National Press Club vs Comelec

207 SCRA 835

Facts:

R.A. 6646 was enacted which prohibits any newspaper, radio, any person making the use of media to sell or give free of charge of space or time for political purpose except COMELEC Petitioners who were representatives of mass media assails its constitutionality on the ground that it amounts to censorship because it single’s out for suppression only publications of a particular content and it abridges freedom of speech of candidates.

Issue:

Whether or not R.A. 6646 is valid.

Held:

Yes, the law banning political ads has since been repealed but the court made important observation which is still pertinent.

The technical effects of Art. IX (C) (4) of the constitution may be seen to that no presumption of invalidity arises in respect of exercise of supervisory or regulatory authority on the part of the COMELEC for the purpose of serving equal opportunity among candidates for political office, although such supervision or regulation may result in same limitation of the rights of free speech and free press. The applicable issue is the general, time honored are that statute is presumed to be constitutional that party asserting unconstitutionality must discharge the burden of clearly and convincing, proving that assertion.

Section II has not gone outside the permissible brands of supervision and regulation of media operations. During election period Sec. II is limited in duration of applicability and enforceability. Sec. II doesn’t purport in any way to restrict the reporting by newspapers and radio or TV stations on news events relating to qualified political parties.

Petitoners: representatives of mass media which are prevented from selling or donating space and time for political advertisements; 2 candidates for office (1 national, 1 provincial) in the coming May 1992 elections; taxpayers and voters who claim that their right to be informed of election issues and of credentials of the candidates is being curtailed.