BURGOS V CHIEF OF STAFF
COMELEC
Assailed in this petition for certiorari prohibition and mandamus with preliminary
mandatory and prohibitory injunction is the validity of two [2] search warrants
issued on December 7, 1982 by Judge Ernani Cruz-Pano of the then CFI of Rizal
[Quezon City], under which the premises of the "Metropolitan Mail" and "We
Forum" newspapers, respectively, were searched, and office and printing machines,
equipment, paraphernalia, motor vehicles and other articles used in the printing,
publication and distribution of the said newspapers, as well as numerous papers,
documents, books and other written literature alleged to be in the possession and
control of petitioner Jose Burgos, Jr. publisher-editor of the "We Forum" newspaper,
were seized.
Petitioners further pray that a writ of preliminary mandatory and prohibitory
injunction be issued for the return of the seized articles, and that respondents be
enjoined from using the articles thus seized as evidence against petitioner Jose
Burgos, Jr. and the other accused in Criminal Case No. Q- 022782 of the Regional
Trial Court of Quezon City, entitled People v. Jose Burgos, Jr. et al.
ISSUE: Was the closure of WE Forum a case of prior restraint?
RULING: YES. As heretofore stated, the premises searched were the business and
printing offices of the "Metropolitan Mail" and the "We Forum newspapers. As a
consequence of the search and seizure, these premises were padlocked and sealed,
with the further result that the printing and publication of said newspapers were
discontinued. Such closure is in the nature of previous restraint or censorship
abhorrent to the freedom of the press guaranteed under the fundamental law, and
constitutes a virtual denial of petitioners' freedom to express themselves in print.
This state of being is patently anathematic to a democratic framework where a free,
alert and even militant press is essential for the political enlightenment and growth of
the citizenry.
SWS v.
On the one hand, Social Weather Stations (SWS) is an institution conducting surveys
in various fields. Kamahalan Publishing Corp., on the other hand, publishes the
Manila Standard which is a newspaper of general circulation and features items of
information including election surveys. Both SWS and Kamahalan are contesting the
validity and enforcement of R.A. 9006 (Fair Election Act), especially section
5.4which provides that surveys affecting national candidates shall not be published
15days before an election and surveys affecting local candidates shall not be
published 7 days before the election.
SWS wanted to conduct an election survey throughout the period of the elections
both at the national and local levels and release to the media the results of such
survey as well as publish them directly. Kamahalan, for its part, intends to publish
election survey results up to the last day of the elections on May 14, 2001.
ISSUE: Whether or not the restriction on the publication of election survey
constitutes a prior restraint on the exercise of freedom of speech without any clear
and present danger to justify such restraint
RULING/RATIO: YES, Section 5.4 of R.A. 9006 constitutes an unconstitutional
abridgement of freedom of speech, expression, and the press.
The power of the COMELEC over media franchises is limited to ensuring equal
opportunity, time, space, and the right to reply, as well as to fix reasonable rates of
charge for the use of media facilities for public information and forms among
candidates.
Here, the prohibition of speech is direct, absolute, and substantial. Nor does this
section pass the O’brient test for content related regulation because (1) it suppresses
one type of expression while allowing other types such as editorials, etc.; and (2) the
restriction is greater than what is needed to protect government interest because the
interest can e protected by narrower restrictions such as subsequent punishment.
Note: Justice Kapunan’s dissenting opinion basically says that the test of clear and
present danger is inappropriate to use in order to test the validity of this section.
Instead, he purports to engage in a form of balancing by weighing and balancing the
circumstances to determine whether public interest is served by the regulation of the
free enjoyment of the rights. However, he failed to show why, on the balance, the
other considerations (for example, prevention of last minute pressure on voters)
should outweigh the value of freedom of expression.
MUTUC v COMELEC
Petitioner Amelito Mutuc was a candidate for the position of delegate to the
Constitutional Convention. He alleged that respondent Commission on Elections
gave his certificate of candidacy due course but prohibited him from using jingles in
his mobile units equipped with sound system and loud speakers. According to him,
this violated his constitutional right to freedom of speech. Petitioner filed a case
against Commission on elections seeking a writ of prohibition and at the same time
praying for a preliminary injunction. The respondent argued that this authority was
granted by the Constitutional Convention Act.
