Comelec, 244 SCRA 272 (1995)

    Uploaded by

    Leyard
    The document discusses a case regarding the Commission on Elections (Comelec) requiring print media companies to donate advertising space to promote election-related information. There were two threshold requirements for a lawful taking of private property: necessity and legal authority. The court determined the taking of print space amounted to taking private property for public use. However, it rejected the taking because Comelec did not demonstrate necessity or show it had been granted eminent domain power by the constitution or legislature to effect the taking. The extent of the taking of free print space was also found to be substantial and not de minimis.

    Copyright:

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

    COMPULSARY DONATION PPI v. Comelec, 244 SCRA 272 (1995)

    Uploaded by

    Leyard
    20 views2 pages
    The document discusses a case regarding the Commission on Elections (Comelec) requiring print media companies to donate advertising space to promote election-related information. There were two threshold requirements for a lawful taking of private property: necessity and legal authority. The court determined the taking of print space amounted to taking private property for public use. However, it rejected the taking because Comelec did not demonstrate necessity or show it had been granted eminent domain power by the constitution or legislature to effect the taking. The extent of the taking of free print space was also found to be substantial and not de minimis.

    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 document discusses a case regarding the Commission on Elections (Comelec) requiring print media companies to donate advertising space to promote election-related information. There were two threshold requirements for a lawful taking of private property: necessity and legal authority. The court determined the taking of print space amounted to taking private property for public use. However, it rejected the taking because Comelec did not demonstrate necessity or show it had been granted eminent domain power by the constitution or legislature to effect the taking. The extent of the taking of free print space was also found to be substantial and not de minimis.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    20 views2 pages

    COMPULSARY DONATION PPI v. Comelec, 244 SCRA 272 (1995)

    Uploaded by

    Leyard
    The document discusses a case regarding the Commission on Elections (Comelec) requiring print media companies to donate advertising space to promote election-related information. There were two threshold requirements for a lawful taking of private property: necessity and legal authority. The court determined the taking of print space amounted to taking private property for public use. However, it rejected the taking because Comelec did not demonstrate necessity or show it had been granted eminent domain power by the constitution or legislature to effect the taking. The extent of the taking of free print space was also found to be substantial and not de minimis.

    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 2

    The threshold requisites for a lawful taking of private property for public use need to be

    examined here:
    - one is the necessity for the taking;
    - another is the legal authority to effect the taking.

    Philippine Press Institute vs. Commission on Elections


    [GR 119694,
    22 May 1995] Resolution En Banc, Feliciano (J): 12 concur, 1 on leave

    Issue: Whether there was necessity for the taking, i.e. compelling print media companies to
    donate “Comelec space.”

    Held:
    YES, IT amounts to "taking" of private personal property for public use or purposes. BUT
    rejected based on requisites
    - To compel print media companies to donate "Comelec-space" of the dimensions
    specified in Section 2 of Resolution No. 2772 (not less than one-half page), amounts to
    "taking" of private personal property for public use or purposes.
    - Section 2 failed to specify the intended frequency of such compulsory "donation:"
    - only once during the period from 6 March 1995 (or 21 March 1995) until 12 May
    1995?
    - or everyday or once a week?
    - or as often as Comelec may direct during the same period?
    - The extent of the taking or deprivation is not insubstantial; this is not a case of a de
    minimis temporary limitation or restraint upon the use of private property. The monetary
    value of the compulsory "donation," measured by the advertising rates ordinarily charged
    by newspaper publishers whether in cities or in non-urban areas, may be very
    substantial indeed.

    The taking of print space here sought to be effected may first be appraised under the public of
    expropriation of private personal property for public use. The threshold requisites for a lawful
    taking of private property for public use need to be examined here: one is the necessity for the
    taking; another is the legal authority to effect the taking.

    The element of necessity for the taking has not been shown by the Comelec. It has not been
    suggested that the members of PPI are unwilling to sell print space at their normal rates to
    Comelec for election purposes. Similarly, it has not been suggested, let alone demonstrated,
    that Comelec has been granted the power of eminent domain either by the Constitution or by
    the legislative authority.
    A reasonable relationship between that power and the enforcement and administration of
    election laws by Comelec must be shown; it is not casually to be assumed. That the taking is
    designed to subserve "public use" is not contested by PPI. Only that, under Section 3 of
    Resolution 2772, the free "Comelec space" sought by the Comelec would be used not only for
    informing the public about the identities, qualifications and programs of government of
    candidates for elective office but also for "dissemination of vital election information" (including,
    presumably, circulars, regulations, notices, directives, etc. issued by Comelec). It seems to the
    Court a matter of judicial notice that government offices and agencies (including the Supreme
    Court) simply purchase print space, in the ordinary course of events, when their rules and
    regulations, circulars, notices and so forth need officially to be brought to the attention of the
    general public.

    The taking of private property for public use it, of course, authorized by the Constitution, but not
    without payment of "just compensation." Thus, although there is nothing at all to prevent
    newspaper and magazine publishers from voluntarily giving free print space to Comelec for the
    purposes contemplated in Resolution 2772; Section 2 of resolution 2772 does not provide a
    constitutional basis for compelling publishers, against their will to provide free print space for
    Comelec purposes. Section 2 does not constitute a valid exercise of the power of eminent
    domain.

    You might also like