Villabas, Vilpa P.

LLB 1
Constitutional Law I

Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of the Philippines vs. COMELEC,

G.R. No. 132922. April 21, 1998
(Case Digest)
Facts of the Case:
- Petitioners Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of the Philippines, Inc. and
GMA Network, Inc. challenge the validity of Section 11 (b) of Republic Act No. 6646
which prohibits the sale or donation of print space or air time for political ads, except to
the Commission on Elections under Section 90 of Batas Pambansa No.881 (Omnibus
Election Code), with respect to print media, and Section 92 with respect to broadcast
media. These are the contentions of the petitioners:
A. The requirement that radio and television time be given free takes property without
due process of law and violates the eminent domain clause of the Constitution, which
provides for the payment of just compensation;
B. That it denies radio and television broadcast companies the equal protection of the
laws;
C. It is in excess of the power given to the COMELEC to supervise or regulate the
operation of media of communication or information during election period.
-

Petitioner Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of the Philippines, Inc. is an

organization of lawyers of radio and television broadcasting companies. They are suing
as citizens, taxpayers, and registered voters. On the other hand, GMA Network, Inc.
operates radio and television broadcasting stations throughout the Philippines under a
franchise granted by Congress.

Section 90 of B.P. Blg. 881 (Omnibus Election Code) provides that a COMELEC
space be allocated, free of charge, equally and impartially among all candidates within
the area in which the newspaper is circulated while Section 92 provides that the franchise
of all radio broadcasting and television stations are hereby amended so as to provide
radio or television time (COMELEC time), free of charge, to all candidates during the
campaign period.

Issue/s:
- Whether or not petitioners Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of the
Philippines, Inc. (TELEBAP) and GMA Network, Inc. have locus standi to challenge the
operation of Section 92 of B.P. Blg. 881 providing free COMELEC airtime;
- Whether or not Section 92 of B.P. Blg. 881 violates the due process clause and the
eminent domain provision of the Constitution.
Supreme Court Decision/s:
- Question of Petitioners Locus Standi: Petitioner Telecommunications and Broadcast
Attorneys of the Philippines, Inc. held to be without standing; while GMA Network, Inc.
has locus standi to bring the constitutional challenge. Members of TELEBAP assert their
interest as lawyers of radio and television broadcasting companies and as citizens,
taxpayers, and registered voters. But their substantive claim is without merit.
Page 1 of 3

Villabas, Vilpa P.
LLB 1
Constitutional Law I
Reasons:
A. In view of the transcendental importance, a citizen is allowed to raise a constitutional
question only when he can show that he has personally suffered some actual or
threatened injury as a result of the allegedly illegal conduct of the government; injury
is traceable to the challenged action; and the injury is likely to be redressed by a
favorable action. But Members of TELEBAP have not shown that they have suffered
harm as a result of the operation of Section 92, B.P. Blg. 881.
B. The case at bar does not concern a citizens right to suffrage, thus, members of
petitioner TELEBAP do not have the interest as registered voters.
C. They do not also have an interest as taxpayers since the case at bar does not involve
the exercise of Congress of its taxing or spending power. A party suing as a taxpayer
must specifically show that he has a sufficient interest in preventing the illegal
expenditure of money and that he will sustain direct injury as a result of the
enforcement of the questioned statute.
D. Members of TELEBAP do not also have a legal standing by reason of their corporate
entity because standing jus tertii will be recognized only if it can be shown that the
party suing has some substantial relation to the third party, or that the third party
cannot assert his constitutional right, or that the right of the third party will be diluted
unless the party in court is allowed to espouse the third partys constitutional claim.
None of these requirements is present.
E. The mere fact that TELEBAP is composed of lawyers in the broadcast industry does
not authorize them to bring this suit in their name as representatives of the affected
companies.
On the other hand, GMA Network, Inc. has locus standi to challenge the constitutional question
as it operates radio and television broadcast stations throughout the Philippines. Petitioner has
showed that it is affected by the enforcement of Section 92, B.P. Blg. 881 requiring radio and
television broadcast companies to provide free air time to the COMELEC for the use of
candidates for campaign and other political purposes.

Airing of COMELEC Time, a Reasonable Condition for Grant of Petitioners Franchise:

B.P. Blg. 881 prohibits mass media from selling or donating print space and air time to
the candidates and requires the COMELEC instead to procure print space and air time for
allocation to the candidates.
Petitioners then claimed that Section 92, B.P. Blg. 881 violates the due process clause
and the eminent domain provision of the Constitution by taking air time from radio and
television broadcasting stations without payment of just compensation. Petitioners
contend that the source of revenue of the radio and television stations is the sale of air
time to advertisers and to provide free air time is a restraint upon the use of property. As
alleged by the GMA Network, Inc., they would lose P58, 980, 850.00 in view of the
COMELECs requirement (in 1992, they have already lost P22, 498, 560.00 in providing
free air time). It was held that petitioners argument is without merit.
Page 2 of 3

Villabas, Vilpa P.
LLB 1
Constitutional Law I
Reasons:
A. Radio and television broadcasting companies do not own the airwaves and
frequencies through which they transmit broadcast signals and images. They are only
given the temporary privilege of using them as franchise. As held in Red Lion Co. v.
F.C.C., license to broadcast do not confer ownership of designated frequencies, but
only the temporary privilege of using them.
B. As radio and television broadcast stations do not own the airwaves, no private
property is taken by the requirement that they provide air time to the COMELEC.
C. A franchise is a privilege subject to amendment by Congress in accordance with the
constitutional provision that any such franchise or right grantedshall be subject to
amendment, alteration or repeal by the Congress when the common good so
requires.
D. In the granting of the privilege to operate broadcast stations and thereafter supervising
radio and television stations, the state spends considerable public funds in licensing
and supervising such stations. It would be strange if it cannot even require the
licensees to render public service by giving free air time.
E. The idea that broadcast stations may be required to provide COMELEC Time free of
charge is not new. It goes back to the Election Code of 1971 (R.A. 6388). Free air
time benefits not only the candidates but even more of the public, particularly the
voters; so that they will be fully informed of the issues in an election for it is the
right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is
paramount.
For the foregoing reasons, the petition is dismissed.

Page 3 of 3