Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
ELISEO F. SORIANO,
Petitioner,
- versus MA. CONSOLIZA P.
LAGUARDIA, in her capacity as
Chairperson of the Movie and
Television Review and
Classification Board, MOVIE
AND TELEVISION REVIEW
AND CLASSIFICATION
BOARD, JESSIE L. GALAPON,
ANABEL M. DELA CRUZ,
MANUEL M. HERNANDEZ,
JOSE L. LOPEZ, CRISANTO
SORIANO, BERNABE S.
YARIA, JR., MICHAEL M.
SANDOVAL, and ROLDAN A.
GAVINO,
Respondents.
x------------------------------------------
-x
ELISEO F. SORIANO,
Petitioner,
G.R. No. 164785
- versus Present:
MOVIE AND TELEVISION
PUNO,REVIEW AND
QUISUMBING,
CLASSIFICATION BOARD,
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
ZOSIMO G. ALEGRE, JACKIE
CARPIO,
AQUINO-GAVINO, NOEL R.
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
DEL PRADO, EMMANUEL
CORONA,
BORLAZA, JOSE E. ROMERO
CARPIO
IV,MORALES,
and FLORIMONDO C.
TINGA,
ROUS, in their capacity as
CHICO-NAZARIO,
members of the Hearing and
VELASCO,
Adjudication
JR.,
Committee of the
NACHURA,
MTRCB, JESSIE L. GALAPON,
LEONARDO-DE
ANABEL M.
CASTRO,
DELA CRUZ,
BRION,
MANUEL M. HERNANDEZ,
PERALTA,
JOSEand
L. LOPEZ, CRISANTO
BERSAMIN,
SORIANO, BERNABE S.
YARIA, JR., MICHAEL M.
G.R. No.
SANDOVAL,
165636
and ROLDAN A.
Promu
April 2
following remarks:
Lehitimong anak ng demonyo; sinungaling;
broadcast.
Respondent
Michael
M.
Sandoval, who felt directly alluded to in
petitioners remark, was then a minister of
INC and a regular host of the TV program
Ang Tamang Daan.[if !supportFootnotes][3][endif]
Forthwith, the MTRCB sent petitioner a
notice of the hearing on August 16, 2004 in
relation to the alleged use of some cuss
words in the August 10, 2004 episode of
Ang Dating Daan.[if !supportFootnotes][4][endif]
After a preliminary conference in
which petitioner appeared, the MTRCB, by
Order of August 16, 2004, preventively
suspended the showing of Ang Dating Daan
program for 20 days, in accordance with
Section 3(d) of Presidential Decree No. (PD)
1986, creating the MTRCB, in relation to
Sec. 3, Chapter XIII of the 2004
Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR)
of PD 1986 and Sec. 7, Rule VII of the
MTRCB Rules of Procedure.[if !supportFootnotes][5]
[endif]
The same order also set the case for
preliminary investigation.
Co-respondents
Joselito
Mallari, Luzviminda Cruz and UNTV
Channel 37 and its owner, PBC, are
hereby exonerated for lack of
evidence.
THE
SO ORDERED.[if !supportFootnotes][9]
[endif]
ORDER
OF
PREVENTIVE
SUSPENSION PROMULGATED BY
RESPONDENT [MTRCB] DATED
16 AUGUST 2004 AGAINST THE
TELEVISION PROGRAM ANG
DATING DAAN x x x IS NULL AND
VOID FOR BEING ISSUED WITH
GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
AMOUNTING TO LACK OR
EXCESS OF JURISDICTION
VIOLATIVE OF FREEDOM OF
SPEECH AND EXPRESSION.[if !
