UNITED DEMOCRATIC OPPOSITION (UNIDO), PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (COMELEC), RESPONDENT.

Appeal by the UNIDO, a political organization or aggrupation campaigning for “NO” votes to the
amendments to the Constitution of the Philippines of 1973 proposed by the Batasang Pambansa, from the
resolutions of the respondent Commission on Elections dated March 18 and March
22, 1981.

As alleged in the petition:

“3. Respondent COMELEC issued three (3) Resolutions all dated
March 5, 1981, to wit:

(1)         
Resolution No. 1467 providing for Rules and
Regulations for ‘equal opportunity’ on public discussions and debates on the
plebiscite questions to be submitted to the people on April 7, 1981;

(2)         
Resolution No. 1468 providing ‘equal time
on the use of the broadcast media (radio and television) in the
plebiscite campaign’; and

(3)         
Resolution No. 1469 providing for ‘equal
space on the use of the print media in the 1981 plebiscite of April 7, 1981′.

The pertinent portions of said Resolutions
Nos. 1467, 1468 and 1469 are attached to this Petition as Annexes ‘A’, ‘A-1’
and ‘A-2’, respectively;” (P. 2, Petition.)

The questioned resolutions are as follows:

“RESOLUTION
NO. 1467

RULES AND REGULATIONS ON PUBLIC

DISCUSSIONS AND DEBATES ON THE

PLEBISCITE QUESTIONS

The Commission on Elections, pursuant to the powers vested in it by
the Constitution, the 1978 Election Code and pertinent enactments of the Batasang Pambansa, RESOLVED to
promulgate the following rules and regulations governing free discussions and
debates on the plebiscite questions to be submitted to the people on April 7, 1981.” (Annex
“A”, Petition.)

x               x          x          x

“RESOLUTION
NO. 1468

The Commission on Elections, by virtue of the powers conferred upon
it by the Constitution, the 1978 Election Code and pertinent enactments of the Batasang Pambansa, RESOLVED to
promulgate, as it hereby promulgates, the following rules and regulations to
govern the use of broadcast media in the 1981 plebiscite.

I. GENERAL PROVISIONS

SECTION 1. Policy.
– (1) These rules and regulations are intended to insure that broadcast time
for campaign purposes equal as to duration and quality shall be available to
all supporters or oppositors, political parties,
groups or aggrupations at the same rates or given
free of charge.

(2)      
Radio and television stations shall not be
allowed to schedule any non-political program or permit any sponsor to
manifestly favor or oppose any side of the 1981 plebiscite issues or to unduly or
repeatedly refer to or include in the program or broadcast any supporter or oppositor and/or political party, group or aggrupation favoring or opposing any side of the 1981
plebiscite issues.

“(3)  In all instances, the right of radio and
television stations to broadcast accounts of significant or newsworthy events
and views on matters of public interest shall not be impaired.” (Annex
“A-1”, Petition.)

x               x          x          x          x

“RESOLUTION
NO. 1469

The Commission on Elections, pursuant to its powers under the
Constitution, the 1978 Election Code, and pertinent enactments of the Batasang Pambansa, RESOLVED to
promulgate, as it hereby promulgates, the following rules and regulations on
the use of the print media, the printing and dissemination of printed political
propaganda in the campaign for or against the 1981 plebiscite questions.

I. GENERAL PROVISIONS

SECTION 1. 
Policy. – The policy herein is to enable
individual supporters, oppositors, political parties,
groups or aggrupations, when they so desire, to
purchase or avail of advertising space for campaign purposes under the
following rules and regulations which assure that available advertising space
in the print media shall be, as far as practicable, equitably allocated.

SECTION 2. 
Comelec Supervision. – The Commission on Elections shall
recognize the principle of self-regulation in the print media and shall
exercise as far as practicable only minimal supervision over the print media
leaving the enforcement of these rules and regulations largely to the Ministry
of Public Information.” (Annex “A-2”, Petition.)

“4.    Petitioner UNIDO addressed a letter dated 10 March 1981 to respondent COMELEC,
which reads:

‘Your Resolutions Nos. 1467, 1468 and 1469, all promulgated on
March 5, 1981, provide for equal opportunity ‘on public discussion and
debates on the plebiscite’, equal time ‘on the use of the broadcast
media in the plebiscite campaign’ and equal space ‘on the use of the
print media in the 1981 plebiscite’.

