Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 71 views

    Case No. 72

    Uploaded by

    Luna Baci
    1) COMELEC issued a resolution directing newspapers to provide free print space for candidates, which Philippine Press Institute argued amounted to an unconstitutional taking of private property without compensation. 2) The court held that compelling free print space was a taking under eminent domain, as it deprived publishers of substantial value and advertising rates. 3) COMELEC did not demonstrate the necessity for the taking or that it had authority to take under eminent domain, as publishers were willing to sell space normally and COMELEC sought to avoid paying compensation.

    Copyright:

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

    Case No. 72

    Uploaded by

    Luna Baci
    71 views2 pages
    1) COMELEC issued a resolution directing newspapers to provide free print space for candidates, which Philippine Press Institute argued amounted to an unconstitutional taking of private property without compensation. 2) The court held that compelling free print space was a taking under eminent domain, as it deprived publishers of substantial value and advertising rates. 3) COMELEC did not demonstrate the necessity for the taking or that it had authority to take under eminent domain, as publishers were willing to sell space normally and COMELEC sought to avoid paying compensation.

    Original Title

    72.-PPI-vs.-COMELEC

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) COMELEC issued a resolution directing newspapers to provide free print space for candidates, which Philippine Press Institute argued amounted to an unconstitutional taking of private property without compensation. 2) The court held that compelling free print space was a taking under eminent domain, as it deprived publishers of substantial value and advertising rates. 3) COMELEC did not demonstrate the necessity for the taking or that it had authority to take under eminent domain, as publishers were willing to sell space normally and COMELEC sought to avoid paying compensation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    71 views2 pages

    Case No. 72

    Uploaded by

    Luna Baci
    1) COMELEC issued a resolution directing newspapers to provide free print space for candidates, which Philippine Press Institute argued amounted to an unconstitutional taking of private property without compensation. 2) The court held that compelling free print space was a taking under eminent domain, as it deprived publishers of substantial value and advertising rates. 3) COMELEC did not demonstrate the necessity for the taking or that it had authority to take under eminent domain, as publishers were willing to sell space normally and COMELEC sought to avoid paying compensation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Case No.

    72
    G.R. No. L-119694
    May 22, 1995
    PHILIPPINE PRESS INSTITUTE, INC., for and in behalf of 139 members, represented by its
    President, Amado P. Macasaet and its Executive Director Ermin F. Garcia, Jr., petitioner,
    vs.
    COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent.
    Topic: Eminent Domain: Taking – Definition and Scope – Deprivation of Use
    FACTS:
    COMELEC issued resolution 2772 directing newspapers to provide provide free print space of
    not less than one half (1/2) page for use as “COMELEC Space” which shall be allocated by the
    Commission, free of charge, among all candidates within the area in which the newspaper,
    magazine or periodical is circulated to enable the candidates to make known their
    qualifications, their stand on public issues and their platforms and programs of government.
    Philippine Press Institute, a non-stock, non-profit organization of newspaper and magazine
    publishers asks the Court to declare said resolution unconstitutional and void on the ground
    that it violates the prohibition imposed by the Constitution upon the government, and any of its
    agencies, against the taking of private property for public use without just compensation.
    The Office of the Solicitor General, on behalf of COMELEC alleged that the resolution does not
    impose upon the publishers any obligation to provide free print space in the newspapers. It
    merely established guidelines to be followed in connection with the procurement of “COMELEC
    space”. And if it is viewed as mandatory, the same would nevertheless be valid as an exercise of
    the police power of the State- a permissible exercise of the power of supervision or regulation
    of the COMELEC over the communication and information operations of print media
    enterprises during the election period to safeguard and ensure a fair, impartial and credible
    election.
    ISSUE: Whether the resolution was a valid exercise of the power of eminent domain.
    RULING:
    No. The court held that the resolution does not constitute a valid exercise of the power of
    eminent domain. To compel print media companies to donate “COMELEC space” amounts to
    “taking” of private personal property for public use or purposes without the requisite o just
    compensation. The extent of the taking or deprivation is not insubstantial; this is not a case of a
    de minimis temporary limitation or restraint upon the use of private property. The monetary
    value of the compulsory “donation,” measured by the advertising rates ordinarily charged by
    newspaper publishers whether in cities or in non-urban areas, may be very substantial indeed.
    The threshold requisites for a lawful taking of private property for public use are the necessity
    for the taking and the legal authority to effect the taking. The element of necessity for the
    taking has not been shown by respondent COMELEC. It has not been suggested that the
    members of PPI are unwilling to sell print space at their normal rates to COMELEC for election
    purposes. Indeed, the unwillingness or reluctance of COMELEC to buy print space lies at the
    heart of the problem.  Similarly, it has not been suggested, let alone demonstrated, that
    COMELEC has been granted the power of eminent domain either by the Constitution or by the
    legislative authority. A reasonable relationship between that power and the enforcement and
    administration of election laws by COMELEC must be shown; it is not casually to be assumed.
    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). And apparently the
    necessity of paying compensation for “COMELEC space” is precisely what is sought to be
    avoided by respondent Commission.

    You might also like