G.R. No. L-44640 October 12, 1976 PABLO C. SANIDAD and PABLITO V.

SANIDAD, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and

HONORABLE NATIONAL TREASURER, respondents. G.R. No. L-44684.
October 12,1976 VICENTE M. GUZMAN, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION
ELECTIONS, respondent. G.R. No. L-44714. October 12,1976 RAUL M.
GONZALES, RAUL T. GONZALES, JR., and ALFREDO SALAPANTAN,
petitioners, vs. HONORABLE COMMISSION ON SELECTIONS and
HONORABLE NATIONAL TREASURER, respondents. MARTIN, J,:
Sanidad Vs Comelec
Facts: On October 23, 1989, Republic Act No. 6766, entitled "AN ACT PROVIDING FOR AN
ORGANIC ACT FOR THE CORDILLERA AUTONOMOUS REGION" was enacted into law.
The Commission on Elections, by virtue of the power vested by the 1987 Constitution, the
Omnibus Election Code (BP 881), said R.A. 6766 and other pertinent election laws, promulgated
Resolution No. 2167, to govern the conduct of the plebiscite on the said Organic Act for the
Cordillera Autonomous Region. In a petition dated November 20, 1989, herein petitioner Pablito
V. Sanidad, who claims to be a newspaper columnist of the "OVERVIEW" for the BAGUIO
MIDLAND COURIER, a weekly newspaper circulated in the City of Baguio and the Cordilleras,
assailed the constitutionality of Section 19 of Comelec Resolution No. 2167, which provides:
Section 19. Prohibition on columnists, commentators or announcers. During the plebiscite
campaign period, on the day before and on the plebiscite day, no mass media columnist,
commentator, announcer or personality shall use his column or radio or television time to
campaign for or against the plebiscite issues It is alleged by petitioner that said provision is void
and unconstitutional because it violates the constitutional guarantees of the freedom of
expression and of the press enshrined in the Constitution.
Issue : WON the said Section 19 of resolution No 2167 is unconstitutional
Held: it is clear from Art. IX-C of the 1987 Constitution that what was granted to the Comelec
was the power to supervise and regulate the use and enjoyment of franchises, permits or other
grants issued for the operation of transportation or other public utilities, media of communication
or information to the end that equal opportunity, time and space, and the right to reply, including
reasonable, equal rates therefor, for public information campaigns and forums among candidates
are ensured Neither Article IX-C of the Constitution nor Section 11 (b), 2nd par. of R.A. 6646
can be construed to mean that the Comelec has also been granted the right to supervise and
regulate the exercise by media practitioners themselves of their right to expression during
plebiscite periods. Media practitioners exercising their freedom of expression during plebiscite
periods are neither the franchise holders nor the candidates. In fact, there are no candidates
involved in a plebiscite. Therefore, Section 19 of Comelec Resolution No. 2167 has no statutory
basis. While the limitation does not absolutely bar petitioner's freedom of expression, it is still a
restriction on his choice of the forum where he may express his view. No reason was advanced
by respondent to justify such abridgement. We hold that this form of regulation is tantamount to
a restriction of petitioner's freedom of expression for no justifiable reason. Plebiscite issues are

matters of public concern and importance. The people's right to be informed and to be able to
freely and intelligently make a decision would be better served by access to an unabridged
discussion of the issues, including the forum. The people affected by the issues presented in a
plebiscite should not be unduly burdened by restrictions on the forum where the right to
expression may be exercised. Comelec spaces and Comelec radio time may provide a forum for
expression but they do not guarantee full dissemination of information to the public concerned
because they are limited to either specific portions in newspapers or to specific radio or
television times