supportFootnotes][10][endif]
[if !supportLists](E)
[endif]FOR BEING
II
Section
xxxx
xxxx
power
to
investigate
administrative
complaints and, during such investigation, to
preventively suspend the person subject of
the complaint.[if !supportFootnotes][16][endif]
To reiterate, preventive suspension
authority of the MTRCB springs from its
powers conferred under PD 1986. The
MTRCB did not, as petitioner insinuates,
empower itself to impose preventive
suspension through the medium of the IRR
of PD 1986. It is true that the matter of
imposing preventive suspension is embodied
only in the IRR of PD 1986. Sec. 3, Chapter
XIII of the IRR provides:
Sec. 3. PREVENTION SUSPENSION
ORDER.Any time during the pendency of the case,
and in order to prevent or stop further violations or
for the interest and welfare of the public, the
Chairman of the Board may issue a Preventive
Suspension Order mandating the preventive x x x
suspension of the permit/permits involved, and/or
closure of the x x x television network, cable TV
station x x x provided that the temporary/preventive
order thus issued shall have a life of not more than
[endif]
road.
Petitioner, as a final point in G.R. No.
164785, would have the Court nullify the
20-day preventive suspension order, being,
as insisted, an unconstitutional abridgement
of the freedom of speech and expression and
an impermissible prior restraint. The main
issue tendered respecting the adverted
violation and the arguments holding such
issue dovetails with those challenging the
three-month suspension imposed under the
assailed September 27, 2004 MTRCB
decision subject of review under G.R. No.
165636. Both overlapping issues and
arguments shall be jointly addressed.
landmark
case
cited
in
Eastern
Broadcasting Corporation v. Dans, Jr.[if !
supportFootnotes][38][endif]
and Chavez v. Gonzales,[if !
supportFootnotes][39][endif]
is a rich source of
persuasive lessons. Foremost of these relates
to indecent speech without prurient appeal
component coming under the category of
protected speech depending on the context
within which it was made, irresistibly
suggesting that, within a particular context,
such indecent speech may validly be
categorized as unprotected, ergo, susceptible
to restriction.
In FCC, seven of what were considered
filthy words[if !supportFootnotes][40][endif] earlier
recorded in a monologue by a satiric
humorist later aired in the afternoon over a
radio station owned by Pacifica Foundation.
Upon the complaint of a man who heard the
pre-recorded monologue while driving with
his son, FCC declared the language used as
patently offensive and indecent under a
prohibiting law, though not necessarily
xxxx
freedom.[if !supportFootnotes][55][endif]
xxxx
supportFootnotes][63][endif]
Bernas adds:
It is a fundamental principle
flowing from the doctrine of
separation of powers that Congress
may not delegate its legislative power
to the two other branches of the
government, subject to the exception
that local governments may over local
affairs participate in its exercise.
What cannot be delegated is the
authority under the Constitution to
make laws and to alter and repeal
them; the test is the completeness of
the statute in all its term and
provisions when it leaves the hands of
the legislature. To determine whether
or not there is an undue delegation of
legislative power, the inquiry must be
directed to the scope and definiteness
of the measure enacted. The
Based
on
the
foregoing
Co-respondents
Joselito
Mallari, Luzviminda Cruz, and
UNTV Channel 37 and its owner,
PBC, are hereby exonerated for lack
of evidence.
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice Associate Justice
PERALTA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice
[if!supportFootnotes]
[endif]
[if !supportFootnotes][1][endif]
C E R T I F I C AT I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the
Constitution, it is hereby certified that the
conclusions in the above Decision were
reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court.
[if !supportFootnotes][16][endif]
[if !supportFootnotes][32][endif]
Agpalo, PHILIPPINE
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 358 (2006).
[if !supportFootnotes][33][endif]
Chaplinsky, supra note 31; cited in
Bernas, supra note 27, at 248.
[if !supportFootnotes][34][endif]
Bernas, supra note 27, at 248.
[if !supportFootnotes][35][endif]
G.R. No. 159751, December 6, 2006, 510
SCRA 351, 360-361.
[if !supportFootnotes][36][endif]
413 U.S. 15.
[if !supportFootnotes][37][endif]
438 U.S. 726.
[if !supportFootnotes][38][endif]
Supra note 25.
