Scribd
Upload
70 views1 page

37 NationalPressClub Vs Comelec Zantua

The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of Section 11(b) of RA 6646, which prohibited political advertisements in the media except those appearing in COMELEC spaces. The petitioners argued this violated freedom of expression. However, the Supreme Court upheld the provision, finding that while freedom of speech is important, equality of opportunity in elections is also a key value. The Court noted the restriction was limited to election periods as defined by COMELEC, balancing the competing rights. It concluded Section 11(b) was constitutional.

Uploaded by

Giancarlo Fernando
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
70 views1 page

37 NationalPressClub Vs Comelec Zantua

The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of Section 11(b) of RA 6646, which prohibited political advertisements in the media except those appearing in COMELEC spaces. The petitioners argued this violated freedom of expression. However, the Supreme Court upheld the provision, finding that while freedom of speech is important, equality of opportunity in elections is also a key value. The Court noted the restriction was limited to election periods as defined by COMELEC, balancing the competing rights. It concluded Section 11(b) was constitutional.

Uploaded by

Giancarlo Fernando
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

National Press Club vs COMELEC

G.R. 102653
March 5, 1992
Freedom of the Press
FACTS:
Petitioners in these cases consist of representatives of the mass media which are prevented from
selling or donating space and time for political advertisements; two (2) individuals who are candidates for
office (one for national and the other for provincial office) in the coming May 1992 elections; and
taxpayers and voters who claim that their right to be informed of election issues and of credentials of the
candidates is being curtailed. They assail the constitutionality of Section 11 (b) of Republic Act 6646.
It is principally argued by petitioners that Section 11 (b) of Republic Act No. 6646 invades and
violates the constitutional guarantees comprising freedom of expression. Petitioners maintain that the
prohibition imposed by Section 11 (b) amounts to censorship, because it selects and singles out for
suppression and repression with criminal sanctions, only publications of a particular content, namely,
media-based election or political propaganda during the election period of 1992.
It is asserted that the prohibition is in derogation of media's role, function and duty to provide
adequate channels of public information and public opinion relevant to election issues. Further,
petitioners contend that Section 11 (b) abridges the freedom of speech of candidates, and that the
suppression of media-based campaign or political propaganda except those appearing in the Comelec
space of the newspapers and on Comelec time of radio and television broadcasts, would bring about a
substantial reduction in the quantity or volume of information concerning candidates and issues in the
election thereby curtailing and limiting the right of voters to information and opinion.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Section 11(b) of RA 6646 is constitutional
HELD/RATIO:
YES. It seems a modest proposition that the provision of the Bill of Rights which enshrines freedom
of speech, freedom of expression and freedom of the press (Article III [4], Constitution) has to be taken in
conjunction with Article IX (C) (4) which may be seen to be a special provision applicable during a specific
limited period — i.e., "during the election period." It is difficult to overemphasize the special importance of the
rights of freedom of speech and freedom of the press in a democratic polity, in particular when they relate to
the purity and integrity of the electoral process itself, the process by which the people identify those who shall
have governance over them. Thus, it is frequently said that these rights are accorded a preferred status in our
constitutional hierarchy. Withal, the rights of free speech and free press are not unlimited rights for they are
not the only important and relevant values even in the most democratic of polities. In our own society, equality
of opportunity to proffer oneself for public office, without regard to the level of financial resources that one
may have at one's disposal, is clearly an important value. One of the basic state policies given constitutional
rank by Article II, Section 26 of the Constitution is the egalitarian demand that "the State shall guarantee equal
access to opportunities for public service and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law."
Section 11 (b) is limited in the duration of its applicability and enforceability. By virtue of the
operation of Article IX (C) (4) of the Constitution, Section 11 (b) is limited in its applicability in time to
election periods. By its Resolution No. 2328 dated 2 January 1992, the Comelec, acting under another specific
grant of authority by the Constitution (Article IX [C]), has defined the period from 12 January 1992 until 10
June 1992 as the relevant election period.

Prepared By: Rod Ralph S. Zantua

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy