Primary Holding

Section 2 of COMELEC Resolution No. 2772, which compels newspapers to provide free print space for political candidates, is unconstitutional as it constitutes taking of private property for public use without just compensation and is therefore null and void. Section 8's constitutionality was not ruled upon as it lacked a justiciable controversy.

Background

COMELEC issued Resolution No. 2772 to procure free print space in newspapers for candidates to publicize their qualifications and platforms during the 1995 elections. This was intended to be similar to the voluntary practice by some publishers in the 1992 elections. PPI, representing newspaper publishers, challenged this resolution as an unconstitutional taking of private property.

Facts

• 1. COMELEC issued Resolution No. 2772 requiring newspapers and magazines to provide free print space ("Comelec Space") for candidates during the 1995 elections.
• 2. Section 2 of the resolution mandated at least one-half page of free print space in newspapers of general circulation in every province or city.
• 3. COMELEC directed newspaper publishers, including PPI members, to provide this space via letter directives dated March 22, 1995.
• 4. PPI argued this was an unconstitutional taking of private property without just compensation and constituted involuntary servitude, and that Section 8 violated freedom of the press.
• 5. COMELEC argued the resolution was merely a guideline, not mandatory, and even if mandatory, it was a valid exercise of police power for fair elections.
• 6. COMELEC later issued Resolution No. 2772-A clarifying that Section 2 was not intended to be mandatory and punitive.

Arguments of the Petitioners

• 1. Resolution No. 2772 violates the constitutional prohibition against taking private property for public use without just compensation.
• 2. The COMELEC directives constitute involuntary servitude.
• 3. Section 8 of Resolution No. 2772 violates the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech and of the press.

Arguments of the Respondents

• 1. Resolution No. 2772 is not mandatory and does not impose any legal obligation or sanction for non-compliance. It is merely a guideline.
• 2. Even if considered mandatory, the resolution is a valid exercise of the police power of the State to ensure fair, impartial, and credible elections.
• 3. Section 8 is a permissible exercise of COMELEC's power to supervise and regulate media operations during elections to safeguard fair elections.

Issues

• 1. Whether Section 2 of COMELEC Resolution No. 2772 constitutes an unconstitutional taking of private property for public use without just compensation.
• 2. Whether Section 2 constitutes involuntary servitude.
• 3. Whether Section 8 of Resolution No. 2772 violates the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech and of the press.

Ruling

• 1. The Court ruled that Section 2 of Resolution No. 2772, as interpreted and implemented by COMELEC, indeed constituted a "taking" of private property.
• 2. Compelling print media to donate "Comelec space" is akin to expropriation.
• 3. The Court found no necessity for this taking demonstrated by COMELEC, especially since COMELEC could purchase print space.
• 4. COMELEC was not shown to have been granted the power of eminent domain.
• 5. Section 2 does not constitute a valid exercise of police power as it was a heavy-handed measure without showing of national emergency or necessity.
• 6. Regarding Section 8, the Court held that the issue was not ripe for judicial review due to lack of actual injury or enforcement action by COMELEC.

Doctrines

• 1. Eminent Domain/Taking of Private Property: The power of the state to take private property for public use upon payment of just compensation. The Court held that compelling newspapers to provide free space was a taking.
• 2. Just Compensation: Fair and full equivalent for the loss sustained by the owner when property is taken for public use. Resolution 2772 lacked provision for this.
• 3. Police Power: The inherent power of the state to regulate liberty and property to promote the general welfare. The Court found Section 2 not to be a valid exercise of police power in this context.
• 4. Freedom of the Press: The constitutional right to free expression and dissemination of information, which the Petitioner argued was violated by Section 8, though the court did not rule on this section's constitutionality due to lack of a justiciable controversy.
• 5. Justiciable Controversy/Ripeness: A requirement for judicial review that there must be an actual case or controversy involving real conflicting rights. The issue on Section 8 was deemed not ripe.

Key Excerpts

• 1. "To compel print media companies to donate 'Comelec space' of the dimensions specified in Section 2 of Resolution No. 2772 ... amounts to 'taking' of private personal property for public use or purposes."
• 2. "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)."
• 3. "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...to take private property of newspaper or magazine publishers."

Precedents Cited

• 1. National Press Club v. Commission on Elections: Cited for the distinction between paid political advertisements and journalistic content protected by freedom of the press, relevant to Section 8.
• 2. Sanidad v. Commission on Elections: Referenced in relation to the distinction made in National Press Club v. COMELEC.
• 3. Noble v. City of Manila: Used to highlight that government should first offer to buy private property if needed for public use before resorting to coercive measures like eminent domain.
• 4. National Development Company v. Philippine Veterans Bank; Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform; Binay v. Domingo; Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. v. Drilon; Villacosta v. Bernardo: Cited in footnotes regarding police power and delegation to local governments and administrative agencies (though the relevance to the main issue is indirect).

Statutory and Constitutional Provisions

• 1. Article III, Section 9, 1987 Constitution: Constitutional provision on taking private property for public use with just compensation.
• 2. Article III, Section 18 (2), 1987 Constitution: Provision against involuntary servitude (mentioned by petitioner but not central to the Court’s ratio).
• 3. Article IX, Section 4, Constitution: COMELEC's power to supervise or regulate media of communication or information (relevant to Section 8 discussion, but not ruled upon).
• 4. Section 11 (b) of R.A. No. 6646 (Electoral Reforms Law of 1987): Law prohibiting sale or donation of print space and airtime for political purposes, discussed in the context of National Press Club v. COMELEC and Section 8 of Resolution 2772.
• 5. Section 16, R.A. No. 7160 ("Local Government Code of 1991"): General welfare clause related to delegation of police power (in footnotes).
• 6. Section 90 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 (Omnibus Election Code): Mentioned in COMELEC Resolution No. 2772-A, clarifying there was no sanction or penalty for violation concerning "Comelec Space."