Social Weather Stations v. COMELEC G.R. G.R. No. No. 1475 147571 71 May May 5, 2001 2001 FACTS: On the one hand, Social Weather Stations (SWS) is an institution conducting conducting surveys in various various fields. fields. Kamahala Kamahalan n Publishin Publishing g Corp., Corp., on the other hand, hand, publishes publishes the Manila Standard which is a newspaper of general circulation and features items of information information including election surveys. Both SWS and Kamahalan are contesting the validity validity and enforcement enforcement of R.A. 9006 (Fair Election Election Act), Act), especially especially section section 5.4 which provides that surveys affecting national candidates shall not be published 15 days days befo before re an elec electi tion on and and surv survey eys s affe affect ctin ing g loca locall cand candid idat ates es shal shalll not not be published 7 days before the election. SWS wanted to conduct an election survey throughout the period of the elections both at the national and local levels and release to the media the results of such survey as well as publish them directly. Kamahalan, for its part, intends to publish election survey results up to the last day of the elections on May 14, 2001.
ISSUE: Whether or not the restriction on the publication of election survey constitutes a prior restraint on the exercise of freedom of speech without any clear and present danger to justify such restraint RULING/RATIO: Yes, Yes, Sectio Section n 5.4 of R.A. R.A. 9006 9006 consti constitut tutes es an uncon unconsti stitut tution ional al abridg abridgem ement ent of freedom of speech, expression, and the press. The The power power of the COMEL COMELEC EC over over media media franch franchise ises s is limite limited d to ensuri ensuring ng equal equal opportunity, time, space, and the right to reply, as well as to fix reasonable rates of charge charge for the use of media media faciliti facilities es for public public inform informati ation on and forms forms among among candidates. Here, the prohibition of speech is direct, absolute, and substantial. Nor does this sect sectio ion n pass pass the the O’br O’brie ient nt test test for for cont conten entt rela relate ted d regu regula lati tion on beca becaus use e (1) (1) it suppresses one type of expression while allowing other types such as editorials, etc.; and (2) the restriction is greater than what is needed to protect government intere interest st becaus because e the intere interest st can can e prote protecte cted d by narro narrower wer restri restricti ctions ons such such as subsequent punishment. Note: Justice Kapunan’s dissenting opinion basically says that the test of clear and present danger is inappropriate to use in order to test the validity of this section. Instead, he purports to engage in a form of balancing by weighing and balancing the circumstances to determine whether public interest is served by the regulation of the free enjoyment of the rights. However, he failed to show why, on the balance, the other considerations (for example, prevention of last minute pressure on voters) should outweigh the value of freedom of expression.