‘The newspapers this morning have announced that President Marcos will
lead the campaign for ‘Yes’ votes on the proposed constitutional
amendments in the April 7 plebiscite in his nationwide ‘Pulong-Pulong
sa Pangulo‘
radio-television program on Thursday, March 12, from 9:30 to 11:30 P.M., which
will be carried live by 26 television and 248 radio stations throughout the
country.

‘The undersigned, in behalf of the United Democratic Opposition
(UNIDO), hereby demand exactly the same opportunity, the same prime
time and the same number of TV and radio stations all over the country
at the earliest possible date, to campaign for ‘No’ votes in the forthcoming
plebiscite.’

Likewise, on 17 March 1981, petitioner thru its undersigned legal
counsel addressed its second letter to respondent Commission on Elections,
which reads:

‘Pursuant to the letter of UNIDO dated 10 March 1981 requesting for
equal opportunity, the same prime time and number of TV and radio
stations all over the country which were utilized by President Marcos last
March 12 from 9:30 to 11:30 P.M., we wish to state that on Saturday, March 21,
the UNIDO will hold a public meeting at the Plaza Miranda, Quiapo, Manila, and we hereby request that the same be
covered by radio and television from 9:30 to 11:30 P.M.

‘We trust that the radio and television facilities will be directed
to comply with this request.’

5.     Respondent COMELEC issued its Resolution of
March 18, 1981 quoting the
above letters of petitioner UNIDO, but held that they ‘cannot be granted
and the same is hereby denied.‘ Said COMELEC Resolution appears as ‘Excerpts
from the Minutes of the Session of the Commission Held on March 19, 1981’, a copy of which is hereto
attached to form an integral part of this Petition as Annex ‘B’;” (Pp.
2-3, Petition.)

Said Annex ‘B’ reads thus:

“EXCERPT FROM THE MINUTES OF THE

SESSION OF THE COMMISSION HELD ON

MARCH 18, 1981

(UNDER
THE SAME QUORUM)

XXX                 XXX                 XXX

81-54.  In
the matter of the letter-request of the United Democratic Opposition (UNIDO)
for free coverage by ‘TV and Radio Stations all over the country’ of its campaign
for ‘No’ votes in the forthcoming plebiscite.

Before the Commission is a “demand” of the United
Democratic Opposition (UNIDO) for coverage by ‘TV and radio stations all over
the country’ of its campaign for ‘No’ votes in the forthcoming plebiscite.  This ‘demand’ is contained in a letter dated
10 March 1981, received by the Commission on Elections on March 11, 1981,
signed by Gerardo Roxas and J.B. Laurel, Jr., quoted
in full as follows:

’10 March 1981

‘The Commission on
Elections

Manila

‘Gentlemen:

‘Your Resolution Nos. 1467, 1468 and 1469, all promulgated on March
5, 1981, provide for equal opportunity ‘on public discussion and debate on the
plebiscite’, equal time on the use of the broadcast media in the plebiscite
campaign’ and equal space ‘on the use of the print media in the 1981
plebiscite.’

‘The newspapers this morning have announced that President Marcos
will lead the campaign for ‘Yes’ votes on the proposed constitutional
amendments in the April 7 plebiscite in his nationwide ‘Pulong-Pulong
sa Pangulo‘ radio
television program on Thursday, March 12, from 9:30 to 11:30 P.M., which will
be carried live by 26 television and 248 radio stations throughout the country.

‘The undersigned, in behalf of the United Democratic Opposition
(UNIDO), hereby demand exactly the same opportunity, the same prime time and
the same number of TV and radio stations all over the country at the earliest
possible date, to campaign for ‘No’ votes in the forthcoming plebiscite.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.)
GERARDO ROXAS

(SGD.)
J. B. LAUREL, JR.’

Subsequently, on 17 March 1981, the Legal Counsel of the UNIDO, Ambrosio Padilla, reiterated the UNIDO desire for coverage
by media, ‘the same prime time and number of TV and radio stations all over the
country which were utilized by President Marcos last March 12 from 9:30 to
11:30 P. M.’ In this letter, the legal counsel manifested that the UNIDO wants
media coverage for its projected ‘public meeting at the Plaza Miranda, Quiapo, Manila . . . . . . . . . . from 9:30 to 11:30 P.M.’
on Saturday, March 21.

