270. Davao City Water District v. Aranjuez, G.R. No.

194192, June 16, 2015

Agreement (CNA) incentives

Case Digest: G.R. No. 194192

Facts:

The case involves a dispute between the Davao City Water District (DCWD) and its employees, members
of the National Movement Against Davao City Water District Consolidated Association of Workers and
Advocates for Democracy (NAMADACWAD). The respondents participated in a fun displaying union-
related inscriptions during office hours, wearing t-shirts with grievances related to their Collective
Negotiation Agreement (CNA) incentives and their opposition to DCWD’s privatization and proposed One
Hundred Million Peso Loan. DCWD argued that this violated Resolution No. 021316, prohibiting
concerted activities during office hours. The Civil Service Commission (CSC) affirmed the employees'
appeal, citing that the activity did not intend to disrupt work. DCWD contested, raising issues on
procedural lapses, the legality of the employees' activities, and the validity of the appeal.

Issue:

Whether the participation of government employees in a fun run during office hours, as regulated by
Resolution No. 021316, constitutes prior restraint on freedom of expression.

Ruling:

The Court held that the participation of government employees in the fun run did not amount to a
prohibited concerted activity under Resolution No. 021316. DCWD's argument, based on Section 6 of the
resolution, was deemed erroneous as it failed to consider the definition in Section 5, which required an
"intent of effecting work stoppage or service disruption." The Court emphasized that the regulation of
government employees' freedom of expression does not equate to its removal and acknowledged the
fundamental rights not entirely waived due to government service. The penalties imposed were also
modified, recognizing the employees' right to express grievances without serious violation.
Rational:

The Court emphasized the nuanced nature of regulating freedom of expression for government
employees. While acknowledging limitations inherent in public employment, the Court upheld that
these constraints do not translate to a complete forfeiture of constitutional rights. The ruling aimed to
strike a balance between maintaining discipline within the workplace and safeguarding the fundamental
rights of government employees. The Court reinforced that prior restraint, in the form of prohibiting
activities like the fun run, must be justified by an actual intent to disrupt work, avoiding unnecessary
curtailment of free expression. This decision stands as a reminder that the regulation of government
employees' expression should be reasonable, avoiding unnecessary curtailment of fundamental rights.
271. 1-United Transport Koalisyon (1-Utak) v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 206020,

Facts:

The petitioner, 1-United Transport Koalisyon (1-UTAK), challenged the constitutionality of specific
provisions of COMELEC Resolution No. 9615. These provisions prohibited posting campaign materials in
public utility vehicles and within public transport terminals. 1-UTAK argued that these restrictions
violated their right to free speech and expression under the Philippine Constitution.

Issue:

Whether the COMELEC resolution's limitations on campaign materials in public transportation constitute
an unconstitutional prior restraint on freedom of speech and expression.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of 1-UTAK. The Court held that the challenged provisions amounted to
prior restraint, which is presumptively unconstitutional in the Philippines. To be upheld, prior restraints
must meet a strict test: a serious and imminent threat to a vital interest of the State, the least restrictive
means available, and procedural safeguards to ensure fair and non-discriminatory enforcement. The
Court found no such threat in this case and emphasized the lack of procedural safeguards.

Captive Audience Doctrine:

The Court addressed the argument that the prohibition under Resolution No. 9615 was justified under
the captive-audience doctrine. This doctrine allows restrictions on speech when listeners cannot
practically escape from intrusive communication. The Court held that the prohibition was not justified
under this doctrine. Commuters were not forced or compelled to read the election campaign materials
posted on PUVs and transport terminals, nor were they incapable of declining to receive the messages.
The Court emphasized that commuters could simply avert their eyes if they found the materials
unbearably intrusive.

Rationale:

The Court dismantled the argument of a "captive audience," asserting that the prohibition was not
justified under the captive-audience doctrine. It drew parallels with U.S. Supreme Court cases, such as
Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Service Commission and Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville, to
demonstrate that the supposed captive audience, in this context, had the ability to avoid exposure to
intrusive speech. The court carefully examined the classification created by Section 7(g) items (5) and (6)
of Resolution No. 9615 It argued that the distinction between PUVs and transport terminals on one hand
vs the private vehicles and other properties on the other, lacked substantial distinction and was not
germane to the law's purpose. The Court emphasized that the regulation wrongly focused on ownership
itself instead of considering the specific circumstances under which these entities function. In
conclusion, the Court held that Section 7(g) items (5) and (6) violated the free speech clause and the
equal protection clause. It emphasized the significant role of political advertising as part of freedom of
expression and declared the provisions null and void for being repugnant to the Constitution.
272. Social Weather Stations, Inc. v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 208062, April 7, 2015

Facts:

In G.R. No. 208062, the Supreme Court addressed the constitutional implications of Commission on
Elections (COMELEC) Resolution No. 9674, which mandated survey firms to disclose the names of
subscribers who contributed significant amounts, irrespective of whether the survey portions were
publicly released. The petitioners, Social Weather Stations, Inc., and Pulse Asia, Inc., challenged the
resolution, arguing that it constituted prior restraint and infringed upon their freedom of speech. The
case stemmed from the tension between COMELEC's aim to regulate election surveys for fair elections
and the petitioners' assertion of their right to gather and disseminate information without undue
restrictions.

Issue:

WON COMELEC Resolution No. 9674 imposes an unconstitutional prior restraint on the freedom of
speech and expression of survey firms, particularly regarding their publication of election survey results.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court, in its ruling, upheld the validity of COMELEC Resolution No. 9674 with specific and
detailed considerations. It declared that the resolution did not constitute prior restraint as it regulated
the publication process rather than prohibiting or censoring election surveys. The court acknowledged
the need for some regulation to ensure fair elections but stressed that such regulation must be narrowly
tailored and content-neutral. It further found that the requirement to disclose subscribers was not
unduly burdensome and that survey firms had been complying since the enactment of the Fair Election
Act in 2001. The court ruled that the resolution was a valid exercise of COMELEC's regulatory powers,
effectively incorporated into existing contracts. Regarding the effectivity clause, the court determined it
should have taken effect seven days after publication, applying to all rules and regulations under the Fair
Election Act. Notably, the court emphasized the importance of due process and enjoined COMELEC from
prosecuting the petitioners due to the lack of proper service of copies and violation of their right to due
process.

Rationale:
The court, in recognizing the balance between regulating election surveys and protecting freedom of
speech, emphasized that COMELEC Resolution No. 9674, while regulating the manner of publication, did
not impose a blanket prohibition or censorship on election surveys. It applied the O'Brien Test, ensuring
that the regulation serves a compelling state interest and is the least restrictive means to achieve it. The
court underscored the significance of due process, asserting that proper service of official issuances and
complaints is essential. This case further clarified the interplay between regulation, constitutional rights,
and electoral processes, providing guidance on maintaining a delicate equilibrium to foster fair and
informed elections while respecting the fundamental freedoms of expression.

Additional:

What is Speech Regulation in Relation to Election R.A. NO. 9006: FAIR ELECTION ACT?

The court analyzed Section 5.4 of R.A. No. 9006 and declared it unconstitutional for imposing a prior
restraint on freedom of speech. The court criticized the provision for failing to meet the criteria of the
O’Brien test, resulting in the suppression of a category of expression.

Is COMELEC Resolution No. 9674 Constitutional?

Contrary to the findings on R.A. No. 9006, the court deemed COMELEC Resolution No. 9674
constitutional. It emphasized the importance of disclosure in ensuring equal access to opportunities for
public service. Applying the O’Brien test, the court asserted that the regulation was valid and not a form
of prior restraint.

Is Resolution No. 9674 a Prior Restraint?

The court explicitly clarified that Resolution No. 9674 did not amount to prior restraint. It acknowledged
that while the resolution regulated the manner of publication, it did not outright prohibit or censor
election surveys. This distinction preserved the freedom to publish.

Can Public Election Surveys Be Subject to Regulation?

Highlighting the ambiguous nature of election surveys, the court recognized their role as declarative
speech in the context of electoral campaigns, subject to regulation.
What are the Effects of Election Surveys on Voter Behavior?

1. Bandwagon effect – where electors rally to support the candidate leading in the polls.

2. Underdog effect – where electors rally to support the candidate trailing in the polls.

3. Motivating effect – where individuals who had not intended to vote are persuaded to do so.

4. Demotivating effect – where voters abstain from voting out of certainty that their candidate or party
will win.

5. Strategic voting – where voting is influenced by the chances of winning.

6. Free-will effect – where voters cast their ballots to prove the polls wrong.