Case Digest: GMA Network, Inc. vs. COMELEC (2014)

 

GMA Network, Inc. vs. COMELEC (2014)

Facts.

1. GMA Network, Inc. (petitioner); Comelec (respondent); Sen. Alan Peter “Companero” S. Cayetano, petitioner-intervenor
2. During the previous elections of May 14, 2007 and may 10, 2010, Comelec issued Resolutions implementing and interpreting Section 6 of R.A. No. 9006, regarding airtime limitations, to mean that a candidate is entitled to the aforestated number of minutes “per station.”  For the May 2013 elections, however, respondent Comelec promulgated Resolution no. 9615 dated January 15, 2013, changing the interpretation of said candidates’ and political parties’ airtime limitation for political campaigns or advertisements from a “per station” basis, to a “total aggregate” basis.
3. Owners/operators of radio and TV networks in the country - ABS-CBN Corporation (ABS-CBN), ABC Development Corporation (ABC), GMA Network, Incorporated (GMA), Manila Broadcasting Company, Inc. (MBC), Newsounds Broadcasting Network, Inc. (NBN), and Radio Mindanao Network, Inc. (RMN) and national organization of broadcasting companies Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas (KBP) sent their respective letters to Comelec questioning the provisions of the said Resolution, thus, the Comelec held public hearings.
4. Thereafter on February 1, 2013, respondent Comelec issued Resolution no. 9631 amending provisions of Resolution no. 9615. Nevertheless, petitioners still found the provisions objectionable and oppressive, hence, the present petitions.
5. All of the petitioners assailed the provisions of Sections 7(d), 9(a), and 14.
6. In addition, petitioner ABC questioned Section 1(4) while petitioner GMA assailed Section 35.
7. Petitioner-intervenor Cayetano also assailed Section 9(a) of the Resolution changing the interpretation of candidates’ and political parties’ airtime limitation for political campaigns or advertisements from a “per station” basis, to a “total aggregate” basis.

Petitioners	Respondent
Resolutions No. 9615 and 9631, amending the earlier Resolution, are unconstitutional and issued without jurisdiction/with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.	Certiorari and prohibition are not allowed to petitioners because the writ of certiorari is only available against the Comelec’s adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers, while the writ of prohibition only lies against the exercise of judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions. Said writs do not lie against the Comelec’s administrative or rule-making powers.
Section 9(a) of the assailed Resolution provides for a very restrictive aggregate time limit and a vague meaning for a proper computation of “aggregate total airtime,” and violates the equal protection guarantee, thereby defeating the intent and purpose of RA No. 9006.	Petitioners do not have locus standi; they belong to candidates, political parties and the Filipino electorate in general. Petitioners’ alleged risk of exposure to criminal liability insufficient to give them legal standing as said “fear of injury” is highly speculative and contingent on a future act.
Section 9(a), imposing a notice requirement, is vague and infringes on the constitutionally protected freedom of speech, of the press and of expression, and on the right of people to be informed.	Per candidate rule or total aggregate time limit is in accordance with R.A. No. 9006, a more effective way of levelling the playing the field between candidates/political parties with enormous resources and those without much.
Section 9(a) a cruel and oppressive regulation as it imposes an unreasonable and almost impossible burden on broadcast mass media of monitoring a candidate’s or party’s aggregate airtime, otherwise, it may incur administrative and criminal liability.	Issuance of the Resolution is pursuant to Section 4, Article 9 (c) of the Constitution which vests on the Comelec the power to supervise and regulate.
Section 7(d) is null and void for unlawfully criminalizing acts not prohibited and penalized as criminal offenses by R.A. No. 9006.	Provisions are not vague because the assailed Resolutions have given clear and adequate mechanisms to protect broadcast stations from potential liability arising from a candidate’s or party’s violation of airtime limits.
Section 14 of the Resolution No. 9615, providing for a candidate’s or party’s “right to reply,” is likewise assailed to be unconstitutional for (1) being an improper exercise of the Comelec’s regulatory powers; (2) constituting prior restraint and infringing petitioners’ FOE, FOS and of the press; and for being violative of the equal protection guarantee.	No prior restraint in the provisions requiring notice to the Comelec for appearances or guestings of candidates in bona fide newscasts. It is only for monitoring purposes.

 

 

8. Petitioner GMA further argues that the Resolution was promulgated without public consultations, in violation of petitioners’ right to due process. Petitioner ABC also avers that the Resolution’s definition of the terms “political advertisement” and “election propaganda” suffers from overbreadth, thereby producing a “chilling effect,” constituting prior restraint.
9.  

Issue.

Whether or not

Ruling.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petitions are PARTIALLY GRANTED, Section 9 (a) of Resolution No. 9615, as amended by Resolution No. 9631, is declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL and, therefore, NULL and VOID. The constitutionality of the remaining provisions of Resolution No. 9615, as amended by Resolution No. 9631, is upheld and remain in full force and effect.

In view of this Decision, the Temporary Restraining Order issued by the Court on April 16, 2013 is hereby made PERMANENT.

 

Supplementing Facts.

Legal terms.

Locus standi - a right to appear in a court or before any body on a given question : a right to be heard.