The letter of the UNIDO Legal Counsel reads:

’17 March 1981

‘The Commission on
Elections

Manila

‘Attention:  CHAIRMAN VICENTE
M. SANTIAGO, JR.

‘Gentlemen:

‘Pursuant to the letter of UNIDO dated 10 March 1981 requesting for
equal opportunity, the same prime time and number of TV and radio stations all
over the country which were utilized by President Marcos last March 12 from
9:30 to 11:30 P.M., we wish to state that on Saturday, March 21, the UNIDO will
hold a public meeting at the Plaza Miranda, Quiapo,
Manila, and we hereby request that the same be covered by radio television from
9:30 to 11:30 P.M.

‘We trust that the radio and television facilities will be directed
to comply with this request.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.)
AMBROSIO PADILLA

Legal Counsel, UNIDO’

“After due and careful deliberation, this Commission holds,
and hereby rules, that the ‘demand’ of the UNIDO cannot be granted and the same
is hereby denied.

It is the considered view of this Commission that when President
Marcos conducted his ‘pulong-pulong‘ or consultation
with the people on March 12, 1981,
he did so in his capacity as President/Prime Minister of the Philippines
and not as the head of any political party. 
Under the Constitution, the ‘Prime Minister and the Cabinet shall be
responsible . . . . . . . . for the program of
government and shall determine the guidelines of national policy’ (Art. IX,
Sec. 2).  This Commission takes judicial
notice of the fact that the proposed amendments, subject of the President’s
remarks in the ‘Pulong-Pulong Pambansa‘
last March 12, 1981, were initiated under the leadership of Mr. Marcos as
President/Prime Minister in the exercise of his constitutional prerogative aforecited.  In fact,
it was President/Prime Minister Ferdinand E. Marcos who issued the special call
for the Batasang Pambansa
to convene as a constituent assembly to propose amendments to the Constitution
(Proclamation No. 2040 dated December 5, 1980).

It cannot be denied that seeking constitutional changes through the
means sanctioned by the Constitution constitutes a program of government imbued
with the nature of highest importance. 
The President/Prime Minister initiated this program of constitutional
remaking.  It is, therefore, his corrollary prerogative to enlighten the people on the
sense, significance, necessity and nuance of the constitutional amendments
which he wanted the people to support. 
It would be an idle, if not absurd proposition, to declare that the
President/Prime Minister is ‘responsible for the program of government and the
guidelines of policy’ and yet deprive him of the right and opportunity to
inform and enlighten the people of the rationale of such initiatives without at
the same time granting the same right to the opposition.

Under our Constitution the President/Prime Minister has no
counter-part, not even the Opposition still waiting in the uncertain wings of
power.

This, precisely, was what President Marcos sought to accomplish
through the ‘Pulong-Pulong Pambansa‘
last March 12, 1981.  In the letter dated
March 10, 1981 by Messrs. Roxas and Laurel, it was claimed that the program was the
nationwide ‘Pulong-Pulong sa Pangulo‘ (underscoring
supplied).  This is an admission that the
‘Pulong-Pulong‘ was for the ‘Pangulo‘,
not as head of a political party but as President/Prime Minister.

This program ‘Pulong-Pulong sa Pangulo‘
is of long standing and has been used by President/Prime Minister Marcos to
bring to the attention of the people certain matters that need to be understood
by them.  For instance, the President
used this program once to explain to the people the increase in the price of
gasoline and other petroleum products. 
The program ‘Pulong-Pulong sa Pangulo‘ is not a
political or partisan vehicle but an innovative system of participatory
democracy where the President as leader of the nation enunciates certain
programs or policies and thereafter subjected to interrogation by panelists
(common men and women) in various strategic places.  This is why the title is ‘Pulong-Pulong‘.  It is not a one way arrangement; its format
is intended to result in effective multi-way consultation between the leader of
the nation and the people.

The UNIDO or any of its leaders does not have the same
constitutional prerogatives vested in the President/Prime Minister as above
discussed.  As such, it has no right to
‘demand’ equal coverage by media accorded President Marcos.

