GMA Network, Inc. v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 205357, September 2, 2014

Ponente: PERALTA, J.

Special Civil Actions in the Supreme Court. Certiorari and Prohibition.

Summary: 

Petitioners: GMA Network, Inc., ABC Development Corporation, Manila Broadcasting Company, Inc., Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas (KBP) and ABS-CBN Corporation, Radio Mindanao Network, Inc., and Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano (Petitioner-Intervenor)

Respondents: Commission on Elections

COMELEC issued a resolution that changed the total amount of allowable airtime to electoral candidates from a per-station basis to an aggregate basis (total time for all stations), and petitioners claim it encroaches on the right to freedom of speech. The petition was partially granted.

----------------------------------------

Facts: 

Five separate petitions combined questioning the constitutionality of various sections of COMELEC Resolution No. 9615, which reinterprets Section 6 of Republic Act No. 9006 (Fair Election Act)

• Section 7 (d) – imposes criminal liability on networks in case of excess
• Section 9 (a) – shifts from “per station” airtime basis to “aggregate total” airtime basis; required COMELEC approval for guestings and appearances (most important section)
• Section 14 – provides for candidates’ right to reply
• Section 1 (4) – defines “political advertisement” or “election propaganda (questioned only by ABC)
• Section 35 – violation of rules constitutes an election offense (questioned only by GMA)

Petitioners contend that Section 9 (a) of the resolution provides a very restrictive aggregate airtime limit, that notice requirement is too vague and infringes on the right to freedom of speech, and that it imposes an unreasonable burden on networks to monitor other networks

----------------------------------------

Issue 1 of 3: WON certiorari and prohibition were the proper remedies (procedural)

Held: No.

The petitions filed do not lie against the COMELEC’s administrative or rule-making powers, only against its judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial functions. However, due to the important and pivotal issues at hand, the Court will decide the matter.

Issue 2 of 3: WON the petitioners have locus standi (procedural)

Held: Yes.

Sen. Cayetano has standing because he is a candidate impacted by the resolution. The broadcast companies have standing because they may suffer due to the burdens the resolution imposes upon them.

The issue is also of transcendental importance.

Associational standing: The concept of third party standing applies, wherein petitioners can assert the rights of others, because of the overbreadth doctrine. This doctrine applies to statutes that infringe upon the right to freedom of speech or when it needleslly restrains constitutionally guaranteed rights.

Issue 3 of 3: WON the changes enacted in Resolution No. 9615 were within the power of the COMELEC

Held: No.

Note: The ratio consists of several sub-issues.

A. Past elections and airtime limits – No empirical data was presented to substantiate the sudden change in the interpretation of Section 6 of RA 9006, which had always been on a per-station basis instead of an aggregate total basis.

  COMELEC claims it is to level the playing field between candidates with and without funds. However, it presents no evidence of abuse in previous elections or analysis as to why this is the best way to solve the supposed problem.

    The Court therefore views this as a nonchalant exercise of discretion.

B. COMELEC’s duty to present reasonable basis – COMELEC cannot change the interpretation of the provision now if it has been consistent in the past. There is no reasoning as to why the per-station basis is now inadequate.

C. COMELEC went beyond its authority – The wording of the law itself does not justify a conclusion that airtime should be on an aggregate basis.

    The legislative history of RA 9006 shows that computation must not be based on a “per day” basis, as proven by the dropping of the “per day per station” wording, not that it is to be done on an aggregate basis.

D. Section 9 (a) goes against the constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression, of speech, and of the press – The freedom to speak needs methods of dissemination, i.e. the media. This section restricts this right, because it may limit the number of issues discussed, the depth of discussions, and the audience reached. Candidates are therefore restricted from communicating with the people.

    Section 9 (a) is violative of the people’s right to suffrage – The capability of voters to decide is hampered when the information available to them is limited.

E. Resolution No. 9615 needs prior hearing – It increases the burden of those governed, and therefore cannot be unilaterally imposed without consultation.

  Resolution No. 9615 does not impose unreasonable burden on networks – The legal duty of monitoring is with COMELEC, not with the networks, thus making the Reporting Requirement reasonable. It also did not intend to approve all content, thus avoiding censorship.

    Right to reply is reasonable – There is a constitutional directive to provide a right to reply, and the burden on broadcast companies is heavier because it is more pervasive than other forms of media.

-------------------------------------

DECISION: The petitions were PARTIALLY GRANTED, Section 9 (a) of Resolution No. 9615, as amended by Resolution No. 9631, is declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The constitutionality of the remaining provisions of Resolution No. 9615, as amended by Resolution No. 9631, was upheld and remain in full force and effect.

The TRO issued by the SC on April 16, 2013 was made PERMANENT.