6/23/2016

ABSCBNBroadcastingCorpvsComelec:133486:January28,2000:J.Panganiban:EnBanc

ENBANC
[G.R.No.133486.January28,2000]

ABSCBNBROADCASTINGCORPORATION,petitioner,vs.COMMISSIONON
ELECTIONS,respondent.
DECISION
PANGANIBAN,J.:
Theholdingofexitpollsandthedisseminationoftheirresultsthroughmassmediaconstituteanessential
partofthefreedomsofspeechandofthepress.Hence,theComeleccannotbanthemtotallyintheguise
ofpromotingclean,honest,orderlyandcredibleelections.Quitethecontrary,exitpollsproperly
conductedandpublicizedcanbevitaltoolsineliminatingtheevilsofelectionfixingandfraud.
NarrowlytailoredcountermeasuresmaybeprescribedbytheComelecsoastominimizeorsuppressthe
incidentalproblemsintheconductofexitpolls,withouttransgressinginanymannerthefundamental
rightsofourpeople.
TheCaseandtheFacts
BeforeusisaPetitionforCertiorariunderRule65oftheRulesofCourtassailingCommissionon
Elections(Comelec)enbancResolutionNo.981419[1]datedApril21,1998.InthesaidResolution,the
pollbody
"RESOLVEDtoapprovetheissuanceofarestrainingordertostopABSCBNorany
othergroups,itsagentsorrepresentativesfromconductingsuchexitsurveyandto
authorizetheHonorableChairmantoissuethesame."
TheResolutionwasissuedbytheComelecallegedlyupon"informationfrom[a]reliablesourcethat
ABSCBN(LopezGroup)haspreparedaproject,withPRgroups,toconductradioTVcoverageofthe
electionsxxxandtomake[an]exitsurveyofthexxxvoteduringtheelectionsfornationalofficials
particularlyforPresidentandVicePresident,resultsofwhichshallbe[broadcast]immediately."[2]The
electoralbodybelievedthatsuchprojectmightconflictwiththeofficialComeleccount,aswellasthe
unofficialquickcountoftheNationalMovementforFreeElections(Namfrel).Italsonotedthatithad
notauthorizedordeputizedPetitionerABSCBNtoundertaketheexitsurvey.
OnMay9,1998,thisCourtissuedtheTemporaryRestrainingOrderprayedforbypetitioner.Wedirected
theComelectoceaseanddesist,untilfurtherorders,fromimplementingtheassailedResolutionorthe
restrainingorderissuedpursuantthereto,ifany.Infact,theexitpollswereactuallyconductedand
reportedbymediawithoutanydifficultyorproblem.
TheIssues
Petitionerraisesthisloneissue:"WhetherornottheRespondentCommissionactedwithgraveabuseof
discretionamountingtoalackorexcessofjurisdictionwhenitapprovedtheissuanceofarestraining
orderenjoiningthepetitionerorany[othergroup],itsagentsorrepresentativesfromconductingexit
pollsduringthexxxMay11elections."[3]
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/jan2000/133486.htm