The UNIDO, however, is free to enter into appropriate contracts
with the TV or radio stations concerned. 
This Commission, however, cannot direct these media to grant free use of
their facilities.  First of all, the Comelec cannot assume dictatorial powers and secondly, the
rule of equal time for campaigning as to duration and quality is not applicable
under the circumstances of this case, for the reasons above-stated.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the ‘demand’ of the UNIDO is hereby
denied.

Let the Executive Director cause the implementation of this
resolution.

SO ORDERED.

xxx                        xxx                   xxx

This is to certify that the foregoing is a true and correct excerpt
from the minutes of the Session of the Commission held on March 18, 1981.

(Sgd.) RUPERTO P. EVANGELISTA

Secretary
of the Commission.”

“6.    Petitioner UNIDO thru its undersigned
counsel addressed its letter dated March 20, 1981 as its ‘motion for
reconsideration’ of the COMELEC Resolution of March 18, 1981 (Annex ‘B’) and
submitted six (6) reasons why said Resolution should be reconsidered,
and the request or demand of petitioner should be granted for nationwide
coverage of its public meeting at Plaza Miranda on Saturday, March 21,
1981, similar or equal to the nationwide coverage of the ‘Pulong-Pulong‘
of March 12, 1981.  A copy of said letter
of March 20, 1981 as
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is hereto attached to form an integral
part of this Petition as Annex ‘C’;”

Annex ‘C’ follows:

“March 20, 1981

The Commission on Elections

Manila

Gentlemen:

UNIDO respectfully submits this Motion for Reconsideration of the
COMELEC Resolution of March 18, 1981,
which denied the letters of UNIDO dated March 10 and 17, 1981 on the following
considerations:

1.    The Resolution states that the coverage of
the ‘Pulong-Pulong‘ on March 12, 1981 was extended to
Pres. Marcos ‘in his capacity as President/Prime Minister and not as head of
any political party’, who is ‘responsible * * for the program of government and
shall determine the guidelines of national policy’.  But the radio and television coverage on
March 12th, did not deal with any ‘program of government’ nor any ‘guideline of national policy’.  The subject matter of said ‘Pulong-Pulong‘ were a campaign for
the approval of the constitutional amendments proposed by the Interim Batasang Pambansa, for
ratification of the people with their ‘YES’ votes.

2.    As announced by President Marcos himself and
as stated in the letter of UNIDO of March 10, ‘President Marcos will lead the
campaign for ‘YES’ votes on the proposed constitutional amendments in the April
7 plebiscite’.  The radio and television facilities throughout the country on March 12 was used by
President Marcos in his capacity as political leader of the KBL political
party, and not in his capacity as President/Prime Minister.

“3.    The Resolution states that Mr. Marcos
‘initiated the amendments, he convened the Batasang Pambansa as a constituent assembly, and he ‘initiated this
program of constitutional remaking’. 
When the proposed amendments were passed by the Batasan
under his leadership, his function as President/Prime Minister was
completed.  His campaign for the
ratification by the people of said amendments was no longer President/Prime
Minister, but as the political leader of KBL as the dominant political party in
the Interim Batasang Pambansa.

4.  The Resolution states that the name ‘Pulong-Pulong sa Pangulo‘ is an admission that the television and radio
coverage of said program on March 12, was utilized by Mr. Marcos ‘not as head
of a political party but as President/Prime Minister.  The nature of said program is not determined
by its name but by the subject matter thereof. 
In fact, it may be considered as a mis-use of
said program as political campaign for the purpose of inducing ‘YES’ votes.

5.    The Resolution states that COMELEC ‘cannot
direct these media to grant free use of their facilities’, but UNIDO ‘is free
to enter into appropriate contracts with the TV or radio stations
concerned’.  But Pres. Marcos campaigning
for ‘YES’ votes did not enter into such contracts, but had ‘free use’ of said
facilities.  For the
Resolution to require UNIDO to pay for time in a national radio and TV coverage
is to impose an ‘impossible‘ financial condition.

6.    The Resolution states that ‘COMELEC can not
assume dictatorial powers’.  The COMELEC
as a constitutional body has the constitutional right and power to have its
Resolutions Nos. 1497, 1498 and 1499 on equal opportunity, equal space and
equal time respected and obeyed by all. 
Otherwise, said Resolutions will be only in form without any substance.

