Scribd
Upload
13 views1 page

Facts

Rappler, Inc. filed a petition against COMELEC Chairman Andres Bautista to nullify provisions in the Memorandum of Agreement regarding the 2016 presidential debates. The provisions placed limits on online streaming and the length of debate excerpts used in news reporting. While the respondent argued procedural defects, the Court set these aside due to the public interest involved. The Court ruled that the freedom of the press to report and disseminate live audio of the debates is now protected by the Constitution. It partially granted the petition by directing the COMELEC Chairman to allow the debates to be live streamed unaltered on the petitioner's website with attribution.

Uploaded by

Au Fuentes
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
13 views1 page

Facts

Rappler, Inc. filed a petition against COMELEC Chairman Andres Bautista to nullify provisions in the Memorandum of Agreement regarding the 2016 presidential debates. The provisions placed limits on online streaming and the length of debate excerpts used in news reporting. While the respondent argued procedural defects, the Court set these aside due to the public interest involved. The Court ruled that the freedom of the press to report and disseminate live audio of the debates is now protected by the Constitution. It partially granted the petition by directing the COMELEC Chairman to allow the debates to be live streamed unaltered on the petitioner's website with attribution.

Uploaded by

Au Fuentes
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/ 1

Case Digest: Rappler, Inc. v.

Bautista
Rappler, Inc. v. Andres Bautista
G.R. No. 222702 April 5, 2016
(Constitutional law; freedom of the press)

Condition for the Exercise of Judicial Review

FACTS
Petitioner Rappler, Inc. (petitioner) filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition against Andres D.
Bautista (respondent), in his capacity as Chairman of the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC). The petition seeks to nullify Part VI (C), paragraph 19 and Part VI (D), paragraph
20 of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) on the 2016 presidential and vice-presidential
debates, for being executed without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction and for violating the fundamental rights of petitioner
protected under the Constitution.

Certain provisions of the MOA particularly regarding online streaming and the imposition of a
maximum limit of two minutes of debate excerpts for news reporting. Petitioner keeps
communicating with the Respondent, however petitioner assured that its concerns will be
addressed later.

Respondent argues that the petition should be dismissed for its procedural defects. In several
cases, this Court has acted liberally and set aside procedural lapses in cases involving
transcendental issues of public interest,4 especially when time constraint is a factor to be
considered, as in this case.

Rappler filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition against COMELEC Chairman Andres
Bautista to nullify MOA provisions on the ground of violating the fundamental rights protected
under the Constitution.

ISSUE
Whether petitioner has the right to live stream the debates.

RULING
The freedom of the press to report and disseminate the live audio can no longer be infringed or
subject to prior restraint. Such freedom of the press to report and disseminate the live audio of
the debates is now protected and guaranteed under Section 4, Article III of the Constitution,
which provides that, “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom…of the press.”

The petition was partially granted. The COMELEC Chairman was directed to allow the debates
to be shown or live streamed unaltered on the petitioner’s website subject to the copyright
condition that the source is clearly indicated.

You might also like