13 PPI vs Comelec

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 8/20/2019 13 PPI vs Comelec

    1/1

    PHILIPPINE PRESS INSTITUTE VS. COMELEC

    G.R. No. 119694; 22 May 1995

    Facts: Respondent Comelec promulgated Resolution No. 2772 directing newspapers toprovide free Comelec space of not less than one-half page for the common use of political

    parties and candidates. The Comelec space shall be allocated b the Commission! free of charge! among all candidates to enable them to ma"e "nown their #ualifications! their standon public $ssue and their platforms of government. The Comelec space shall also be used bthe Commission for dissemination of vital election information. %etitioner %hilippine %ress$nstitute! $nc. &%%$'! a non-profit organi(ation of newspaper and maga(ine publishers! as"sthe )upreme Court to declare Comelec Resolution No. 2772 unconstitutional and void on theground that it violates the prohibition imposed b the Constitution upon the governmentagainst the ta"ing of private propert for public use without *ust compensation. +n behalf of the respondent Comelec! the )olicitor ,eneral claimed that the Resolution is a permissiblee ercise of the power of supervision &police power' of the Comelec over the informationoperations of print media enterprises during the election period to safeguard and ensure a

    fair! impartial and credible election.

    $ssue: hether or not Comelec Resolution No. 2772 is constitutional.

    /eld: No. The )upreme Court declared the Resolution as unconstitutional. $t held that tocompel print media companies to donate 0Comelec space1 amounts to 0ta"ing1 of privatepersonal propert without pa ment of the *ust compensation re#uired in e propriationcases. oreover! the element of necessit for the ta"ing has not been established brespondent Comelec! considering that the newspapers were not unwilling to sell advertisingspace. The ta"ing of private propert for public use is authori(ed b the constitution! but notwithout pa ment of *ust compensation. 3lso Resolution No. 2772 does not constitute a valid

    e ercise of the police power of the state. $n the case at bench! there is no showing of e istence of a national emergenc to ta"e private propert of newspaper or maga(inepublishers