1/8

6/23/2016

ABSCBNBroadcastingCorpvsComelec:133486:January28,2000:J.Panganiban:EnBanc

InhisMemorandum,[4]thesolicitorgeneral,inseekingtodismissthePetition,bringsupadditional
issues:(1)mootnessand(2)prematurity,becauseofpetitioner'sfailuretoseekareconsiderationofthe
assailedComelecResolution.
TheCourt'sRuling
ThePetition[5]ismeritorious.
ProceduralIssues:MootnessandPrematurity
Thesolicitorgeneralcontendsthatthepetitionismootandacademic,becausetheMay11,1998election
hasalreadybeenheldanddonewith.Allegedly,thereisnolongeranyactualcontroversybeforeus.
Theissueisnottotallymoot.WhiletheassailedResolutionreferredspecificallytotheMay11,1998
election,itsimplicationsonthepeople'sfundamentalfreedomofexpressiontranscendthepastelection.
Theholdingofperiodicelectionsisabasicfeatureofourdemocraticgovernment.Byitsverynature,exit
pollingistiedupwithelections.Tosetasidetheresolutionoftheissuenowwillonlypostponeataskthat
couldwellcropupagaininfutureelections.[6]
Inanyevent,inSalongav.CruzPano,theCourthadoccasiontoreiteratethatit"alsohasthedutyto
formulateguidingandcontrollingconstitutionalprinciples,precepts,doctrines,orrules.Ithasthe
symbolicfunctionofeducatingbenchandbarontheextentofprotectiongivenbyconstitutional
guarantees."[7]Sincethefundamentalfreedomsofspeechandofthepressarebeinginvokedhere,we
haveresolvedtosettle,fortheguidanceofposterity,whethertheylikewiseprotecttheholdingofexit
pollsandthedisseminationofdataderivedtherefrom.
ThesolicitorgeneralfurthercontendsthatthePetitionshouldbedismissedforpetitioner'sfailureto
exhaustavailableremediesbeforetheissuingforum,specificallythefilingofamotionfor
reconsideration.
ThisCourt,however,hasruledinthepastthatthisproceduralrequirementmaybeglossedoverto
preventamiscarriageofjustice,[8]whentheissueinvolvestheprincipleofsocialjusticeortheprotection
oflabor,[9]whenthedecisionorresolutionsoughttobesetasideisanullity,[10]orwhentheneedfor
reliefisextremelyurgentandcertiorariistheonlyadequateandspeedyremedyavailable.[11]
TheinstantPetitionassailsaResolutionissuedbytheComelecenbanconApril21,1998,onlytwenty
(20)daysbeforetheelectionitself.Besides,thepetitionergotholdofacopythereofonlyonMay4,
1998.Underthecircumstances,therewashardlyenoughopportunitytomoveforareconsiderationand
toobtainaswiftresolutionintimefortheMay11,1998elections.Moreover,notonlyistimeofthe
essencethePetitioninvolvestranscendentalconstitutionalissues.DirectresorttothisCourtthrougha
specialcivilactionforcertiorariisthereforejustified.
MainIssue:ValidityofConductingExitPolls
Anexitpollisaspeciesofelectoralsurveyconductedbyqualifiedindividualsorgroupsofindividuals
forthepurposeofdeterminingtheprobableresultofanelectionbyconfidentiallyaskingrandomly
selectedvoterswhomtheyhavevotedfor,immediatelyaftertheyhaveofficiallycasttheirballots.The
resultsofthesurveyareannouncedtothepublic,usuallythroughthemassmedia,togiveanadvance
overviewofhow,intheopinionofthepollingindividualsororganizations,theelectoratevoted.Inour
electoralhistory,exitpollshadnotbeenresortedtountiltherecentMay11,1998elections.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/jan2000/133486.htm

