Scribd
Upload
157 views

G.R. No. 132922 April 21, 1998 Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of The Philippines, Inc. and Gma Network, INC., Petitioners, The Commission On Elections, Respondent. Facts

The document discusses a case regarding a challenge to Section 92 of BP Blg. 881, which requires radio and television stations to provide free air time to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) during election periods. The petitioners argued this constituted an unlawful taking of private property without just compensation. The Supreme Court ruled against the petitioners, finding that broadcasting licenses are privileges granted by the government and subject to amendment for the common good. Two justices dissented, arguing this disregarded due process protections for corporations.

Uploaded by

Gin Fernandez
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
157 views

G.R. No. 132922 April 21, 1998 Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of The Philippines, Inc. and Gma Network, INC., Petitioners, The Commission On Elections, Respondent. Facts

The document discusses a case regarding a challenge to Section 92 of BP Blg. 881, which requires radio and television stations to provide free air time to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) during election periods. The petitioners argued this constituted an unlawful taking of private property without just compensation. The Supreme Court ruled against the petitioners, finding that broadcasting licenses are privileges granted by the government and subject to amendment for the common good. Two justices dissented, arguing this disregarded due process protections for corporations.

Uploaded by

Gin Fernandez
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

G.R. No.

132922 April 21, 1998

TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND BROADCAST ATTORNEYS OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. and GMA NETWORK,
INC., petitioners,
vs.
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent.

FACTS:

Petitioners contend that §92 of BP 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 claim that the primary source of revenue of the radio and
television stations is the sale of air time to advertisers and that to require these stations to provide free
air time is to authorize a taking which is not "a de minimis temporary limitation or restraint upon the use
of private property." According to petitioners, in 1992, the GMA Network, Inc. lost P22,498,560.00 in
providing free air time of one (1) hour every morning from Mondays to Fridays and one (1) hour on
Tuesdays and Thursday from 7:00 to 8:00 p.m. (prime time) and, in this year's elections, it stands to lose
P58,980,850.00 in view of COMELEC'S requirement that radio and television stations provide at least 30
minutes of prime time daily for the COMELEC Time.

ISSUE:

Whether Section 92 of BP. Blg. 881 is violative of the due process clause and unlawful taking of private
property for public use without just compensation.

RULING:

No.

Petitioners' argument is without merit, All broadcasting, whether by radio or by television stations, is
licensed by the government. Airwave frequencies have to be allocated as there are more individuals
who want to broadcast than there are frequencies to assign. A franchise is thus a privilege subject,
among other things, to amended by Congress in accordance with the constitutional provision that "any
such franchise or right granted . . . shall be subject to amendment, alteration or repeal by the Congress
when the common good so requires."

Sec. 46. COMELEC Time. — The Commission [on Elections] shall procure radio and television time to be
known as "COMELEC Time" which shall be allocated equally and impartially among the candidates within
the area of coverage of said radio and television stations. For this purpose, the franchises of all radio
broadcasting and television stations are hereby amended so as to require such stations to furnish the
Commission radio or television time, free of charge, during the period of the campaign, at least once but
not oftener than every other day.

Substantially the same provision is now embodied in §92 of B.P. Blg. 881.
Separate Opinions

VITUG, J., separate opinion;

I assent in most part to the well-considered opinion written by Mr. Justice Vicente V. Mendoza in
his ponencia, particularly, in holding that petitioner TELEBAP lacks locus standi in filing the instant
petition and in declaring that Section 92 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 is a legitimate exercise of police
power of the State.

I cannot consider COMELEC Resolution No. 2983-A, particularly Section 2 thereof, as being in
contravention of B.P. No. 881. There is nothing in the law that prohibits the COMELEC from itself
procuring airtime, perhaps longer than that which can reasonably be allocated, if it believes that in so
opting, it does so for the public good.

I vote to DISMISS the petition.

ROMERO, J., dissenting;

The fact that one needs a franchise from government to establish a radio and television station while no
license is needed to start a newspaper should not be made a basis for treating broadcast media any
differently from the print media in compelling the former to "donate" airtime to respondent Comelec.
While no franchises and rights are granted except under the condition that it shall be subject to
amendment, alteration, or repeal by the Congress when the common good so requires, this provides no
license for government to disregard the cardinal rule that corporations with franchises are as much
entitled to due process and equal protection of laws guaranteed under the Constitution.

PANGANIBAN, J., dissenting;

I have always believed that the Supreme Court is the ever vigilant guardian of the constitutional rights of
the citizens and their ultimate protector against the tyrannies of their own government. I am afraid that
by this unfortunate Decision, the majority, in this instance, has instead converted this honorable and
majestic Court into the people's unwitting oppressor.

You might also like