In view of the foregoing, UNIDO respectfully prays that the
Resolution of March 19, 1981
denying the request and demand of UNIDO for equal time, be reconsidered.

It is likewise prayed that the letter requests of UNIDO be granted
for nation-wide coverage of its public meeting at Plaza Miranda on Saturday, March 21, 1981.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.)
AMBROSIO PADILLA

Legal Counsel, UNIDO”

“7.  Respondent COMELEC RESOLVED TO DENY ‘for lack
of merit’ the letter-motion for reconsideration (Annex ‘C’) in its Resolution of
March 22, 1981 as per its
‘Excerpts from the Minutes of the Session of the Commission Held on March 21, 1981’.  A copy of said Excerpt-Resolution of March 21, 1981 is hereto attached to
form an integral part of this Petition as Annex ‘D’;”

Annex ‘D’ reads thus:

“EXCERPT
FROM THE MINUTES OF THE

SESSION OF THE COMMISSION HELD ON

MARCH 21, 1981

(UNDER THE SAME QUORUM)

XXX                      XXX                 XXX

81-56.  Considering the
allegations in the letter-motion for reconsideration, dated and filed on March
20, 1981, by the UNIDO thru counsel, and there being no strong or cogent
reasons to disturb the findings and conclusions in the Resolution sought to be
reconsidered, the Commission RESOLVED to DENY the said letter-motion for
reconsideration for lack of merit.

Let the Executive Director inform the parties concerned of this
resolution.

SO ORDERED.

XXX                      XXX                 XXX

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

This is to certify that the foregoing is a true and correct excerpt
from the minutes of the session of the Commission held on March 21, 1981.

(SGD.)
RUPERTO P. EVANGELISTA

Secretary of the Commission”

The basic grounds of the present appeal are stated in the
petition thus:

“9.    Said COMELEC Resolutions, Annexes ‘B’ and
‘D’, are also contrary to the Constitution and the law, and moreover, are
unjust, unfair and inequitable, for said Resolutions violate the basic
principles of equality, good faith and fair play, and they are not conducive
to ‘insure free, orderly and honest elections’;

“10.  The request and/or demand of petitioner for equal
broadcast media of its public meeting or rally at the Plaza Miranda last
Saturday, March 21, 1981 (ante, par. 4) was arbitrarily denied by respondent
COMELEC in its Resolutions (Annex ‘B’ and ‘D’). 
As the political campaign of the Kilusan ng Bagong Lipunan
(KBL) for ‘YES’ votes used all the radios and televisions in the Pulong-Pulong of its political leader, President Ferdinand
E. Marcos, the political campaign for ‘NO’ votes of petitioner UNIDO should and
must be granted the same right and equal use of the same
facilities for the remaining days of the political campaign for ‘NO’ votes up
to the plebiscite on April 7, 1981;”

These grounds were eloquently expanded by distinguished counsel
for petitioner, Senator Ambrosio Padilla, during the
hearing held in the afternoon of Tuesday,
March 31, 1981.

Much as it is indeed desirable and idealistic that the widest and
fullest opportunity to be heard and explain their side should be given to those
opposed to the proposed constitutional amendments, there are certain inexorable
rules and principles that govern the situation at hand which, no matter in what
direction one’s sympathies may be inclined, have to be observed in the best
interests of all concerned as this Court sees them.  Indubitably, the proposed changes of the
Charter are of deep and transcendental importance, since they will affect not
only the structure of government and the democratic institutions and ideals vis-a-vis the presidential and parliamentary systems to
which our people have been exposed up to the present, and they could outlast
most of us and our children and our children’s children.  Quite a number of those ideals and
institutions are fondly cherished and enshrined as sacred by some respectable
elements in the country, admittedly as knowledgeable and patriotic as those who
are advocating their alteration or modification.  It is obvious that the proposed constitutional
changes are purported to establish rather drastic innovations in the
distribution of at least the executive and legislative powers of the national
government, in an avowedly indigenous manner more responsive and attuned not
only to the mores, modes and idiosyncracies of our
people and the prevailing national and international circumstances, which
evidently require unusual means to preserve and defend the state and the
territorial integrity of the country, albeit such proposed reforms maintain
fundamentally the republican and democratic character of our system of
government.  Thus, We
reiterate, that the more the people are adequately informed about the proposed
amendments, their exact meaning, implications and nuances, the better.  Herein lies the apparent
plausibility of petitioner’s pose.