2/8

6/23/2016

ABSCBNBroadcastingCorpvsComelec:133486:January28,2000:J.Panganiban:EnBanc

InitsPetition,ABSCBNBroadcastingCorporationmaintainsthatitisaresponsiblememberofthemass
media,committedtoreportbalancedelectionrelateddata,including"theexclusiveresultsofSocial
WeatherStation(SWS)surveysconductedinfifteenadministrativeregions."
Itarguesthattheholdingofexitpollsandthenationwidereportingoftheirresultsarevalidexercisesof
thefreedomsofspeechandofthepress.Itsubmitsthat,inprecipitatelyandunqualifiedlyrestrainingthe
holdingandthereportingofexitpolls,theComelecgravelyabuseditsdiscretionandgrosslyviolatedthe
petitioner'sconstitutionalrights.
Publicrespondent,ontheotherhand,vehementlydeniesthat,inissuingtheassailedResolution,it
gravelyabuseditsdiscretion.Itinsiststhattheissuancethereofwas"pursuanttoitsconstitutionaland
statutorypowerstopromoteaclean,honest,orderlyandcredibleMay11,1998elections"and"to
protect,preserveandmaintainthesecrecyandsanctityoftheballot."Itcontendsthat"theconductofexit
surveysmightundulyconfuseandinfluencethevoters,"andthatthesurveysweredesigned"tocondition
themindsofpeopleandcauseconfusionastowhoarethewinnersandthe[losers]intheelection,"
whichinturnmayresultin"violenceandanarchy."
Publicrespondentfurtherarguesthat"exitsurveysindirectlyviolatetheconstitutionalprincipleto
preservethesanctityoftheballots,"asthe"votersareluredtorevealthecontentsofballots,"inviolation
ofSection2,ArticleVoftheConstitution[12]andrelevantprovisionsoftheOmnibusElectionCode.[13]
Itsubmitsthattheconstitutionallyprotectedfreedomsinvokedbypetitioner"arenotimmuneto
regulationbytheStateinthelegitimateexerciseofitspolicepower,"suchasinthepresentcase.
Thesolicitorgeneral,insupportofthepublicrespondent,addsthattheexitpollsposea"clearand
presentdangerofdestroyingthecredibilityandintegrityoftheelectoralprocess,"consideringthatthey
arenotsupervisedbyanygovernmentagencyandcaningeneralbemanipulatedeasily.Heinsiststhat
thesepollswouldsowconfusionamongthevotersandwouldunderminetheofficialtabulationofvotes
conductedbytheCommission,aswellasthequickcountundertakenbytheNamfrel.
Admittedly,nolawprohibitstheholdingandthereportingofexitpolls.Thequestioncanthusbemore
narrowlydefined:MaytheComelec,intheexerciseofitspowers,totallybanexitpolls?Inanswering
thisquestion,weneedtoreviewquicklyourjurisprudenceonthefreedomsofspeechandofthepress.
NatureandScopeofFreedomsofSpeechandofthePress
Thefreedomofexpressionisafundamentalprincipleofourdemocraticgovernment.It"isa'preferred'
rightand,therefore,standsonahigherlevelthansubstantiveeconomicorotherliberties.xxx[T]his
mustbesobecausethelessonsofhistory,bothpoliticalandlegal,illustratethatfreedomofthoughtand
speechistheindispensableconditionofnearlyeveryotherformoffreedom."[14]
OurConstitutionclearlymandatesthatnolawshallbepassedabridgingthefreedomofspeechorofthe
press.[15]InthelandmarkcaseGonzalesv.Comelec,[16]thisCourtenunciatedthatattheveryleast,free
speechandafreepressconsistofthelibertytodiscusspubliclyandtruthfullyanymatterofpublic
interestwithoutpriorrestraint.
Thefreedomofexpressionisameansofassuringindividualselffulfillment,ofattainingthetruth,of
securingparticipationbythepeopleinsocialandpoliticaldecisionmaking,andofmaintainingthe
balancebetweenstabilityandchange.[17]Itrepresentsaprofoundcommitmenttotheprinciplethat
debatesonpublicissuesshouldbeuninhibited,robust,andwideopen.[18]Itmeansmorethantherightto
approveexistingpoliticalbeliefsoreconomicarrangements,tolendsupporttoofficialmeasures,orto
takerefugeintheexistingclimateofopiniononanymatterofpublicconsequence.Andparaphrasingthe
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/jan2000/133486.htm

