1

PHILIPPINE PRESS INSTITUTE vs COMELEC

CHAVEZ vs COMELEC

FACTS:

Petitioner assiled the COMELEC Resolution No. 6520 stating

that:

Respondent Comelec promulgated Resolution No. 2772 directing

newspapers to provide free Comelec space of not less than onehalf page for the common use of political parties and candidates.
The Comelec space shall be allocated by the Commission, free of
charge, among all candidates to enable them to make known
their qualifications, their stand on public Issue and their platforms
of government. The Comelec space shall also be used by the
Commission for dissemination of vital election information.
Petitioner Philippine Press Institute, Inc. (PPI), a non-profit
organization of newspaper and magazine publishers, asks the
Supreme Court to declare Comelec Resolution No. 2772
unconstitutional and void on the ground that it violates the
prohibition imposed by the Constitution upon the government
against the taking of private property for public use without just
compensation. On behalf of the respondent Comelec, the Solicitor
General claimed that the Resolution is a permissible exercise of
the power of supervision (police power) of the Comelec over the
information operations of print media enterprises during the
election period to safeguard and ensure a fair, impartial and
credible election.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Comelec Resolution No. 2772 is unconstitutional.
RULING:
The Supreme Court declared the Resolution as unconstitutional. It
held that to compel print media companies to donate Comelec
space amounts to taking of private personal property without
payment of the just compensation required in expropriation cases.
Moreover, the element of necessity for the taking has not been
established by respondent Comelec, considering that the
newspapers were not unwilling to sell advertising space. The
taking of private property for public use is authorized by the
constitution, but not without payment of just compensation. Also
Resolution No. 2772 does not constitute a valid exercise of the
police power of the state. In the case at bench, there is no
showing of existence of a national emergency to take private
property of newspaper or magazine publishers.

Section 32. All propaganda materials such as posters, streamers,

stickers or paintings on walls and other materials showing the
picture, image, or name of a person, and all advertisements on
print, in radio or on television showing the image or mentioning
the name of a person, who subsequent to the placement or
display thereof becomes a candidate for public office shall be
immediately removed by said candidate and radio station, print
media or television station within 3 days after the effectivity of
these implementing rules; otherwise, he and said radio station,
print media or television station shall be presumed to have
conducted premature campaigning in violation of Section 80 of
the Omnibus Election Code.
Feeling aggrieved, petitioner Chavez asks this Court that the
COMELEC be enjoined from enforcing the assailed provision. He
urges this Court to declare the assailed provision unconstitutional
as the same is allegedly (1) a gross violation of the nonimpairment clause; (2) an invalid exercise of police power; (3) in
the nature of an ex-post facto law; (4) contrary to the Fair
Elections Act; and (5) invalid due to overbreadth.
Petitioner argues that the billboards, while they exhibit his name
and image, do not at all announce his candidacy for any public
office nor solicit support for such candidacy from the electorate.
They are, he claims, mere product endorsements and not election
propaganda. Prohibiting, therefore, their exhibition to the public is
not within the scope of the powers of the COMELEC, he
concludes.
It is true that when petitioner entered into the contracts or
agreements to endorse certain products, he acted as a private
individual and had all the right to lend his name and image to
these products. However, when he filed his certificate of
candidacy for Senator, the billboards featuring his name and
image assumed partisan political character because the same
indirectly promoted his candidacy. Therefore, the COMELEC was
acting well within its scope of powers when it required petitioner to
discontinue the display of the subject billboards. If the subject
billboards were to be allowed, candidates for public office whose
name and image are used to advertise commercial products
would have more opportunity to make themselves known to the
electorate, to the disadvantage of other candidates who do not
have the same chance of lending their faces and names to
endorse popular commercial products as image models. Similarly,

an individual intending to run for public office within the next few
months, could pay private corporations to use him as their image
model with the intention of familiarizing the public with his name
and image even before the start of the campaign period. This,
without a doubt, would be a circumvention of the rule against
premature campaigning
The provision in question is limited in its operation both as to time
and scope. It only disallows the continued display of a person's
propaganda materials and advertisements after he has filed a
certificate of candidacy and before the start of the campaign
period. Said materials and advertisements must also show his
name and image.
There is no blanket prohibition of the use of propaganda materials
and advertisements. During the campaign period, these may be
used subject only to reasonable limitations necessary and
incidental to achieving the purpose of preventing premature
campaigning and promoting equality of opportunities among all
candidates.
The provision, therefore, is not invalid on the ground of
overbreadth.

2
CASES HEARD AND FILED BY COMELEC EN
BANC:
(a) Pre-proclamation cases upon a vote of a majority of the
members of the Commission.
(b) In aid of its appellate jurisdiction in election cases,
Commission en banc may hear and decide petitions for
certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.
(c) Grant preliminary injunction in any ordinary action,
special action or special relief pending before it.
(d) All other cases where a division is not authorized to act.
(e) Upon a unanimous vote of all members of a division.
(f) Interlocutory matter or issue relative to an action or
proceeding before it.

PRE-PROCLAMATION CONTROVERSY
A pre-proclamation controversy refers to any question pertaining
to or affecting the proceedings of the board of canvassers which
may be raised by any candidate or by any registered political
party or coalition of political parties before the board or directly
with the Commission, or any matter raised under Sections 233

(delayed lost or destroyed), 234 (material defects), 235

(tampering or falsification) and 236 (discrepancies in election
returns) in relation to the preparation, transmission, receipt,
custody and appreciation of the election returns.
It is allowed in cases involving elective provincial, city or municipal
officers.
Filed by the candidate, registered political party or coalition in the
Board of Canvassers or COMELEC in division.

ISSUES INVOLVED IN PRE-PROCLAMATION

CASE
(a) Illegal composition or proceedings of the board of
canvassers.
(b) When majority or all members of the canvassing Board
do not hold legal appointments or are in fact usurpers.

(c) When the canvassing has been a mere ceremony that

was pre-determined and manipulated to result in nothing
but a sham canvassing as were: (1) there was
convergence of circumstances of precipitate canvassing;
(2) there was terrorism; (3) there was lack of sufficient
notice to the members of the canvassing Board; (4)
disregard of manifest irregularities on the face of the
questioned returns/certificates in appropriate cases.
(d) The canvassed election returns are incomplete, contain
material defects, appear to be tampered with or falsified,
or contain discrepancies in the same returns or in other
authentic copies thereof as mentioned in Sections 233,
234, 235, and 236 of this Code.
(e) The election returns were prepared under duress,
threats, coercion, or intimidation, or they are obviously
manufactured or not authentic.
(f) When substitute or fraudulent returns in controverted
polling places were canvassed, the results of which
materially affected the standing of the aggrieved
candidate or candidates.