There are, however, certain norms which even petitioner and those
that compose it know very well that this Court, all the amplitude of its
prerogatives notwithstanding cannot disregard. 
Denial of due process is considered generally as the first and the most
valued right of everyone under the Bill of Rights.  For this Court to mandate the Comelec, assuming We had such
power, having in view the constriction of the Supreme Court’s authority over
the actuations of the Comelec under the new
constitution as discoursed by Us in Aratuc vs. Comelec, G.R. Nos. L-49705-09, February 8, 1979, 88 SCRA
251, petitioner evidently overlooks the fact that the television and radio
stations they refer to in their petition who will be directly affected by any
injunction of the Comelec upon Our orders are not
parties to this case.  It is elementary,
to state the obvious, that in the premises, We would
be overreaching the bounds of our constitutional powers if We acceded to
petitioner’s request, absent such indispensable parties.  In fact, petitioner has not shown, for
apparently they have not done so, that they have requested any TV or radio
station to give them the same time and style of “pulong-pulong”
as that which they afforded the President on March 21,1981 and that their
request has been denied.  No doubt the
Constitution and the Election Code provisions as well as the general Comelec resolution cited by petitioner’s counsel may be
availed of, but since, We have not been informed of the circumstances under
which the President was accorded the privilege which petitioner wants to be
equally granted to them, We are not even in a position to determine under what
definite terms the order prayed for should be issued by Us, considering there
are other groups and aggrupations, not to speak of
individuals who are similarly situated as petitioner who would also want to be
heard.  We are afraid We
would be expecting from the TV and radio networks more than what conceivably
the Charter, the law and the Comelec resolutions
contemplate, if We granted what UNIDO wants and did less for those other oppositors to the amendments who may come to Us.

Anent the equal time, equal space and equal quality of exposure
claimed by petitioner, it should be informative to quote the pertinent
constitutional provisions, laws and Comelec
resolutions:

Section 5 of Article XII-C of the Constitution circumscribes the
relevant powers of the Comelec thiswise:

“SEC. 5.  The enjoyment or utilization of all
franchises or permits for the operation of transportation and other public
utilities, media of communication or information, all grants, special
privileges, or concessions granted by the Government, or any subdivision,
agency, or instrumentality thereof, including any government-owned or
controlled corporation, may be supervised or regulated by the Commission
during the election period for the purpose of ensuring free, orderly, and
honest elections.”

Section 41 of the Election Code of 1978 pertinently reads as
follows:

“SEC. 41.  Regulation of election propaganda through
mass media – (a) The Commission shall promulgate rules and regulations
regarding the sale of air time for political purposes during the
campaign period to insure that time equal as to duration and quality is
available to all candidates for the same office or political parties, groups or
aggrupations at the same rates or given free of
charge; that such rates are reasonable and not higher than those charged
other buyers or users of air time for non-political purposes; that the
provisions of this Code regarding the limitation of expenditures by candidates
and contributions by private persons and certain classes of corporations,
entities and institutions are effectively enforced; that said radio
broadcasting and television stations shall not be allowed to schedule any program
or permit any sponsor to manifestly favor or oppose any candidate or political
party, group or aggrupation by unduly or repeatedly
referring to or including said candidate and/or political party, group or aggrupation respecting, however, in all instances the
right of said stations to broadcast accounts of significant or newsworthy
events and views on matters of public interest.”

Sections 7 and 8 of Comelec Resolution
No. 1468 read thus:

“SEC. 7.  Free air time.  Any radio broadcasting or television station
that grants free of charge the use of air time to any supporter, oppositor, political party, group or aggrupation
shall also give similar air time free of charge to other supporters, oppositors, political parties, groups or aggrupations, except when such use of air time is part of a
news program or coverage involving a newsworthy event.

A radio/television station giving air time free of charge to any
supporter, oppositor, political party/group for campaign
purposes shall inform the Commission of such fact within two days from the use
of such free time.”

SEC. 8. 
Failure to agree on equal time. ?
In case the supporter, oppositor, political
party/group and the radio-television station, despite mediation by the Ministry
of Public Information, cannot agree on the equal time to be sold or given
free, the controversy shall be referred to the Commission whose decision on
the matter shall be final and immediately executory.”

