Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 29 views

    3 4 Sws V Comelec

    Uploaded by

    Beeya Echauz
    The Supreme Court ruled Section 5.4 of RA 9006 unconstitutional. Section 5.4 prohibited the publication of election survey results within 15 days for national candidates and 7 days for local candidates of an election. The Court held that (1) it imposed an unconstitutional prior restraint on freedom of expression, (2) it was a direct and total suppression of expression, and (3) the government's interest could have been achieved through less restrictive means than suppressing freedom of expression.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    3 4 Sws V Comelec

    Uploaded by

    Beeya Echauz
    29 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled Section 5.4 of RA 9006 unconstitutional. Section 5.4 prohibited the publication of election survey results within 15 days for national candidates and 7 days for local candidates of an election. The Court held that (1) it imposed an unconstitutional prior restraint on freedom of expression, (2) it was a direct and total suppression of expression, and (3) the government's interest could have been achieved through less restrictive means than suppressing freedom of expression.

    Original Description:

    consti 2

    Original Title

    3 4 Sws v Comelec

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled Section 5.4 of RA 9006 unconstitutional. Section 5.4 prohibited the publication of election survey results within 15 days for national candidates and 7 days for local candidates of an election. The Court held that (1) it imposed an unconstitutional prior restraint on freedom of expression, (2) it was a direct and total suppression of expression, and (3) the government's interest could have been achieved through less restrictive means than suppressing freedom of expression.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    29 views1 page

    3 4 Sws V Comelec

    Uploaded by

    Beeya Echauz
    The Supreme Court ruled Section 5.4 of RA 9006 unconstitutional. Section 5.4 prohibited the publication of election survey results within 15 days for national candidates and 7 days for local candidates of an election. The Court held that (1) it imposed an unconstitutional prior restraint on freedom of expression, (2) it was a direct and total suppression of expression, and (3) the government's interest could have been achieved through less restrictive means than suppressing freedom of expression.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    Social Weather Stations v COMELEC unscrupulous and erroneous surveys just

    G.R. 147571 before the election.


    May 5, 2001 It contends that:
    (1) the prohibition on the publication of
    FACTS: election survey results during the period
    proscribed by law bears a rational
    Petitioner, Social Weather Stations, Inc. connection to the objective of the law, i.e.,
    (SWS) is a private non-stock, non-profit the prevention of the debasement of the
    social research institution conducting electoral process resulting from
    surveys in various fields and petitioner manipulated surveys, bandwagon effect,
    Kamahalan Publishing Corporation and absence of reply
    publishes the Manila Standard, a (2) it is narrowly tailored to meet the "evils"
    newspaper of general circulation. sought to be prevented
    Petitioners brought this action for (3) the impairment of freedom of expression
    prohibition to enjoin the Commission on is minimal, the restriction being limited
    Elections from enforcing Section 5.4 of RA both in duration, i.e., the last 15 days
    9006 (Fair Election Act), which provides before the national election and the last 7
    that: Surveys affecting national days before a local election, and in scope
    candidates shall not be published fifteen as it does not prohibit election survey
    (15) days before an election and surveys results but only require timeliness.
    affecting local candidates shall not be
    published seven (7) days before an ISSUE:
    election.
    Petitioners argue that the restriction on the W/N Section 5.4 of RA 9006 constitutes an
    publication of election survey results unconstitutional abridgment of freedom of
    constitutes a prior restraint on the exercise speech, expression and the press.
    of freedom of speech without any clear
    and present danger to justify such HELD:
    restraint.
    They claim that SWS and other pollsters YES.
    conducted and published the results of It constitutes an unconstitutional
    surveys prior to the 1992, 1995, and 1998 abridgement of freedom of expression,
    elections up to as close as two days before speech and the press.
    the election day without causing confusion To summarize, the Supreme Court held
    among the voters and that there is neither that Section 5.4 is invalid because
    empirical nor historical evidence to support (1) it imposes a prior restraint on the freedom
    the conclusion that there is an immediate of expression,
    and inevitable danger to tile voting process (2) it is a direct and total suppression of a
    posed by election surveys. category of expression even though such
    No similar restriction is imposed on suppression is only for a limited period,
    politicians from explaining their opinion or and
    on newspapers or broadcast media from (3) the governmental interest sought to be
    writing and publishing articles concerning promoted can be achieved by means
    political issues up to the day of the other than suppression of freedom of
    election. expression.
    They contend that there is no reason for It has been held that mere legislative
    ordinary voters to be denied access to the preferences or beliefs respecting matters
    results of election surveys, which are of public convenience may well support
    relatively objective. regulation directed at other personal
    Respondent Commission on Elections activities, but be insufficient to justify such
    justifies the restrictions in 5.4 of RA 9006 as diminishes the exercise of rights so vital
    as necessary to prevent the manipulation to the maintenance of democratic
    and corruption of the electoral process by institutions.

    You might also like