TELEBAP vs COMELEC

Facts: Petitioner Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of the Philippines, Inc. (TELEBAP) is an
organization of lawyers of radio and television broadcasting companies. It was declared to be without
legal standing to sue in this case as, among other reasons, it was not able to show that it was to suffer
from actual or threatened injury as a result of the subject law. Petitioner GMA Network, on the other
hand, had the requisite standing to bring the constitutional challenge. Petitioner operates radio and
television broadcast stations in thePhilippines affected by the enforcement of Section 92, B.P. No. 881.
Petitioners challenge the validity of Section 92, B.P. No. 881 which provides:
Comelec Time- The Commission shall procure radio and television time to be known as the
Comelec Time which shall be allocated equally and impartially among the candidates within the
area of coverage of all radio and television stations. For this purpose, the franchise of all radio
broadcasting and television stations are hereby amended so as to provide radio or television
time, free of charge, during the period of campaign.
Petitioner contends that while Section 90 of the same law requires COMELEC to procure print space in
newspapers and magazines with payment, Section 92 provides that air time shall be procured by
COMELEC free of charge. Thus it contends that Section 92 singles out radio and television stations to
provide free air time.
Petitioner claims that it suffered losses running to several million pesos in providing COMELEC Time in
connection with the 1992 presidential election and 1995 senatorial election and that it stands to suffer
even more should it be required to do so again this year. Petitioners claim that the primary source of
revenue of the radio and television stations is the sale of air time to advertisers and to require these
stations to provide free air time is to authorize unjust taking of private property. According to petitioners,
in 1992 it lost P22,498,560.00 in providing free air time for one hour each day and, in this years elections,
it stands to lost P58,980,850.00 in view of COMELECs requirement that it provide at least 30 minutes of
prime time daily for such.
Issue:
Whether of not Section 92 of B.P. No. 881 denies radio and television broadcast companies the equal
protection of the laws.
Whether or not Section 92 of B.P. No. 881 constitutes taking of property without due process of law and
without just compensation.
Held: Petitioners argument is without merit. All broadcasting, whether 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 that there are frequencies to assign. Radio and television broadcasting companies,
which are given franchises, do not own the airwaves and frequencies through which they transmit
broadcast signals and images. They are merely given the temporary privilege to use them. Thus, such
exercise of the privilege may reasonably be burdened with the performance by the grantee of some form
of public service. In granting the privilege to operate broadcast stations and supervising radio and
television stations, the state spends considerable public funds in licensing and supervising them.
The argument that the subject law singles out radio and television stations to provide free air time as
against newspapers and magazines which require payment of just compensation for the print space they
may provide is likewise without merit. Regulation of the broadcast industry requires spending of public
funds which it does not do in the case of print media. To require the broadcast industry to provide free air
time for COMELEC is a fair exchange for what the industry gets.

As radio and television broadcast stations do not own the airwaves, no private property is taken by the
requirement that they provide air time to the COMELEC.

PEOPLE V JALOSJOS
Feb. 3, 2000
Facts:
The accused-appellant, Romeo Jalosjos, is a full-fledged member of Congress who is confined at
the national penitentiary while his conviction for statutory rape and acts of lasciviousness is pending
appeal. The accused-appellant filed a motion asking that he be allowed to fully discharge the duties of a
Congressman, including attendance at legislative sessions and committee meetings despite his having
been convicted in the first instance of a non-bailable offense on the basis of popular sovereignty and the
need for his constituents to be represented
Issue:
Whether or not accused-appellant should be allowed to discharge mandate as member of House
of Representatives
Held:
Election is the expression of the sovereign power of the people. However, inspite of its
importance, the privileges and rights arising from having been elected may be enlarged or restricted by
law.
The immunity from arrest or detention of Senators and members of the House of Representatives
arises from a provision of the Constitution. The privilege has always been granted in a restrictive sense.
The provision granting an exemption as a special privilege cannot be extended beyond the ordinary
meaning of its terms. It may not be extended by intendment, implication or equitable considerations.
The accused-appellant has not given any reason why he should be exempted from the operation
of Sec. 11, Art. VI of the Constitution. The members of Congress cannot compel absent members to
attend sessions if the reason for the absence is a legitimate one. The confinement of a Congressman
charged with a crime punishable by imprisonment of more than six years is not merely authorized by law,
it has constitutional foundations. To allow accused-appellant to attend congressional sessions and
committee meetings for 5 days or more in a week will virtually make him a free man with all the privileges
appurtenant to his position. Such an aberrant situation not only elevates accused-appellants status to
that of a special class, it also would be a mockery of the purposes of the correction system.

BIRAOGO V. PHILIPPINE TRUTH COMMISSION

FACT:
E.O No. 1 establishing the Philippine Truth Commission (PTC) of 2010 was signed by President Aquino.
The said PTC is a mere branch formed under the Office of the President tasked to investigate reports of
graft and corruption committed by third-level public officers and employees, their co-principals,

accomplices and accessories during the previous administration and submit their findings
and recommendations to the President, Congress and the Ombudsman. However, PTC is not a quasijudicial body, it cannot adjudicate, arbitrate, resolve, settle or render awards in disputes between parties.
Its job is to investigate, collect and asses evidences gathered and make recommendations. It has
subpoena powers but it has no power to cite people in contempt or even arrest. It cannot determine for
such facts if probable cause exist as to warrant the filing of an information in our courts of law.
Petitioners contends the Constitutionality of the E.O. on the grounds that.