3/8

6/23/2016

ABSCBNBroadcastingCorpvsComelec:133486:January28,2000:J.Panganiban:EnBanc

eminentjusticeOliverWendellHolmes,[19]westressthatthefreedomencompassesthethoughtwehate,
nolessthanthethoughtweagreewith.
Limitations
Therealitiesoflifeinacomplexsociety,however,precludeanabsoluteexerciseofthefreedomsof
speechandofthepress.Suchfreedomscouldnotremainunfetteredandunrestrainedatalltimesand
underallcircumstances.[20]TheyarenotimmunetoregulationbytheStateintheexerciseofitspolice
power.[21]Whilethelibertytothinkisabsolute,thepowertoexpresssuchthoughtinwordsanddeeds
haslimitations.
InCabansagv.Fernandez[22]thisCourthadoccasiontodiscusstwotheoreticaltestsindeterminingthe
validityofrestrictionstosuchfreedoms,asfollows:
"Thesearethe'clearandpresentdanger'ruleandthe'dangeroustendency'rule.Thefirst,
asinterpretedinanumberofcases,meansthattheevilconsequenceofthecommentor
utterancemustbe'extremelyseriousandthedegreeofimminenceextremelyhigh'before
theutterancecanbepunished.Thedangertobeguardedagainstisthe'substantiveevil'
soughttobeprevented.xxx"[23]
"The'dangeroustendency'rule,ontheotherhand,xxxmaybeepitomizedasfollows:If
thewordsutteredcreateadangeroustendencywhichthestatehasarighttoprevent,then
suchwordsarepunishable.Itisnotnecessarythatsomedefiniteorimmediateactsof
force,violence,orunlawfulnessbeadvocated.Itissufficientthatsuchactsbeadvocated
ingeneralterms.Norisitnecessarythatthelanguageusedbereasonablycalculatedto
incitepersonstoactsofforce,violence,orunlawfulness.Itissufficientifthenatural
tendencyandprobableeffectoftheutterancebetobringaboutthesubstantiveevilwhich
thelegislativebodyseekstoprevent."[24]
Unquestionably,thisCourtadherestothe"clearandpresentdanger"test.Itimplicitlydidinitsearlier
decisionsinPrimiciasv.Fugoso[25]andAmericanBibleSocietyv.CityofManila[26]aswellasinlater
ones,Verav.Arca,[27]Navarrov.Villegas,[28]Imbongv.Ferrer,[29]BloUmparAdiongv.Comelec[30]and,
morerecently,inIglesianiCristov.MTRCB.[31]Insettingthestandardortestforthe"clearandpresent
danger"doctrine,theCourtechoedthewordsofjusticeHolmes:"Thequestionineverycaseiswhether
thewordsusedareusedinsuchcircumstancesandareofsuchanatureastocreateaclearandpresent
dangerthattheywillbringaboutthesubstantiveevilsthatCongresshasarighttoprevent.Itisaquestion
ofproximityanddegree."[32]
Alimitationonthefreedomofexpressionmaybejustifiedonlybyadangerofsuchsubstantivecharacter
thatthestatehasarighttoprevent.Unlikeinthe"dangeroustendency"doctrine,thedangermustnot
onlybeclearbutalsopresent."Present"referstothetimeelementthedangermustnotonlybeprobable
butverylikelytobeinevitable.[33]Theevilsoughttobeavoidedmustbesosubstantiveastojustifya
clampoverone'smouthorarestraintofawritinginstrument.[34]
JustificationforaRestriction
Doctrinally,theCourthasalwaysruledinfavorofthefreedomofexpression,andanyrestrictionis
treatedanexemption.Thepowertoexercisepriorrestraintisnottobepresumedratherthepresumption
isagainstitsvalidity.[35]Anditisrespondent'sburdentooverthrowsuchpresumption.Anyactthat
restrainsspeechshouldbegreetedwithfurrowedbrows,[36]soithasbeensaid.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/jan2000/133486.htm

4/8

6/23/2016

ABSCBNBroadcastingCorpvsComelec:133486:January28,2000:J.Panganiban:EnBanc

Tojustifyarestriction,thepromotionofasubstantialgovernmentinterestmustbeclearlyshown.[37]
Thus:
"Agovernmentregulationissufficientlyjustifiedifitiswithintheconstitutionalpowerof
thegovernment,ifitfurthersanimportantorsubstantialgovernmentinterestifthe
governmentalinterestisunrelatedtothesuppressionoffreeexpressionandifthe
incidentalrestrictiononallegedFirstAmendmentfreedomsisnogreaterthanisessential
tothefurtheranceofthatinterest."[38]
Hence,eventhoughthegovernment'spurposesarelegitimateandsubstantial,theycannotbepursuedby
meansthatbroadly,stiflefundamentalpersonalliberties,whentheendcanbemorenarrowlyachieved.
[39]

