Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 19 views

    Philippine Press Institute Vs COMELEC

    Uploaded by

    Jairus Adrian Vilbar
    The COMELEC promulgated Resolution No. 2772 directing newspapers to provide free print space for election purposes. PPI sought to declare the resolution unconstitutional as it amounted to taking private property without just compensation. While COMELEC argued this was a valid exercise of police power, the court ruled that compelling free print space was an unlawful taking of private property for public use under the Constitution, which requires payment of just compensation. The COMELEC failed to demonstrate the necessity for the taking or that it had the legal authority to do so without providing compensation.

    Copyright:

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

    Philippine Press Institute Vs COMELEC

    Uploaded by

    Jairus Adrian Vilbar
    19 views1 page
    The COMELEC promulgated Resolution No. 2772 directing newspapers to provide free print space for election purposes. PPI sought to declare the resolution unconstitutional as it amounted to taking private property without just compensation. While COMELEC argued this was a valid exercise of police power, the court ruled that compelling free print space was an unlawful taking of private property for public use under the Constitution, which requires payment of just compensation. The COMELEC failed to demonstrate the necessity for the taking or that it had the legal authority to do so without providing compensation.

    Original Description:

    asdf

    Original Title

    22. Philippine Press Institute 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 COMELEC promulgated Resolution No. 2772 directing newspapers to provide free print space for election purposes. PPI sought to declare the resolution unconstitutional as it amounted to taking private property without just compensation. While COMELEC argued this was a valid exercise of police power, the court ruled that compelling free print space was an unlawful taking of private property for public use under the Constitution, which requires payment of just compensation. The COMELEC failed to demonstrate the necessity for the taking or that it had the legal authority to do so without providing compensation.

    Copyright:

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

    Philippine Press Institute Vs COMELEC

    Uploaded by

    Jairus Adrian Vilbar
    The COMELEC promulgated Resolution No. 2772 directing newspapers to provide free print space for election purposes. PPI sought to declare the resolution unconstitutional as it amounted to taking private property without just compensation. While COMELEC argued this was a valid exercise of police power, the court ruled that compelling free print space was an unlawful taking of private property for public use under the Constitution, which requires payment of just compensation. The COMELEC failed to demonstrate the necessity for the taking or that it had the legal authority to do so without providing compensation.

    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

    Philippine Press Institute vs COMELEC

    Facts:

    COMELEC promulgated Resolution No 2772 directing newspapers to provide free print space of not less
    than ½ page for use as “Comelec Space” from 06March1995 to 06May1995. COMELEC Commissioner
    sent letters to publishers informing them of the same. PPI seek to declare the resolution
    unconstitutional and void on the ground of taking private property w/o just compensation. TRO was
    enforced. SocGen argues that even if the questioned Resolution and its implementing letter directives
    are viewed as mandatory, the same would nevertheless be valid as an exercise of the police power of
    the State. COMELEC Chair stated that they will clarify the resolution that the letter was intended to
    solicit and not to compel. Resolution No. 2772-A was promulgated.

    Issue:

    Whether or not Resolution 2772 is void on the ground of deprivation of use w/o compensation of
    newspaper?

    Ruling:

    To compel print media companies to donate “Comelec-space” amounts to “taking” of private personal
    property for public use. The extent of the taking or deprivation is not insubstantial measured by the
    advertising rates ordinarily charged by newspaper publishers whether in cities or in non-urban areas.

    The taking of print space here sought to be effected may first be appraised under the rubric 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
    respondent 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. It has not been suggested 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.

    The taking of private property for public use is, of course, authorized by the Constitution, but not
    without payment of “just compensation.”

    You might also like