It violates separation of powers as it arrogates the power of Congress to create a public office
and appropriate funds for its operation;

The provisions of Book III, Chapter 10, Section 31 of the Administrative Code of 1987 cannot
legitimize E.O. No. 1 because the delegated authority of the President to structurally reorganize the Office
of the President to achieve economy, simplicity, and efficiency does not include the power to create an
entirely new office was inexistent like the Truth Commission;

The E.O illegally amended the Constitution when it made the Truth Commission and vesting it the
power duplicating and even exceeding those of the Office of the Ombudsman and the DOJ.

It violates the equal protection clause

ISSUE:
WHETHER OR NOT the said E.O is unconstitutional.
RULING:
Yes, E.O No. 1 should be struck down as it is violative of the equal protection clause. The Chief
Executives power to create the Ad hoc Investigating Committee cannot be doubted. Having been
constitutionally granted full control of the Executive Department, to which respondents belong, the
President has the obligation to ensure that all executive officials and employees faithfully comply with the
law. With AO 298 as mandate, the legality of the investigation is sustained. Such validity is not affected by
the fact that the investigating team and the PCAGC had the same composition, or that the former used
the offices and facilities of the latter in conducting the inquiry.

Jose Miguel arroyo vs department of justice

FACTS:
The Comelec issued Resolution No. 9266 approving the creation of a joint committee with the
Department of Justice (DOJ), which shall conduct preliminary investigation on the alleged election
offenses and anomalies committed during the 2004 and 2007 elections.
The Comelec and the DOJ issued Joint Order No. 001-2011 creating and constituting a Joint
Committee and Fact-Finding Team on the 2004 and 2007 National Elections electoral fraud and
manipulation cases composed of officials from the DOJ and the Comelec. In its initial report, the FactFinding Team concluded that manipulation of the results in the May 14, 2007 senatorial elections in the
provinces of North and South Cotabato and Maguindanao were indeed perpetrated. The Fact-Finding
Team recommended that herein petitioners Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (GMA), et al. to be subjected to
preliminary investigation for electoral sabotage.
After the preliminary investigation, the COMELEC en banc adopted a resolution ordering that
information/s for the crime of electoral sabotage be filed against GMA, et al. while that the charges
against Jose Miguel Arroyo, among others, should be dismissed for insufficiency of evidence.

Consequently, GMA, et al. assail the validity of the creation of COMELEC-DOJ Joint Panel and of
Joint Order No. 001-2011 before the Supreme Court.
ISSUES:
I. Whether or not the creation of COMELEC-DOJ Joint Panel is valid?
II. Whether or not Joint Order No. 001-2011 violates the equal protection clause?
HELD:
Petitions are DISMISSED.
FIRST ISSUE: The creation of COMELEC-DOJ Joint Panel is valid.
POLITICAL LAW: powers of COMELEC
Section 2, Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution enumerates the powers and functions of the
Comelec. The grant to the Comelec of the power to investigate and prosecute election offenses as an
adjunct to the enforcement and administration of all election laws is intended to enable the Comelec to
effectively insure to the people the free, orderly, and honest conduct of elections. The constitutional grant
of prosecutorial power in the Comelec was reflected in Section 265 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881,
otherwise known as the Omnibus Election Code.
Under the above provision of law, the power to conduct preliminary investigation is vested
exclusively with the Comelec. The latter, however, was given by the same provision of law the authority to
avail itself of the assistance of other prosecuting arms of the government. Thus, under the Omnibus
Election Code, while the exclusive jurisdiction to conduct preliminary investigation had been lodged with
the Comelec, the prosecutors had been conducting preliminary investigations pursuant to the continuing
delegated authority given by the Comelec.
Thus, Comelec Resolution No. 9266, approving the creation of the Joint Committee and FactFinding Team, should be viewed not as an abdication of the constitutional bodys independence but as a
means to fulfill its duty of ensuring the prompt investigation and prosecution of election offenses as an
adjunct of its mandate of ensuring a free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections.
SECOND ISSUE: Joint Order No. 001-2011 does not violate the equal protection clause.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: equal protection
Petitioners claim that the creation of the Joint Committee and Fact-Finding Team is in violation of
the equal protection clause of the Constitution because its sole purpose is the investigation and
prosecution of certain persons and incidents. They insist that the Joint Panel was created to target only
the Arroyo Administration as well as public officials linked to the Arroyo Administration.
While GMA and Mike Arroyo were among those subjected to preliminary investigation, not all
respondents therein were linked to GMA as there were public officers who were investigated upon in
connection with their acts in the performance of their official duties. Private individuals were also
subjected to the investigation by the Joint Committee.
The equal protection guarantee exists to prevent undue favor or privilege. It is intended to
eliminate discrimination and oppression based on inequality. Recognizing the existence of real differences
among men, it does not demand absolute equality. It merely requires that all persons under like
circumstances and conditions shall be treated alike both as to privileges conferred and liabilities

enforced.