Thefreedomsofspeechandofthepressshouldallthemorebeupheldwhenwhatissoughttobe
curtailedisthedisseminationofinformationmeanttoaddmeaningtotheequallyvitalrightofsuffrage.
[40]
Wecannotsupportanyrulingororder"theeffectofwhichwouldbetonullifysovitalaconstitutional
rightasfreespeech."[41]Whenfacedwithborderlinesituationsinwhichthefreedomofacandidateora
partytospeakorthefreedomoftheelectoratetoknowisinvokedagainstactionsallegedlymadeto
assurecleanandfreeelections,thisCourtshallleaninfavoroffreedom.Forintheultimateanalysis,the
freedomofthecitizenandtheState'spowertoregulateshouldnotbeantagonistic.Therecanbenofree
andhonestelectionsif,intheeffortstomaintainthem,thefreedomtospeakandtherighttoknoware
undulycurtailed.[42]
True,thegovernmenthasastakeinprotectingthefundamentalrighttovotebyprovidingvotingplaces
thataresafeandaccessible.Ithasthedutytosecurethesecrecyoftheballotandtopreservethesanctity
andtheintegrityoftheelectoralprocess.However,inordertojustifyarestrictionofthepeople's
freedomsofspeechandofthepress,thestate'sresponsibilityofensuringorderlyvotingmustfar
outweighthem.
Thesefreedomshaveadditionalimportance,becauseexitpollsgenerateimportantresearchdatawhich
maybeusedtostudyinfluencingfactorsandtrendsinvotingbehavior.Anabsoluteprohibitionwould
thusbeunreasonablyrestrictive,becauseiteffectivelypreventstheuseofexitpolldatanotonlyfor
electiondayprojections,butalsoforlongtermresearch.[43]
ComelecBanonExitPolling
Inthecaseatbar,theComelecjustifiesitsassailedResolutionashavingbeenissuedpursuanttoits
constitutionalmandatetoensureafree,orderly,honest,credibleandpeacefulelection.Whileadmitting
that"theconductofanexitpollandthebroadcastoftheresultsthereof[are]xxxanexerciseofpress
freedom,"itarguesthat"[p]ressfreedommaybecurtailediftheexercisethereofcreatesaclearand
presentdangertothecommunityorithasadangeroustendency."Itthencontendsthat"anexitpollhas
thetendencytosowconfusionconsideringtherandomnessofselectinginterviewees,whichfurther
make[s]theexitpollhighlyunreliable.Theprobabilitythattheresultsofsuchexitpollmaynotbein
harmonywiththeofficialcountmadebytheComelecxxxiseverpresent.Inotherwords,theexitpoll
hasaclearandpresentdangerofdestroyingthecredibilityandintegrityoftheelectoralprocess."
Suchargumentsarepurelyspeculativeandclearlyuntenable.First,bytheverynatureofasurvey,the
intervieweesorparticipantsareselectedatrandom,sothattheresultswillasmuchaspossiblebe
representativeorreflectiveofthegeneralsentimentorviewofthecommunityorgrouppolled.Second,
thesurveyresultisnotmeanttoreplaceorbeatparwiththeofficialComeleccount.Itconsistsmerelyof
theopinionofthepollinggroupastowhotheelectorateingeneralhasprobablyvotedfor,basedonthe
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/jan2000/133486.htm

