ROWARD TUBOG

USJR – School of Law

Subject: Constitutional Law 2
Topic: Restriction on Freedom of Expression
Title: PABLITO V. SANIDAD, petitioner,
vs.
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent.
Citation: G.R. No. 90878 January 29, 1990
Facts:
This is a petition for certiorari assailing the constitutionality of Section 19 of Comelec
Resolution No. 2167 on the ground that it violates the constitutional guarantees of the
freedom of expression and of the press.

On October 23, 1989, RA 6766, entitled “AN ACT PROVIDING FOR AN ORGANIC ACT FOR
THE CORDILLERA AUTONOMOUS REGION” was enacted into law;

Pursuant to said law, the City of Baguio and Provinces of Benguet, Abra, Mt. Province, Ifugao
and Kalinga-Apayao, all comprising the autonomous region shall take part in a plebiscite
originally scheduled for December 27, 1989 but was reset to January 30, 1990 specifically for
the ratification or rejection of the said act;

By virtue of the 1987 Constitution and the Omnibus Election Code (BP 881), the Comelec
issued Comelec Resolution No. 2167, Section 19 of which provides:

“Section 19. Prohibition on columnist, commentators or announcers.- During the plebiscite

campaign period, on the day before and on 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.”

On November 20, 1989, petitioner PABLITO V. SANIDAD who is a columnist (“OVERVIEW”)

for the Baguio Midland Courier, a weekly newspaper circulated in the City of Baguio and the
Cordilleras, filed a petition for Prohibition with prayer for the issuance of a temporary
restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction against the Comelec to enjoin the latter
from enforcing Section 19 of resolution No. 2167. Petitioner claims that the said provision is
violative of his constitutional freedom of expression and of the press and it also constitutes a
prior restraint because it imposes subsequent punishment for those who violate the same;

On November 28, 1989, the Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining
the respondent from enforcing Section 19 of Resolution No. 2167;

On January 9, 1990, Comelec through the Solicitor General filed its Comment and moved for
the dismissal of the petition on the ground that Section 19 of Resolution No. 2167 does not
absolutely bar the petitioner from expressing his views because under Section 90 and 92 of
BP 881, he may still express his views or campaign for or against the act through the
Comelec space and airtime.

Issues:
Whether or not Section 19 of resolution No. 2167 is violative of the constitutional freedom of
expression and of the press.

Ruling:
Yes.
ROWARD TUBOG
USJR – School of Law

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. The Court held 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.

ACCORDINGLY, Section 19 of Comelec Resolution No. 2167 is declared null and void and
unconstitutional.