[if !supportFootnotes][39][endif]
G.R. No. 168338, February 15, 2008, 545
SCRA 441.
[if !supportFootnotes][40][endif]
Shit, piss, fuck, tits, etc.
[if !supportFootnotes][41][endif]
Supra note 39.
[if !supportFootnotes][42][endif]
Supra note 26.
[if !supportFootnotes][43][endif]
Gonzales v. Kalaw Katigbak, supra.
[if !supportFootnotes][44][endif]
Pharmaceutical and Health Care
Association of the Philippines v. Health Secretary Francisco T.
Duque III, G.R. No. 173034, October 9, 2007, 535 SCRA 265.
[if !supportFootnotes][45][endif]
Bayan v. Ermita, G.R. No. 169838, April 25,
2006, 488 SCRA 226.
[if !supportFootnotes][46][endif]
16A Am Jur. 2d Constitutional Law
Sec. 493; Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47.
[if !supportFootnotes][47][endif]
Bernas, supra note 27, at 219-220.
[if !supportFootnotes][48][endif]
Gonzales v. COMELEC, No. L27833, April 18, 1969, 27 SCRA 835.
[if !supportFootnotes][49][endif]
ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 133486, January 28, 2000, 323 SCRA 811;
Adiong v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 103956, March 31, 1992, 207
SCRA 712.
[if !supportFootnotes][50][endif]
Zaldivar v. Sandiganbayan, G.R.
Nos. 79690-707 & 80578, February 1, 1989, 170 SCRA 1.
[if !supportFootnotes][51][endif]
Supra note 25, at 635.
[if !supportFootnotes][52][endif]
No. L-82380, April 29, 1988, 160
SCRA 861.
[if !supportFootnotes][53][endif]
Supra note 48.
[if !supportFootnotes][54][endif]
Supra at 898.
Supra at 899-900.
[if !supportFootnotes][56][endif]
Kauper, CIVIL LIBERTIES AND
THE CONSTITUTION 113 (1966); cited in Gonzales v.
COMELEC, supra note 48; also cited in J.G. Bernas, S.J., THE
1987 CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES: A COMMENTARY (2003).
[if !supportFootnotes][57][endif]
Id.
[if !supportFootnotes][58][endif]
Bernas, supra note 27, at 81.
[if !supportFootnotes][59][endif]
CONSTITUTION, Art. II, Sec. 13.
[if !supportFootnotes][60][endif]
Id., id., Sec. 12.
[if !supportFootnotes][61][endif]
Id.
[if !supportFootnotes][62][endif]
Supra note 26, at 729.
[if !supportFootnotes][63][endif]
G.R. No. 119673, July 26, 1996, 259 SCRA
529, 544, 552.
[if !supportFootnotes][64][endif]
Supra note 56, at 235.
[if !supportFootnotes][65][endif]
G.R. No. 155282, January 17, 2005, 448
SCRA 575.
[if !supportFootnotes][66][endif]
Supra note 65.
[if !supportFootnotes][67][endif]
No. L-32096, October 24, 1970, 35 SCRA
481, 496-497.
[if !supportFootnotes][68][endif]
Supra note 17; citing Angara v. Electoral
Commission, 63 Phil. 139 (1936); Provident Tree Farms, Inc. v.
Batario, Jr., G.R. No. 92285, March 28, 1994, 231 SCRA 463.
[if !supportFootnotes][69][endif]
People v. Maceren, No. L-32166, October 18,
1977, 79 SCRA 450, 458.
[if !supportFootnotes][70][endif]
Id.
[if !supportFootnotes][71][endif]
Id.
[if !supportFootnotes][55][endif]
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 151908
August 12, 2003
SMART COMMUNICATIONS, INC. (SMART) and
PILIPINO TELEPHONE CORPORATION (PILTEL),
petitioners,
vs.
NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
(NTC), respondent.
x---------------------------------------------------------x
G.R. No. 152063 August 12, 2003
GLOBE TELECOM, INC. (GLOBE) and ISLA
COMMUNICATIONS CO., INC. (ISLACOM),
petitioners,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS (The Former 6th Division)
and the NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION, respondents.
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
Pursuant to its rule-making and regulatory powers, the
National Telecommunications Commission (NTC)
issued on June 16, 2000 Memorandum Circular No.
13-6-2000, promulgating rules and regulations on the
billing of telecommunications services. Among its
pertinent provisions are the following:
(1) The billing statements shall be received by the
subscriber of the telephone service not later than 30
days from the end of each billing cycle. In case the
statement is received beyond this period, the
subscriber shall have a specified grace period within
which to pay the bill and the public telecommunications
entity (PTEs) shall not be allowed to disconnect the
service within the grace period.
(2) There shall be no charge for calls that are diverted
to a voice mailbox, voice prompt, recorded message or
similar facility excluding the customer's own
equipment.
(3) PTEs shall verify the identification and address of
each purchaser of prepaid SIM cards. Prepaid call
cards and SIM cards shall be valid for at least 2 years
from the date of first use. Holders of prepaid SIM cards
shall be given 45 days from the date the prepaid SIM
1017 [1996].
17
Romulo, Mabanta, Buenaventura, Sayoc and De Los
Angeles v. Home Development Mutual Fund, G.R. No.
131082, 19 June 2000, 333 SCRA 777, 785-786.
18
Conte, et al. v. Commission on Audit, 332 Phil. 20, 36
[1996].
19
Bellosillo, J., Separate Opinion, Commissioner of
Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 119761, 29 August 1996,
supra.
20
G.R. No. 110526, 10 February 1998, 286 SCRA 109,
117.
21
Rollo, G.R. No. 152063, pp. 57-78.
22
Id., pp. 79-86.
23
Id., pp. 87-89.
24
Fabia v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 132684, 11
September 2002.
25
Spouses Mirasol v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
128448, 1 February 2001, 351 SCRA 44, 51.
26
Santiago v. Guingona, Jr., G.R. No. 134577, 18
November 1998, 298 SCRA 756, 774.
27
CONSTITUTION, Art. VIII, Sec. 1, second paragraph.
28
G.R. No. 112497, 4 August 1994, 235 SCRA 135.
29
Id., at 139-140.
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 110193 January 27, 1994
THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, REGION VII OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND
SPORTS (DECS), MARCELO BALCASO, NUEVAS
MONTES AND GENEROSO CAPUYAN, petitioners,
vs.
THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. JESUS L.
TABILON, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 205374
ABC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 205592
MANILA BROADCASTING COMPANY, INC. and
NEWSOUNDS BROADCASTING NETWORK, INC.,
Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 205852
KAPISANAN NG MGA BRODKASTER NG
PILIPINAS (KBP) and ABS-CBN CORPORATION,
Petitioners,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 206360
RADIO MINDANAO NETWORK, INC., Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
DECISION
PERALTA, J.:
"The clash of rights demands a delicate balancing of
interests approach which is a 'fundamental postulate of
constitutional law.'"
Once again the Court is asked to draw a carefully
drawn balance in the incessant conflicts between rights
and regulations, liberties and limitations, and
1
10
11
12
Section 1. Petition for Certiorari, and Time to File. Unless otherwise provided by law, or by any specific
provisions in these Rules, any decision, order or ruling
of the Commission may be brought to the Supreme
Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty
(30) days from its promulgation.
GMA further stressed that this case involves national
interest, and the urgency of the matter justifies its
resort to the remedy of a petition for certiorari.
Therefore, GMA disagrees with the COMELEC's
position that the proper remedy is a petition for
declaratory relief because such action only asks the
court to make a proper interpretation of the rights of
parties under a statute or regulation. Such a petition
does not nullify the assailed statute or regulation, or
grant injunctive relief, which petitioners are praying for
in their petition. Thus, GMA maintains that a petition for
certiorari is the proper remedy.