5/8

6/23/2016

ABSCBNBroadcastingCorpvsComelec:133486:January28,2000:J.Panganiban:EnBanc

limiteddatagatheredfrompolledindividuals.Finally,notatstakeherearethecredibilityandthe
integrityoftheelections,whichareexercisesthatareseparateandindependentfromtheexitpolls.The
holdingandthereportingoftheresultsofexitpollscannotunderminethoseoftheelections,sincethe
formerisonlypartofthelatter.Ifatall,theoutcomeofonecanonlybeindicativeoftheother.
TheComelec'sconcernwiththepossiblenoncommunicativeeffectofexitpollsdisorderandconfusion
inthevotingcentersdoesnotjustifyatotalbanonthem.Undoubtedly,theassailedComelec
Resolutionistoobroad,sinceitsapplicationiswithoutqualificationastowhetherthepollingis
disruptiveornot.[44]Concededly,theOmnibusElectionCodeprohibitsdisruptivebehavioraroundthe
votingcenters.[45]Thereisnoshowing,however,thatexitpollsorthemeanstointerviewvoterscause
chaosinvotingcenters.Neitherhasanyevidencebeenpresentedprovingthatthepresenceofexitpoll
reportersnearanelectionprecincttendstocreatedisorderorconfusethevoters.
Moreover,theprohibitionincidentallypreventsthecollectionofexitpolldataandtheiruseforany
purpose.Thevaluableinformationandideasthatcouldbederivedfromthem,basedonthevoters'
answerstothesurveyquestionswillforeverremainunknownandunexplored.Unlessthebanis
restrained,candidates,researchers,socialscientistsandtheelectorateingeneralwouldbedeprivedof
studiesontheimpactofcurrenteventsandofelectiondayandotherfactorsonvoters'choices.
InDailyHeraldCo.v.Munro,[46]theUSSupremeCourtheldthatastatute,oneofthepurposesofwhich
wastopreventthebroadcastingofearlyreturns,wasunconstitutionalbecausesuchpurposewas
impermissible,andthestatutewasneithernarrowlytailoredtoadvanceastateinterestnortheleast
restrictivealternative.Furthermore,thegeneralinterestoftheStateininsulatingvotersfromoutside
influencesisinsufficienttojustifyspeechregulation.Justascurtailingelectiondaybroadcastsand
newspapereditorialsforthereasonthattheymightindirectlyaffectthevoters'choicesisimpermissible,
soisregulatingspeechviaanexitpollrestriction.[47]
TheabsolutebanimposedbytheComeleccannot,therefore,bejustified.Itdoesnotleaveopenany
alternativechannelofcommunicationtogatherthetypeofinformationobtainedthroughexitpolling.On
theotherhand,thereareothervalidandreasonablewaysandmeanstoachievetheComelecendof
avoidingorminimizingdisorderandconfusionthatmaybebroughtaboutbyexitsurveys.
Forinstance,aspecificlimitedareaforconductingexitpollsmaybedesignated.Onlyprofessional
surveygroupsmaybeallowedtoconductthesame.Pollstersmaybekeptatareasonabledistancefrom
thevotingcenter.Theymayberequiredtoexplaintovotersthatthelattermayrefusetobeinterviewed,
andthattheinterviewisnotpartoftheofficialballotingprocess.Thepollstersmayfurtherberequiredto
weardistinctiveclothingthatwouldshowtheyarenotelectionofficials.[48]Additionally,theymaybe
requiredtoundertakeaninformationcampaignonthenatureoftheexerciseandtheresultstobe
obtainedtherefrom.Thesemeasures,togetherwithageneralprohibitionofdisruptivebehavior,could
ensureaclean,safeandorderlyelection.
Foritspart,PetitionerABSCBNexplainsitssurveymethodologyasfollows:(1)communitiesare
randomlyselectedineachprovince(2)residencestobepolledinsuchcommunitiesarealsochosenat
random(3)onlyindividualswhohavealreadyvoted,asshownbytheindelibleinkontheirfingers,are
interviewed(4)theinterviewersusenocamerasofanysort(5)thepollresultsarereleasedtothepublic
onlyonthedayaftertheelections.[49]Theseprecautions,togetherwiththepossiblemeasuresearlier
stated,maybeundertakentoabatetheComelec'sfear,withoutconsequentlyandunjustifiablystillingthe
people'svoice.
Withtheforegoingpremises,weconcludethattheinterestofthestateinreducingdisruptionis
outweighedbythedrasticabridgmentoftheconstitutionallyguaranteedrightsofthemediaandthe
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/jan2000/133486.htm