To begin with, We cannot agree with the
restrictive literal interpretation the Solicitor General would want to give to
the “free, orderly and honest elections” clause of Section 5, Article
XII-C above-quoted.  Government Counsel
posits that the said clause refers exclusively to the manner
in which the elections are conducted, that is to say, with the manner in which
the voters are supposed to be allowed to vote. 
Perhaps, such a theory may hold insofar as ordinary elections of
officials are concerned.  But the Court
views the provision as applicable also to plebiscites, particularly one
relative to constitutional amendments. 
Be it borne in mind that it has been one of the most steadfast rulings
of this Court in connection with such plebiscites that it is indispensable that
they be properly characterized to be fair submission – by which is meant that
the voters must of necessity have had adequate opportunity, in the light of
conventional wisdom, to cast their votes with sufficient understanding of what
they are voting on.  We are of the firm
conviction that the charter’s reference to honest elections connotes fair
submission in a plebiscite.  It cannot be
otherwise, for then the importance of suffrage for the election of officials
would be more significantly valued than voting on the ratification of the
constitution or any amendment thereof. 
We cannot yield to such an unorthodox constitutional concept that
relegates the fundamental law of the land which is the source of all powers of
the government to a level less valued than the men who would run the same.  When a voter either gives or denies his
assent to a change of the existing charter of his rights and liberties and the
existing governmental form as well as the powers of those who are to govern
him, he virtually contributes his little grain of sand to the building of the
nation and renders his share in shaping the future of its people, including
himself, his family and those to come after them.  Indeed, nothing can be of more transcendental
importance than to vote in a constitutional plebiscite.

In consequence of the foregoing considerations, We opine and so hold that the provisions of all election
laws regulating propaganda through the mass media, for example, Section 41 of
the Election Code of 1978, must be deemed applicable to plebiscites.  Therefore, it is the duty of the Comelec to see to it that the sale of air time by TV and
radio stations “insure(s) that time equal as to duration and quality is
available to all candidates for the same office or political parties, groups or
aggrupations at the same rates or given free of
charge.”

We cannot share the Solicitor General’s
submission that the above view would subvert or curtail correspondingly the
freedom of speech and of the press to which the TV and radio station owners are
entitled.  Rather, it is Our considered
opinion and We so hold that if such be the effect of the Comelec
regulations, it is because they must have been contemplated to precisely
constitute an exception to freedom-of-speech-and-press clause, on account of considerations
more paramount for the general welfare and public interest, which exceptions
after all would operate only during limited periods, that is, during the
duration of the election campaign fixed in the charter itself and/or by law.

The Solicitor General points, however, to the explicit proviso in
Section 41 to the effect that the equal-time-equal-space privilege must
“respect, – – – in all instances the right of said stations to broadcast
accounts of significant or newsworthy events and views on matters of public
interest”, and suggests that the TV and radio stations may not be blamed
for considering the “Pulong-Pulong sa Pangulo” as coming within
said proviso.  In other words, it is
contended that such choice by them may not then be subjected to the
equal-time-equal-space regulations.  On
the other hand, counsel for petitioner maintains that it is not fair to deem
the President’s “Pulong-Pulong” as a
“significant and noteworthy (an) event(s) and view(s) on matters of public
interest” just because the President campaigned for “Yes” votes,
while a “Pulong-Pulong” by those who would
appeal for “No” votes cannot be similarly characterized.

Our holding in respect to such conflicting contentions is that,
while it may not be exactly proper to say, as the Comelec
resolution in question puts it, that “(u)nder
our constitution, the President-Prime Minister has no counterpart, not even the
Opposition still waiting in the uncertain wings of power”, it is
undeniable and but natural that the head of state of every country in the world
must, from the very nature of his position, be accorded certain privileges not
equally available to those who are opposed to him in the sense that, since the
head of state has the grave and tremendous responsibility of planning and implementing
the plan of government itself, either by virtue of the popular mandate given to
him under the corresponding provisions of the Constitution and the laws or any
other duly recognized grant of power and authority, the opposition cannot be
placed at par with him, since logically the opposition can only fiscalize the administration and punctualize
its errors and shortcomings to the end that when the duly scheduled time for
the people to exercise their inalienable power to make a better choice, the opposition
may have the chance to make them accept the alternative they can offer.