ISSUES: Was the prohibition imposed by respondent a violation of the right to
freedom of speech of the petitioner?
RULING: Supreme Court ruled that there was absence of statutory authority on the
part of respondent to impose such ban in the light of the doctine of ejusdem generis.
The respondent commission failed to manifest fealty to a cardinal principle of
construction that a statute should be interpreted to assure its being consonance with,
rather than repugnant to, any constitutional command or prescription. The
Constitution prohibits abridgement of free speech or a free press. According to the
Supreme Court, this preferred freedom calls all the more for the utmost respect when
what may be curtailed is the dissemination of information to make more meaningful
the equally vital right of suffrage. What the respondent Commission did was to
impose censorship on petitioner, an evil against which this constitutional right is
directed.
The respondent Commission is permanently restrained and prohibited from enforcing
or implementing or demanding compliance with its aforesaid order banning the use
of political taped jingles.
ADIONG v COMELEC
COMELEC promulgated Resolution No. 2347 which provides that decals and
stickers may be posted only in any of the authorized posting areas, prohibiting
posting in "mobile" places, public or private. Petitioner Blo Umpar Adiong, a
senatorial candidate in the May 11, 1992 elections now assails the Resolution. In
addition, the petitioner believes that with the ban on radio, television and print
political advertisements, he, being a neophyte in the field of politics stands to suffer
grave and irreparable injury with this prohibition.
ISSUE: Whether or Not the COMELEC’s prohibition unconstitutional.
HELD: The prohibition unduly infringes on the citizen's fundamental right of free
speech. The preferred freedom of expression calls all the more for the utmost respect
when what may be curtailed is the dissemination of information to make more
meaningful the equally vital right of suffrage. The so-called balancing of interests —
individual freedom on one hand and substantial public interests on the other — is
made even more difficult in election campaign cases because the Constitution also
gives specific authority to the Commission on Elections to supervise the conduct of
free, honest, and orderly elections. When faced with border line situations where
freedom to speak by a candidate or party and freedom to know on the part of the
electorate are invoked against actions intended for maintaining clean and free
elections, the police, local officials and COMELEC, should lean in favor of freedom.
The regulation of election campaign activity may not pass the test of validity if it is
too general in its terms or not limited in time and scope in its application, if it
restricts one's expression of belief in a candidate or one's opinion of his or her
qualifications, if it cuts off the flow of media reporting, and if the regulatory measure
bears no clear and reasonable nexus with the constitutionally sanctioned objective.
The posting of decals and stickers in mobile places like cars and other moving
vehicles does not endanger any substantial government interest. There is no clear
public interest threatened by such activity so as to justify the curtailment of the
cherished citizen's right of free speech and expression. Under the clear and present
danger rule not only must the danger be patently clear and pressingly present but the
evil sought to be avoided must be so substantive as to justify a clamp over one's
mouth or a writing instrument to be stilled. The regulation strikes at the freedom of
an individual to express his preference and, by displaying it on his car, to convince
others to agree with him. A sticker may be furnished by a candidate but once the car
owner agrees to have it placed on his private vehicle, the expression becomes a
statement by the owner, primarily his own and not of anybody else. The restriction as
to where the decals and stickers should be posted is so broad that it encompasses
even the citizen's private property, which in this case is a privately-owned vehicle. In
consequence of this prohibition, another cardinal rule prescribed by the Constitution
would be violated. Section 1, Article III of the Bill of Rights provides that no person
shall be deprived of his property without due process of law.
The prohibition on posting of decals and stickers on "mobile" places whether public
or private except in the authorized areas designated by the COMELEC becomes
censorship.
ABS-CBN v COMELEC
COMELEC released a resolution which approved the issuance of a restraining order
against ABS-CBN to conduct exit survey. It acted upon reports that the network
plans to conduct a TV-radio coverage of the elections and make an exit survey of the
votes cast for Pres and VP and broadcast the results immediately.