GMA further denies that it is making a collateral attack
on the Fair Election Act, as it is not attacking said law.
GMA points out that it has stated in its petition that the
law in fact allows the sale or donation of airtime for
political advertisements and does not impose criminal
liability against radio and television stations. What it is
assailing is the COMELEC's erroneous interpretation
of the law's provisions by declaring such sale and/or
donation of airtime unlawful, which is contrary to the
purpose of the Fair Election Act.
GMA then claims that it has legal standing to bring the
present suit because:
x x x First, it has personally suffered a threatened
injury in the form of risk of criminal liability because of
the alleged unconstitutional and unlawful conduct of
20
21
22
23
24
Code.
Meanwhile, RMN filed its Petition on April 8, 2013. On
June 4, 2013, the Court issued a Resolution
consolidating the case with the rest of the petitions and
requiring respondent to comment thereon.
On October 10, 2013, respondent filed its Third
Supplemental Comment and Opposition. Therein,
respondent stated that the petition filed by RMN
repeats the issues that were raised in the previous
petitions. Respondent, likewise, reiterated its
arguments that certiorari in not the proper remedy to
question the assailed resolutions and that RMN has no
locus standi to file the present petition. Respondent
maintains that the arguments raised by RMN, like
those raised by the other petitioners are without merit
and that RMN is not entitled to the injunctive relief
sought.
The petition is partly meritorious.
At the outset, although the subject of the present
petit10ns are Resolutions promulgated by the
COMELEC relative to the conduct of the 2013 national
and local elections, nevertheless the issues raised by
the petitioners have not been rendered moot and
academic by the conclusion of the 2013 elections.
Considering that the matters elevated to the Court for
resolution are susceptible to repetition in the conduct
of future electoral exercises, these issues will be
resolved in the present action.
PROCEDURAL ASPECTS
Matters of procedure and technicalities normally take a
backseat when issues of substantial and
transcendental importance are presented before the
Court. So the Court does again in this particular case.
25
26
Proper Remedy
Respondent claims that certiorari and prohibition are
not the proper remedies that petitioners have taken to
question the assailed Resolutions of the COMELEC.
Technically, respondent may have a point. However,
considering the very important and pivotal issues
raised, and the limited time, such technicality should
not deter the Court from having to make the final and
definitive pronouncement that everyone else depends
for enlightenment and guidance. "[T]his Court has in
the past seen fit to step in and resolve petitions despite
their being the subject of an improper remedy, in view
of the public importance of the tile issues raised
therein.
It has been in the past, we do so again.
Locus Standi
Every time a constitutional issue is brought before the
Court, the issue of locus standi is raised to question
the personality of the parties invoking the Court's
jurisdiction. The Court has routinely made reference to
a liberalized stance when it comes to petitions raising
issues of transcendental importance to the country.
Invariably, after some discussions, the Court would
eventually grant standing.
In this particular case, respondent also questions the
standing of the petitioners. We rule for the petitioners.
For petitioner-intervenor Senator Cayetano, he
undoubtedly has standing since he is a candidate
whose ability to reach out to the electorate is impacted
by the assailed Resolutions.
For the broadcast companies, they similarly have the
standing in view of the direct injury they may suffer
relative to their ability to carry out their tasks of
27
28
30
33
34
35
36
For
Candidates/Registere
d Political parties for a
National Elective
Position
For
Not more than an aggregate total of s
Candidates/Registere of television advertising, whether app
d Political parties for a national, regional, or local, free or cab
the whether
public hearing
Local Elective Position ninety (90) minutes of radio advertising,
airing held on 31 January 2013 where
petitioner
on national, regional, or local radio, whether
byGMA, thru counsel, explained that no
empirical data on he excesses or abuses of broadcast
purchase or donation.