Therefore, when the head of state is afforded the opportunity or
when he feels it incumbent upon him to communicate and dialogue with the people
on any matter affecting the plan of government or any other matter of public
interest, no office or entity of the government is obliged to give the
opposition the same facilities by which its contrary views may be
ventilated.  If the opposition leaders
feel any sense of responsibility in the premises to counter the administration,
it is up to them – and they are free – to avail of their own resources to
accomplish their purpose.  But surely, it
is not for the administration to hand them on a silver platter the weapon they
need.  We are not aware that there is any
existing system of government anywhere in the world which is mandated to be so
accommodating and generous to the opponents of the current administrators of
the national affairs.

In instances where the head of state is at the same time the
president of the political party that is in power, it does not necessarily
follow that he speaks with two voices when he dialogues with the governed.  Unquestionably, there are matters of vital
public interest wherein partisan considerations could in some degree be
involved, but then such partisan interest would be purely secondary.  The President/Prime Minister of the Philippines
is the political head of all the people. 
His is the sacred responsibility to protect and defend the security of
all the people, the stability of the government and the integrity of the
national territory, not only for the tenure to which he has been elected but
for all times.  When, as in the instant
situation, he deems it warranted by the circumstances to present to them a plan
of government which includes the modification of the existing structure of
government together with its concomitant allocation of governmental powers, it
is not only his right but his duty to take the people directly into his
confidence and impart to them to the fullest measure of his capacity and by all
available adequate means the reasons therefor and the
corollarily advantages thereof to their welfare.  The opposition, if it opines otherwise, has
naturally the indisputable right to make every effort to thwart his
objective.  But, surely, this is far from
saying that it is the duty of the administration to generously grant to them
the means to wage their campaign against it.

The long and short of the foregoing is that it is not true that
in speaking as he did in the “Pulong-Pulong sa Pangulo” on March 21,
1981, he spoke not only as President-Prime Minister but also as head of the
KBL, the political party now in power. 
It was in the former capacity that he did so.  If in any way, what he said would induce the
people to accept the proposed amendments, his exposition of the advantages
thereof was not to promote the interest of that party but to improve the
quality of the government thereby to enable him or anyone who may be chosen by
the people to take his place to better serve the welfare not only of the KBL
but of all of us, including those who are minded, for reasons of their own, to
oppose the amendments.

In any event, petitioner has failed to persuade Us that the grant of the prayer in its petition compellingly
pertains to it under the provisions of the Constitution, the Election Code of
1978 and the general resolutions and regulations of respondent Comelec regarding equal opportunity among contending
political parties, groups, aggrupations or individuals.  The Comelec has
indeed the power to supervise and regulate the mass media in such respect, but
such authority arises only when there is a showing that any sector or member of
the media has denied to any party or person the right to which it or he is
entitled.  What is more, there are other
political parties similarly situated as petitioner.  To grant to petitioner what it wants, it must
necessarily follow that such other parties should also be granted.  As already indicated earlier, that would be
too much to expect from the media that has also its own right to earn its
wherewithal.  But most importantly, the Comelec is not supposed to dictate to the media when its prerogatives in the premises is not invoked in the
proper manner, that is, after denial to the petitioner by the media is
shown.  And then, it is an inalienable
right of the sector or member of the media concerned to be duly heard as an
indispensable party.

Thus, for being beyond what the charter, the laws and pertinent Comelec regulations contemplate, for being more than what
the opposition is duly entitled vis-a-vis the duty,
obligation and/or privilege inherent in the head of state to directly dialogue
with the sovereign people when the occasion demands, for being impractical
under prevailing circumstances, and for its failure to join in the instant
petition indispensable parties, thereby depriving the Court of jurisdiction to
act, and for these alone, among other reasons which there is hardly time to
state herein, the prayer in the instant petition cannot be granted.

WHEREFORE, the appeal herein is dismissed, without costs.

Aquino, Fernandez, and Guerrero, JJ., concur.

Fernando, C.J., concurs and in addition submits a separate opinion.

Teehankee, J., dissents in a separate opinion.

Makasiar, J., in the result.

De Castro and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., join with the separate opinion of C.J. Fernando.

Concepcion, Jr., J., no part.

Abad Santos, J., on official leave.