SC issued a TRO against the resolution of COMELEC and the exit polls were
actually conducted and reported by media.
Arguments:
ABS-CBN: Holding exit polls and nationwide reporting of results are valid
exercises of the freedoms of speech and of the press. COMELEC committed
GAD when it issued such resolution
COMELEC:
1. The conduct of exit polls might confuse the voters and unduly influence them.
2. Exit surveys indirectly violate the sanctity of ballots as enshrined in the
Constitution (Sec. 2 Art. 5) because the voters will be lured to reveal their votes.
3. Exit surveys pose a clear and present danger of destroying the credibility and
integrity of the electoral process because the media is not supervised by any
gov’t agency which can easily be manipulated.
ISSUE
WON COMELEC in the exercise of its powers can ban exit polls? NO. The
measure is overbroad and unnecessarily restricts fundamental rights of speech
and of press.
RATIO
The Constitution mandates that no law shall be passed abridging freedom of speech
and press. These freedoms basically consist of the liberty to discuss publicly and
truthfully any matter of public interest without prior restraint. (Gonzales v.
COMELEC) It represents a profound commitment to the principle that debates on
public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide open.
There are limitations however to this freedom in which the state, in the exercise of its
police power, can curtail whenever these tests are satisfied:
1. Clear and present danger rule – the evil consequence of comment or
utterance must be extremely serious and the degree of imminence must be
extremely high before the utterance can be punished. The danger to be
guarded against is the substantive evil sought to be prevented.
2. Dangerous tendency rule - If the words uttered create a dangerous tendency
which the state has a right to prevent, then such words are punishable. It is
sufficient if the natural tendency and probable effect of the utterance be to
bring about the substantive evil which the legislative body seeks to prevent.
Note that the words need not be definite so as to incite the listeners to acts
of force, violence or unlawfulness.
The court adheres to the clear and present danger rule which is a question on the
proximity and degree of the utterance will result to the danger or evil sought to be
avoided. This is a heavy burden because the court is always on the side of freedom of
expression. To justify restriction, the promotion of substantial govt interest must be
clearly shown. And even when its purpose are legitimate and substantial, the means
employed should not be broad as to stifle personal liberties when the end can be
more narrowly achieved.
In this case, the freedoms of speech and of the press should all the more be upheld
when what is sought to be curtailed is the dissemination of information meant to add
meaning to the equally vital right of suffrage. The interest being protected is the
fundamental right to vote and securing its sanctity through the ballots. However the
means employed are necessarily broad because it effectively prevents other uses of
exit poll data – for long term research purposes.
COMELEC tried to justify the restraint in arguing that such conduct of exit polls
present a clear and present danger of destroying the credibility and integrity of
electoral process. (na unreliable and surveys and might conflict with the count of
COMELEC and NAMFREL) However its arguments are purely speculative. Why?
1. Because in a survey, the participants are randomly selected so the results
will be a representation or reflection of the general sentiment of the
community.
2. It is merely an opinion of the community or group polled. Its result is not
meant to replace or be at par with the official COMELEC count.
COMELEC ‘s restriction on exit polls is overly broad. Its application is without
qualification whether the exit polls is disruptive or not. And assuming arguendo that
there is such qualification, there is no showing that exit polls will cause chaos in
voting centers. The absolute prohibition restricts the future use of valuable
information for long-term research on the impact of current events on the voting
behavior of people.
ABS-CBN even explained its methodology which has enough precautions against
the evils enumerated by COMELEC:
(1) communities are randomly selected in each province;
(2) residences to be polled in such communities are also chosen at random;
(3) only individuals who have already voted, as shown by the indelible ink on
their fingers, are interviewed;
(4) the interviewers use no cameras of any sort;
(5) the poll results are released to the public only on the day after the elections
 And lastly, on the issue of violation of ballot secrecy, the court said that such is Vicente M. Navarra, otherwise, COMELEC will be constrained to file an election
not at issue here. The exit poll dies not seek to access the ballots of the interviewees. offense against the petitioners.
