The document summarizes the case of GMA Network v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 205357, September 2,2014). It discusses that the case questioned COMELEC regulations that placed limitations on the aggregate airtime allowed for political advertisements for candidates and parties. Specifically, it limited radio advertisements to 120 and 180 minutes respectively. Petitioners argued this violated freedom of the press and the right to suffrage. COMELEC maintained it levelled the playing field as intended by law. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled the airtime limits were unreasonable and arbitrary, and did not constitute a compelling state interest to justify restricting communication with voters.
The document summarizes the case of GMA Network v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 205357, September 2,2014). It discusses that the case questioned COMELEC regulations that placed limitations on the aggregate airtime allowed for political advertisements for candidates and parties. Specifically, it limited radio advertisements to 120 and 180 minutes respectively. Petitioners argued this violated freedom of the press and the right to suffrage. COMELEC maintained it levelled the playing field as intended by law. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled the airtime limits were unreasonable and arbitrary, and did not constitute a compelling state interest to justify restricting communication with voters.
The document summarizes the case of GMA Network v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 205357, September 2,2014). It discusses that the case questioned COMELEC regulations that placed limitations on the aggregate airtime allowed for political advertisements for candidates and parties. Specifically, it limited radio advertisements to 120 and 180 minutes respectively. Petitioners argued this violated freedom of the press and the right to suffrage. COMELEC maintained it levelled the playing field as intended by law. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled the airtime limits were unreasonable and arbitrary, and did not constitute a compelling state interest to justify restricting communication with voters.
The document summarizes the case of GMA Network v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 205357, September 2,2014). It discusses that the case questioned COMELEC regulations that placed limitations on the aggregate airtime allowed for political advertisements for candidates and parties. Specifically, it limited radio advertisements to 120 and 180 minutes respectively. Petitioners argued this violated freedom of the press and the right to suffrage. COMELEC maintained it levelled the playing field as intended by law. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled the airtime limits were unreasonable and arbitrary, and did not constitute a compelling state interest to justify restricting communication with voters.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 3
DIGESTED CASES IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1| ATTY.
ANTONIO EDUARDO NACHURA | 1B, 1H, 1N 2018-2019
xii. GMA Network v. COMELEC
(G.R. No. 205357, September 2,2014) PERALTA, J.:
FACTS:
These petitions question certain regulations promulgated by the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC) relative to the conduct of the 2013 national and local elections dealing with political advertisements. Said petitions assail the constitutionality of the limitations placed on aggregate airtime allowed to candidates and political parties, as well as the requirements related thereto, such as the need to report it and the sanctions imposed for violations.
These five petitions raise the issue of the alleged unconstitutionality of Section 9 (a) of COMELEC Resolution No. 9615 limiting the broadcast to radio advertisements of candidates and political parties for national election positions to an aggregate total of one hundred twenty (120) minutes and one hundred eighty (180) minutes, respectively.
Petitioners contend that such restrictive regulation on allowable broadcast time violates freedom of the press, impairs the people’s right to suffrage as well as their right to information relative to the exercise of their right to choose who to elect during the forthcoming elections.
However, respondent COMELEC maintains that total aggregate airtime limit is in accordance with R.A. No. 9006 as this would truly give life to the constitutional objective to equalize access to media during elections. Respondent herein sees this as an avenue of levelling the playing field between the poor and rich candidates/political parties.
Moreover, the COMELEC’s issuance of the assailed Resolution is in accordance with Section 4, Article IX(C) of the Constitution which vests on the COMELEC the power to supervise and regulate, during election periods, transportation and other public utilities, as well as mass media.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Section 9 (a) of COMELEC Resolution No. 9615 (Resolution) limiting the broadcast and radio advertisements of candidates and political parties for national election positions is unconstitutional
HELD:
Yes. The Court held that the assailed rule on “aggregate-based” airtime limits is unreasonable and arbitrary as it unduly restricts and constrains the ability of candidates and political parties to reach out and communicate with the people. The respondent’s reason for imposing the “aggregate-based” airtime limits—levelling the playing field—does not constitute a compelling state interest which would justify such a substantial restriction on the freedom of candidates and political parties to communicate their ideas, philiosophies, platforms and programs of government.
The Court further emphasized that even a slight increase in television exposure can significantly boost a candidate’s popularity, name recall and electability. If that be so, then drastically curtailing the ability of a candidate to effectively reach out to the electorate would unjustifiably curtail his freedom to speak as a means of connecting with the people. DIGESTED CASES IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1| ATTY. ANTONIO EDUARDO NACHURA | 1B, 1H, 1N 2018-2019