media were brought to the attention of the public by
In cases where two or more candidates or parties
respondent Comelec, or even stated in the Comelec
whose names, initials, images, brands, logos,
Resolution No. 9615. Thus
insignias, color motifs, symbols, or forms of graphical
xxxx
representations are displayed, exhibited, used, or
Chairman Brillantes
mentioned together in the broadcast election
So if we can regulate and amplify, we may amplify
propaganda or advertisements, the length of time
meaning we can expand if we want to. But the
during which they appear or are being mentioned or
authority of the Commission is if we do not want to
promoted will be counted against the airtime limits
amplify and we think that the 120 or 180 is okay we
allotted for the said candidates or parties and the cost
cannot be compelled to amplify. We think that 120 or
of the said advertisement will likewise be considered
180 is okay, is enough.
as their expenditures, regardless of whoever paid for
Atty. Lucila
the advertisements or to whom the said
But with due respect Your Honor, I think the basis of
advertisements were donated.
the resolution is found in the law and the law has been
xxxx
enterpreted (sic) before in 2010 to be 120 per station,
Corollarily, petitioner-intervenor, Senator Cayetano,
so why the change, your Honor?
alleges:
Chairman Brillantes
6.15. The change in the implementation of Section 6 of
No, the change is not there, the right to amplify is with
R.A. 9006 was undertaken by respondent Comelec
the Commission on Elections. Nobody can encroach in
without consultation with the candidates for the 2013
our right to amplify. Now, if in 2010 the Commission felt
elections, affected parties such as media
that per station or per network is the rule then that is
organizations, as well as the general public. Worse,
the prerogative of the Commission then they could
said change was put into effect without explaining the
amplify it to expand it. If the current Commission feels
basis therefor and without showing any data in support
that 120 is enough for the particular medium like TV
of such change. Respondent Comelec merely
and 180 for radio, that is our prerogative. How can you
maintained that such action "is meant to level the
encroach and what is unconstitutional about it?
playing field between the moneyed candidates and
Atty. Lucila
those who don i have enough resources," without
We are not questioning the authority of the Honorable
particularizing the empirical data upon which such a
Commission to regulate Your Honor, we are just raising
sweeping statement was based. This was evident in
our concern on the manner of regulation because as it
37
39
40
44
48
50
55
57
60
62
63
66
67
68
Associate Justice
Acting Chief Justice
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.
Associate Justice
JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA
Associate Justice
****
ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERANBE
Associate Justice
On leave
FRANCIS H. JARDELEZA
Associate Justice
C E R T I F I C ATI O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I
certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had
been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Acting Chief Justice
*****
Footnotes
On official leave.
*
S
MA
***
****
*****
1
13
14
15
16
17
18
28
29
30
31
32
COMELEC:
xxxx
6.2. (a) Each bona fide candidate or registered political
party for a nationally elective office shall be entitled to
not more than one hundred twenty (120) minutes of
television advertisement and one hundred eighty ( 180)
minutes of radio advertisement whether by purchase or
donation.
(b) Each bona fide candidate or registered political
party for a locally elective office shall be entitled to not
more than sixty (60) minutes of television
advertisement and ninety (90) minutes of radio
advertisement whether by purchase or donation; or
For this purpose, the COMELEC shall require any
broadcast station or entity to submit to the COMELEC
a copy of its broadcast logs and certificates of
performance for the review and verification of the
frequency, date, time and duration of advertisements
broadcast for any candidate or political party.
6.3. All mass media entities shall furnish the
COMELEC with a copy of all contracts for advertising,
promoting or opposing any political party or the
candidacy of any person for public office within five (5)
days after its signing. In every case, it shall be signed
by the donor, the candidate concerned or by the duly
authorized representative of the political party.
6.4. No franchise or permit to operate a radio or
television stations shall be granted or issued,
suspended or cancelled during the election period.
In all instances, the COMELEC shall supervise the use
and employment of press, radio and television facilities
insofar as the placement of political advertisements is
concerned to ensure that candidates are given equal
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
69