#44 Philippine Press Institute vs COMELEC GR 119694 22 May 1995

Facts: COMELEC promulgated Resolution No 2772 directing newspapers to

provide free print space of not less than page for use as Comelec Space
from 06March1995 to 06May1995. COMELEC Commisssioner 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?

Decision: 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.

#45 SOCIAL WEATHER STATIONS INC. and KAMAHALAN PUBLISHING

CORPORATION v COMELEC

G.R. No. 147571, May 5, 2001

FACTS: Petitioner, Social Weather Stations, Inc. (SWS), is a private non-

stock, non-profit social research institution conducting surveys in various
fields, including economics, politics, demography, and social development,
and thereafter processing, analyzing, and publicly reporting the results
thereof. On the other hand, petitioner Kamahalan Publishing Corporation
publishes the Manila Standard, a newspaper of general circulation, which
features newsworthy items of information including election surveys.

Petitioners brought this action for prohibition to enjoin the Commission on

Elections from enforcing 5.4 of R.A. No. 9006 (Fair Election Act), which
provides:

Surveys affecting national candidates shall not be published fifteen (15)

days before an election and surveys affecting local candidates shall not
be published seven (7) days before an election.

Petitioner SWS wishes 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. Petitioner
Kamahalan Publishing Corporation, on the other hand, states that it intends
to publish election survey results up to the last day of the elections on May
14, 2001.

ISSUE: Whether or not 5.4 of R.A. No. 9006 is unconstitutional and

constitutes a prior restraint on the exercise of freedom of speech.
HELD: Yes. 5.4 of R.A. No. 9006 is unconstitutional and the prohibition
imposed by it cannot be justified on the ground that it is only for a limited
period and is only incidental. The prohibition may be for a limited time, but the
curtailment of the right of expression is direct, absolute, and substantial.
Under the OBrien Test, 5.4 of R.A. No. 9006 is invalid because (1) it imposes
a prior restraint on the freedom of expression, (2) it is a direct and total
suppression of a category of expression even though such suppression is
only for a limited period, and (3) the governmental interest sought to be
promoted can be achieved by means other than the suppression of freedom
of expression.