6/8

6/23/2016

ABSCBNBroadcastingCorpvsComelec:133486:January28,2000:J.Panganiban:EnBanc

electorate.Quitethecontrary,insteadofdisruptingelections,exitpollsproperlyconductedand
publicizedcanbevitaltoolsfortheholdingofhonest,orderly,peacefulandcredibleelectionsandfor
theeliminationofelectionfixing,fraudandotherelectoralills.
ViolationofBallotSecrecy
Thecontentionofpublicrespondentthatexitpollsindirectlytransgressthesanctityandthesecrecyof
theballotisofftangenttotherealissue.Petitionerdoesnotseekaccesstotheballotscastbythevoters.
Theballotsystemofvotingisnotatissuehere.
Thereasonbehindtheprincipleofballotsecrecyistoavoidvotebuyingthroughvoteridentification.
Thus,votersareprohibitedfromexhibitingthecontentsoftheirofficialballotstootherpersons,from
makingcopiesthereof,orfromputtingdistinguishingmarksthereonsoastobeidentified.Also
proscribedisfindingoutthecontentsoftheballotscastbyparticularvotersordisclosingthoseof
disabledorilliteratevoterswhohavebeenassisted.Clearly,whatisforbiddenistheassociationofvoters
withtheirrespectivevotes,forthepurposeofassuringthatthevoteshavebeencastinaccordancewith
theinstructionsofathirdparty.Thisresultcannot,however,beachievedmerelythroughthevoters'
verbalandconfidentialdisclosuretoapollsterofwhomtheyhavevotedfor.
Inexitpolls,thecontentsoftheofficialballotarenotactuallyexposed.Furthermore,therevelationof
whomanelectorhasvotedforisnotcompulsory,butvoluntary.Votersmayalsochoosenottoreveal
theiridentities.Indeed,narrowlytailoredcountermeasuresmaybeprescribedbytheComelec,soasto
minimizeorsuppressincidentalproblemsintheconductofexitpolls,withouttransgressingthe
fundamentalrightsofourpeople.
WHEREFORE,thePetitionisGRANTED,andtheTemporaryRestrainingOrderissuedbytheCourton
May9,1998ismadePERMANENT.AssailedMinuteResolutionNo.981419issuedbytheComelecen
banconApril21,1998isherebyNULLIFIEDandSETASIDE.Nocosts.
SOORDERED.
Davide,Jr.,CJ.,Bellosillo,Puno,Quisumbing,Purisima,Buena,GonzagaReyes,YnaresSantiago,and
DeLeonJr.,JJ.,concur.
Melo,J.,joinsseparateopinionofJ.Vitug.
Vitug,J.,seeseparateopinion.
Kapunan,J.,seedissentingopinion.
Mendoza,J.,joinsseparateopinionofJ.Vitug.
Pardo,J.,nopart.

[1] Rollo,p.14.
[2] Ibid.Wordsinparenthesesintheoriginalthoseinbracketssupplied.
[3] Petition,p.4.
[4] Rollo,p.78etseq.
[5] ThiscasewasdeemedsubmittedforresolutiononJanuary19,1999,uponreceiptbytheCourtoftheMemorandumforthe

Respondent
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/jan2000/133486.htm