The contents of their ballots are not exposed. Even the choice of revealing who they
voted for is not mandatory but voluntary. ISSUE: Whether the act of the COMELEC infringes the Freedom of Religion and
Freedom of Speech.
The reason behind the principle of ballot secrecy is to avoid vote buying through
voter identification. Thus, voters are prohibited from exhibiting the contents of their HELD: On Freedom of Religion. As aptly argued by COMELEC, the tarpaulin, on
official ballots to other persons, from making copies thereof, or from putting its face, “does not convey any religious doctrine of the Catholic church.” That the
distinguishing marks thereon so as to be identified. Also proscribed is finding out the position of the Catholic church appears to coincide with the message of the tarpaulin
contents of the ballots cast by particular voters or disclosing those of disabled or regarding the RH Law does not, by itself, bring the expression within the ambit of
illiterate voters who have been assisted. Clearly, what is forbidden is the association religious speech. On the contrary, the tarpaulin clearly refers to candidates classified
of voters with their respective votes, for the purpose of assuring that the votes have under “Team Patay” and “Team Buhay” according to their respective votes on the
been cast in accordance with the instructions of a third party. This result cannot, RH Law.
however, be achieved merely through the voters' verbal and confidential disclosure On Freedom of Speech. Embedded in the tarpaulin, are opinions expressed by
to a pollster of whom they have voted for. petitioners. It is a specie of expression protected by our fundamental law. There are
several theories and schools of thought that strengthen the need to protect the basic
right to freedom of expression.
DIOCESE OF BACOLOD v COMELEC
First, this relates to the right of the people to participate in public affairs, including
On February 2013, petitioners posted two (2) tarpaulins within the compound of San the right to criticize government actions. Speech that promotes dialogue on public
Sebastian Cathedral of Bacolod. Each tarpaulin was approximately 6×10 in size. affairs, or airs out grievances and political discontent, should thus be protected and
They were posted on the front walls of the cathedral within public view. encouraged.
The first tarpaulin contains the message “IBASURA RH Law” referring to the Second, free speech should be encouraged under the concept of a market place of
Reproductive Health Law of 2012 or Republic Act No. 10354. The second tarpaulin ideas.
is the subject of the present case. This tarpaulin contains the heading “Conscience
Vote” and lists candidates as either “(Anti-RH)/ Team Buhay” or “(Pro-RH)/Team Third, free speech involves self-expression that enhances human dignity.
Patay”. Fourth, expression is a marker for group identity.
The electoral candidates were classified according to their vote on the adoption of Fifth, the Bill of Rights, free speech included, is supposed to “protect individuals and
the RH Law. Those who voted for the passing of the law were classified by minorities against majoritarian abuses perpetrated through [the] framework [of
petitioners as comprising “Team Patay,” while those who voted against it form democratic governance]. ”
“Team Buhay”:
Lastly, free speech must be protected under the safety valve theory. In order to avoid
TEAM BUHAY TEAM PATAY this situation and prevent people from resorting to violence, there is a need for
Estrada, JV Angara, Juan Edgardo peaceful methods in making passionate dissent. Free speech must, thus, be protected
Honasan, Gregorio Casiño, Teddy as a peaceful means of achieving one’s goal, considering the possibility that
Magsaysay, Mitos Cayetano, Alan Peter repression of nonviolent dissent may spill over to violent means just to drive a point.
Pimentel, Koko Enrile, Jackie
Trillanes, Antonio Escudero, Francis In the hierarchy of civil liberties, the rights of free expression and of assembly
Villar, Cynthia` Hontiveros, Risa occupy a preferred position as they are essential to the preservation and vitality of
*Party List Legarda, Loren our civil and political institutions; and such priority “gives these liberties the sanctity
Party List Buhay Gabriela, Akbayan, Bayan Muna, Anak Pawis Party List and the sanction not permitting dubious intrusions.”
Ang Pamilya
Respondent Atty. Mavil V. Majarucon, as Election Officer of Bacolod City, issued a
Notice to Remove Campaign Materials addressed to petitioner Most Rev. Bishop