Philippine Press Institute vs. COMELEC (G.R. No. L-11994)

Facts:

COMELEC issued resolution 2772 directing newspapers to provide provide free print space of not less than one half (1/2) page for use as “Comelec Space” which shall be allocated by the Commission, free of charge, among all candidates within the area in which the newspaper, magazine or periodical is circulated to enable the candidates to make known their qualifications, their stand on public issues and their platforms and programs of government. Philippine Press Institute, a non-stock, non-profit organization of newspaper and magazine publishers asks the Court to declare said resolution unconstitutional and void on the ground that it violates the prohibition imposed by the Constitution upon the government, and any of its agencies, against the taking of private property for public use without just compensation.

The Office of the Solicitor General, on behalf of Comelec alleged that the resolution does not impose upon the publishers any obligation to provide free print space in the newspapers. It merely established guidelines to be followed in connection with the procurement of “Comelec space”. And if it is viewed as mandatory, the same would nevertheless be valid as an exercise of the police power of the State- a permissible exercise of the power of supervision or regulation of the Comelec over the communication and information operations of print media enterprises during the election period to safeguard and ensure a fair, impartial and credible election.

Issue:

Whether the resolution was a valid exercise of the power of eminent domain?

Held:

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. The threshold requisites for a lawful taking of private property for public use are the necessity for the taking and the legal authority to effect the taking. 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.

However, Sec 8 still stands as it is within the power of COMELEC to control the media influences of candidates to prevent unequal campaigns.