7/8

6/23/2016

ABSCBNBroadcastingCorpvsComelec:133486:January28,2000:J.Panganiban:EnBanc

[6] SeeGamboaJr.v.AguirreJr.,GRNo.134213,July20,1999.
[7] 134SCRA438,463,February18,1985perGutierrezJr.,J.
[8] Solisv.NLRC,263SCRA629,October28,1996.
[9] ZurbanoSr.v.NLRC,228SCRA556,December17,1993.
[10] Alfantev.NLRC,283SCRA340,December15,1997Saldanav.CourtofAppeals,190SCRA386,October11,1990.
[11] Republicv.Sandiganbayan,269SCRA316,March7,1997GelmartIndustriesPhils.,Inc.v.NLRC,176SCRA295,

August10,1989PhilippineAirLinesEmployeesAssociationv.PhilippineAirLines,Inc.,111SCRA215,January30,
1982.
[12] "Sec.2.Thecongressshallprovideasystemforsecuringthesecrecyandsanctityoftheballotxxx."
[13] Citing195,196,207and261(z5,7&16)
[14] Salongav.CruzPao,supra,pp.458459.SeealsoGonzalesv.Comelec,27SCRA835,849,856857,April18,1969
PhilippineBloomingMillsEmployeesOrganizationv.PhilippineBloomingMillsCo.,Inc.,51SCRA191,June5,1973
NationalPressClubv.Comelec,207SCRA1,9,March5,1992BloUmparAdiongv.Comelec,207SCRA712,715,March
31,1992.
[15] 4,Art.IIIoftheConstitution.
[16] Supra,p.856,perFernando,J.(laterCJ)
[17] Ibid.,p.857citingEmerson,towardaGeneralTheoryoftheFirstAmendment(1966)
[18] Ibid.,citingNewYorkTimesCo.v.Sullivan,376US254,270(1964)
[19] USv.Schwimmer,279US644(1929)
[20] Ibid.,p.858.
[21] BadoyJr.v.Comelec,35SCRA285,289,October17,1970.
[22] 102Phil152,October18,1957,perBautistaAngelo,J.
[23] Ibid.,p.161.
[24] Ibid.,citingGitlowv.NewYork,268US652,69Led.1138(1925)
[25] 80Phil71(1948)
[26] 101Phil386(1957)
[27] 28SCRA351,May26,1969.
[28] 31SCRA731,February26,1970.
[29] 35SCRA28,September11,1970.
[30] Supra.
[31] 259SCRA529,July26,1996.
[32] Cabansagv.Fernandez,supracitingSchenckv.US,249US47(1919)
[33] Gonzalesv.Comelec,supra,pp.860861.
[34] Adiongv.Comelec,supra.
[35] IglesianiCristov.CourtofAppeals,supraGonzalesv.Katigbak,137SCRA717,July22,1985.
[36] IglesianiCristov.CourtofAppeals,supra,pp.545546citingNearv.Minnesota,283US697(1931)Bantambooks,
Inc.v.Sullivan,372US58(1963)andNewYorkTimesCo.v.Sullivan,supra.
[37] BloUmparAdiongv.Comelec,supra.SeealsoNationalPressClubv.Comelec,supra.
[38] Adiongv.Comelec,supra.
[39] Gonzalesv.Comelec,supra,p.871,citingSheltonv.Tucker,364US479,488.
[40] Mutucv.Comelec,36SCRA228,23334,November26,1970perFernando,J.(laterCJ)
[41] Ibid.,p.236.
[42] Adiongv.Comelec,supra.
[43] ExitPollsandtheFirstAmendment,98HarvardLawReview1927(1985)
[44] SeeCBSv.Smith,681F.Supp.794(SDFla.1988)
[45] See261(d,e,f,k&z11).SeealsoArts.148,149&153oftheRevisedPenalCode.
[46] 838F2d380(9thCir.1988)
[47] Ibid.,citingMillsv.Alabama,384US214,21820,86SCt.1434,143637,16LEd.2d484(1966)Vanascov.
Schwartz,401FSupp.87,100(SDNY1975),affdmem.,423Us1041,96SCt.763,46LEd.2d630(1976)
[48] ExitPollsandtheFirstAmendment,supra,p.1935.
[49] PetitionersMemorandum,p.15.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/jan2000/133486.htm

8/8