404

Sanidad vs Commission on Elections

G.R. No. 90878
January 29, 1990
Article III, Section 4

FACTS:

On October 1989, Republic Act 6766 or the Organic Act for the Cordillera Autonomous
Region was enacted. The COMELEC, through its powers vested by the Constitution and the
Omnibus Election Code, was tasked to govern the plebiscite on the said Organic Act. To effectively
implement this, the COMELEC issued COMELEC Resolution No. 2167.

Petitioner Pablito Sanidad is a newspaper columnist of the “Overview” for the “Baguio
Midland Courier”, a weekly newspaper circulated in the City of Baguio and the Cordilleras. He
assailed the constitutionality of Section 19 of the COMELEC Resolution No. 2167, which provides
“that during the plebiscite campaign period, no mass media columnist, commentator, announcer or
personality shall use his column or radio or television time to campaign for or against the plebiscite
issues”. Said Resolution was enacted by respondent COMELEC pursuant to the 1987 Constitution,
the Omnibus Election Code, R.A. 6766, and other pertinent election laws.

Petitioner alleges that the assailed provision is void because it violates the constitutional
guarantees of the freedom of expression and of the press. Unlike a regular news reporter or news
correspondent who merely reports the news, petitioner maintains that as a columnist, his column
obviously and necessarily contains and reflects his opinions, views and beliefs on any issue or
subject about which he writes. Furthermore, he maintains that if media practitioners were allowed to
express their views, beliefs and opinions on the issue submitted to a plebiscite, it would help
disseminate information, hear, and ventilate all sides of the issue.

Respondent COMELEC, on the other hand, maintains that the assailed section does not
absolutely bar petitioner from expressing his views and/or from campaigning for or against the
Organic Act. He may still express his views or campaign for or against the act through the
COMELEC space and airtime.

ISSUE:

Whether or not there was a violation of the constitutional guarantees to the freedom of
expression and of the press

RATIO + RULING:

YES. The Court ruled that Article IX-C of the Constitution only grants the COMELEC the
power to supervise and regulate the use and enjoyment of franchises, permits or other grants issued
for the operation of transportation or other public utilities, media of communication or information
to the end that equal opportunity, time and space, and the right to reply, including reasonable, equal
rates therefor, for public information campaigns and forums among candidates are ensured. Such
was implemented to avoid giving any candidate undue advantage. More than that, the Constitution
provides that a columnist, commentator, announcer or personality is required to take a leave of
absence from his work during the campaign period. In the case at hand, petitioner was not a
candidate at all. As a matter of fact, there are no candidates involved in a plebiscite to begin with.

Prepared by: Cheza Marie Biliran !1

404

The Court further ruled that while the assailed section does not absolutely bar petitioner’s
freedom of expression and of speech, it is still a restriction on his choice of the forum where he may
express his view. It is of the Court’s opinion that such is tantamount to restriction of his right to
freedom of speech and of expression.

Petition is GRANTED. Section 19 of COMELEC Resolution No. 2167 is declared

UNCONSTITIONAL.

Prepared by: Cheza Marie Biliran !2