ABS-CBN v.

COMELEC
G.R. No. 133486 Jan. 28, 2000 Panganiban,J. Bec
petitioners ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation
respondents Commission on Elections
summary COMELEC prohibited the conduct of exit polls by ABS-CBN on the ground of clear and
present danger it poses to the integrity of elections. However the court said that it erred in
such measure because it violates freedom of speech and freedom of press by making an
overbroad resolution as it prohibits the long-tern use of such data on research.

facts of the case

COMELEC released a resolution which approved the issuance of a restraining order against ABS-CBN to
conduct exit survey. It acted upon reports that the network plans to conduct a TV-radio coverage of the
elections and make an exit survey of the votes cast for Pres and VP and broadcast the results immediately.
SC issued a TRO against the resolution of COMELEC and the exit polls were actually conducted and
reported by media.

Arguments:
ABS-CBN: Holding exit polls and nationwide reporting of results are valid exercises of the freedoms of
speech and of the press. COMELEC committed GAD when it issued such resolution

COMELEC: 1. The conduct of exit polls might confuse the voters and unduly influence them.
2. Exit surveys indirectly violate the sanctity of ballots as enshrined in the Constitution (Sec. 2 Art. 5)
because the voters will be lured to reveal their votes.
3. Exit surveys pose a clear and present danger of destroying the credibility and integrity of the electoral
process because the media is not supervised by any govt agency which can easily be manipulated.

issue
WON COMELEC in the exercise of its powers can ban exit polls? NO. The measure is overbroad and
unnecessarily restricts fundamental rights of speech and of press.

ratio
The Constitution mandates that no law shall be passed abridging freedom of speech and press. These
freedoms basically consist of the liberty to discuss publicly and truthfully any matter of public interest without
prior restraint. (Gonzales v. COMELEC) It represents a profound commitment to the principle that debates on
public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide open.
There are limitations however to this freedom in which the state, in the exercise of its police power, can
curtail whenever these tests are satisfied:
1. Clear and present danger rule the evil consequence of comment or utterance must be extremely
serious and the degree of imminence must be extremely high before the utterance can be punished. The
danger to be guarded against is the substantive evil sought to be prevented.
2. Dangerous tendency rule - If the words uttered create a dangerous tendency which the state has a right
to prevent, then such words are punishable. It is sufficient if the natural tendency and probable effect of
the utterance be to bring about the substantive evil which the legislative body seeks to prevent. Note
that the words need not be definite so as to incite the listeners to acts of force, violence or unlawfulness.
The court adheres to the clear and present danger rule which is a question on the proximity and degree of
the utterance will result to the danger or evil sought to be avoided. This is a heavy burden because the court is
always on the side of freedom of expression. To justify restriction, the promotion of substantial govt interest

1
must be clearly shown. And even when its purpose are legitimate and substantial, the means employed should
not be broad as to stifle personal liberties when the end can be more narrowly achieved.
In this case, the freedoms of speech and of the press should all the more be upheld when what is sought to
be curtailed is the dissemination of information meant to add meaning to the equally vital right of suffrage.
The interest being protected is the fundamental right to vote and securing its sanctity through the ballots.
However the means employed are necessarily broad because it effectively prevents other uses of exit poll data
for long term research purposes.
COMELEC tried to justify the restraint in arguing that such conduct of exit polls present a clear and
present danger of destroying the credibility and integrity of electoral process. (na unreliable and surveys and
might conflict with the count of COMELEC and NAMFREL) However its arguments are purely speculative.
Why?
1. Because in a survey, the participants are randomly selected so the results will be a representation or
reflection of the general sentiment of the community.
2. It is merely an opinion of the community or group polled. Its result is not meant to replace or be at par
with the official COMELEC count.

COMELEC s restriction on exit polls is overly broad. Its application is without qualification whether the
exit polls is disruptive or not. And assuming arguendo that there is such qualification, there is no showing that
exit polls will cause chaos in voting centers. The absolute prohibition restricts the future use of valuable
information for long-term research on the impact of current events on the voting behavior of people.
ABS-CBN even explained its methodology which has enough precautions against the evils enumerated by
COMELEC:
(1) communities are randomly selected in each province;
(2) residences to be polled in such communities are also chosen at random;
(3) only individuals who have already voted, as shown by the indelible ink on their fingers, are
interviewed;
(4) the interviewers use no cameras of any sort;
(5) the poll results are released to the public only on the day after the elections

And lastly, on the issue of violation of ballot secrecy, the court said that such is not at issue here. The exit
poll dies not seek to access the ballots of the interviewees. The contents of their ballots are not exposed. Even
the choice of revealing who they voted for is not mandatory but voluntary.
The reason behind the principle of ballot secrecy is to avoid vote buying through voter identification. Thus,
voters are prohibited from exhibiting the contents of their official ballots to other persons, from making copies
thereof, or from putting distinguishing marks thereon so as to be identified. Also proscribed is finding out the
contents of the ballots cast by particular voters or disclosing those of disabled or illiterate voters who have
been assisted. Clearly, what is forbidden is the association of voters with their respective votes, for the purpose
of assuring that the votes have been cast in accordance with the instructions of a third party. This result
cannot, however, be achieved merely through the voters' verbal and confidential disclosure to a pollster of
whom they have voted for.