Case Digest: Telecom vs. COMELEC, 289 SCRA 337, G.R. No. 132922

 

Telecom vs. COMELEC, 289 SCRA 337, G.R. No. 132922, April 21, 1998

Subject: Transportation Law

FACTS

Petitioner Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of the Philippines, Inc. and GMA Network, Inc. challenge the validity of Section 92 of BP 881 on the ground (1) that it takes property without due process of law and without just compensation; (2) that it denies radio and television broadcast companies the equal protection of the laws; and (3) that it is in excess of the power given to the COMELEC to supervise or regulate the operation of media of communication or information during the period of election.

Petitioner GMA Network claims that it suffered losses in providing COMELEC Time in the 1992 presidential election and the 1995 senatorial election and that it stands to suffer even more should it be required to do so again this year. Petitioners contend that Section 92 of BP 881 violates the due process clause and the eminent domain provision of the Constitution by taking airtime from radio and television broadcasting stations without payment of just compensation claiming that the primary source of revenue of the radio and television stations is the sale of air time to advertisers. Petitioners claim that Section 92 is an invalid amendment of R.A. No. 7252 which granted GMA Network, Inc. a franchise for the operation of radio and television broadcasting stations. They argue that although Section 5 of R.A. No. 7252 gives the government the power to temporarily use and operate the stations of petitioner GMA Network or to authorize such use and operation, the exercise of this right must be compensated. Petitioners also complain that B.P. 881, Section 92 singles out radio and television stations to provide free airtime.

Finally, it is argued that the power to supervise or regulate given to the COMELEC under Art. IX-C, Section 92 of the Constitution does not include the power to prohibit.

ISSUE

Whether or not the power to supervise or regulate given to the COMELEC under Art. IX-C, Section 92 of the Constitution includes the power to prohibit.

RULING

Yes, the power to supervise or regulate given to the COMELEC under Art. IX-C, Section 92 of the Constitution includes the power to prohibit.

The Constitution allows the COMELEC to regulate the use of media information, while Congress prohibits the sale or donation of print space or airtime for political ads. This distinction between the object of supervision and regulation is a fallacy. Section 11(b) of R.A. No. 6646 only half of the regulatory provision, mandated by the COMELEC to procure print space and airtime for allocation to candidates. The law ensures free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections by allocating equal time and space for all candidates.

The prohibition on media advertising by candidates limits the COMELEC Time and COMELEC Space, which are the only means through which candidates can advertise their qualifications and programs of government. Failure to provide airtime unless paid by the government would deprive the people of their right to know. The Constitution recognizes the right of the people to information on matters of public concern and states that the use of property bears a social function and is subject to the state's duty to promote distributive justice and intervene when the common good demands it.

To affirm the validity of Section 92 of B.P. 881, public broadcasters must ensure the variety and vigor of public debate on election issues. Broadcast media are not just common carriers but also public trustees responsible for ensuring access to the diversity of views on political issues. The use of property bears a social function and is subject to the state's duty to intervene for the common good. Broadcast media can find their reward in providing altruistic service in connection with election holdings.