G.R. No. 119694
May 22, 1995
Facts
PPI is assailing the validity of COMELEC Resolution No. 2772, especially Section 2, which provides for FREE COMELEC SPACE. Hence, this Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with prayer for the issuance of a Temporary restraining order. Section 2 thereof provides:
Sec. 2. Comelec Space. — The Commission shall procure free print space of not less than one half ½ page in at least one newspaper of general circulation in every province or city for use as ‘Comelec Space’ from March 6, 1995 in the case of candidates for senators and from March 21, 1995 until May 12, 1995. In the absence of said newspaper, ‘Comelec Space’ shall be obtained from any magazine or periodical of said province or city.
Petitioner prays to declare COMELEC Resolution No. 2772 unconstitutional and void because:
- it violates the prohibition imposed by the Constitution upon the government, and any of its agencies, against the taking of private property for public use without just compensation;
- it violates Section 18 (2) Article III of the 1987 Constitution since the March 1995 letter directives of COMELEC requiring publishers to give free “Comelec Space” and at the same time process raw data to make it camera-ready, constitute impositions of involuntary servitude;
- it violates the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, and of expression.
On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor General alleged that Resolution No 2772:
- does not impose upon the publishers any obligation to provide free print space in the newspapers as it does not provide any criminal or administrative sanction for non-compliance with that Resolution;
- merely established guidelines to be followed in connection with the procurement of “Comelec Space”;
- is a valid exercise of the police power of the State;
- Section 8 of Resolution No 2772 is a permissible exercise of the power of supervisor or regulation of the Comelec over the communication and information operations of print media enterprises during the election period to safeguard and ensure a fair, impartial and credible election.
Issues
- Whether or not Section 2 of Resolution No. 2772 is a valid exercise of the power of eminent domain?
- Whether or not Section 2 is a valid exercise of the police power of the State?
Held
First Issue
No.
The taking of private property for public use is, of course, authorized by the Constitution, but not without payment of “just compensation” (Article III, Section 9). The valid exercise of the power of eminent domain requires the following requisites to concur: (1) taking must be for public use or purposes and (2) there must be just compensation.
First, the taking was not for public use. The threshold requisites for a lawful taking of private property for public use need to be examined here: one is the necessity for the taking ; another is the legal authority to effect the taking. In this case, the necessity of taking has not been shown since it has not been suggested that the members of PPI are unwilling to sell print space at their normal rates to COMELEC for election purposes. Moreover, there is no authority to effect the taking since it has not been suggested, let alone demonstrated, that COMELEC has been granted the power of eminent domain either by the Constitution or by the legislative authority. Hence, there is no lawful taking of private property for public use in compelling print media companies to donate “Comelec Space.”
Second, there is no just compensation since Section 2 of Resolution No. 2772 is an assertion of authority to require newspaper publishers to “donate” free print space for COMELECpurposes, or as an exhortion, or perhaps an appeal, to publishers to donate free print space. As the theory of democratic representative government suggests, the economic costs of informing the general public about the qualifications and programs of those seeking elective office are most appropriately distributed as widely as possible throughout our society by the utilization of public funds, especially funds raised by taxation, rather than cast solely on one small sector of society, i.e., print media enterprises.
Hence, Section 2 of Resolution No. 2772 is not a valid exercise of the power of eminent domain.
Second Issue
No.
Firstly, there was no effort (and apparently no inclination on the part of Comelec) to show that the police power — essentially a power of legislation — has been constitutionally delegated to respondent Commission. Secondly, while private property may indeed be validly taken in the legitimate exercise of the police power of the state, there was no attempt to show compliance in the instant case with the requisites of a lawful taking under the police power.
Section 2 of Resolution No. 2772 is a blunt and heavy instrument that purports, without a showing of existence of a national emergency or other imperious public necessity, indiscriminately and without regard to the individual business condition of particular newspapers or magazines located in different parts of the country, to take private property of newspaper or magazine publishers. Hence, it is not a valid exercise of police power.
Ruling
Therefore, Section 2 of Resolution No. 2772 is declared null and void.