Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2K views

    Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of The Philippines Vs COMELEC

    Uploaded by

    mamp05
    Petitioners challenged the validity of Section 92 of B.P. No. 881, which required radio and television stations to provide free air time to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) for political candidates. Petitioners argued this singled them out and resulted in millions in losses. The Court held that radio and television stations do not own the airwaves but are merely given the temporary privilege to use licensed frequencies. Requiring free air time for COMELEC is a fair exchange for this privilege and the public funds spent regulating the broadcast industry. As the stations do not own the airwaves, requiring air time is not an unconstitutional taking of private property.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of The Philippines Vs COMELEC

    Uploaded by

    mamp05
    2K views2 pages
    Petitioners challenged the validity of Section 92 of B.P. No. 881, which required radio and television stations to provide free air time to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) for political candidates. Petitioners argued this singled them out and resulted in millions in losses. The Court held that radio and television stations do not own the airwaves but are merely given the temporary privilege to use licensed frequencies. Requiring free air time for COMELEC is a fair exchange for this privilege and the public funds spent regulating the broadcast industry. As the stations do not own the airwaves, requiring air time is not an unconstitutional taking of private property.

    Original Title

    Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of the Philippines vs COMELEC

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Petitioners challenged the validity of Section 92 of B.P. No. 881, which required radio and television stations to provide free air time to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) for political candidates. Petitioners argued this singled them out and resulted in millions in losses. The Court held that radio and television stations do not own the airwaves but are merely given the temporary privilege to use licensed frequencies. Requiring free air time for COMELEC is a fair exchange for this privilege and the public funds spent regulating the broadcast industry. As the stations do not own the airwaves, requiring air time is not an unconstitutional taking of private property.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    2K views2 pages

    Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of The Philippines Vs COMELEC

    Uploaded by

    mamp05
    Petitioners challenged the validity of Section 92 of B.P. No. 881, which required radio and television stations to provide free air time to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) for political candidates. Petitioners argued this singled them out and resulted in millions in losses. The Court held that radio and television stations do not own the airwaves but are merely given the temporary privilege to use licensed frequencies. Requiring free air time for COMELEC is a fair exchange for this privilege and the public funds spent regulating the broadcast industry. As the stations do not own the airwaves, requiring air time is not an unconstitutional taking of private property.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of the Philippines v. COMELEC, GR No.

    132922, April 21, 1998

    Facts: Petitioner Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of the Philippines, Inc. (TELEBAP) is an organization of lawyers of radio and television broadcasting companies. It was declared to be without legal standing to sue in this case as, among other reasons, it was not able to show that it was to suffer from actual or threatened injury as a result of the subject law. Petitioner GMA Network, on the other hand, had the requisite standing to bring the constitutional challenge. Petitioner operates radio and television broadcast stations in the Philippines affected by the enforcement of Section 92, B.P. No. 881. Petitioners challenge the validity of Section 92, B.P. No. 881 which provides: Comelec Time- The Commission shall procure radio and television time to be known as the Comelec Time which shall be allocated equally and impartially among the candidates within the area of coverage of all radio and television stations. For this purpose, the franchise of all radio broadcasting and television stations are hereby amended so as to provide radio or television time, free of charge, during the period of campaign. Petitioner contends that while Section 90 of the same law requires COMELEC to procure print space in newspapers and magazines with payment, Section 92 provides that air time shall be procured by COMELEC free of charge. Thus it contends that Section 92 singles out radio and television stations to provide free air time. Petitioner claims that it suffered losses running to several million pesos in providing COMELEC Time in connection with the 1992 presidential election and 1995 senatorial election and that it stands to suffer even more should it be required to do so again this year. Petitioners claim that the primary source of revenue of the radio and television stations is the sale of air time to advertisers and to require these stations to provide free air time is to authorize unjust taking of private property. According to petitioners, in 1992 it lost P22,498,560.00 in providing free air time for one hour each day and, in this years elections, it stands to lost P58,980,850.00 in view of COMELECs requirement that it provide at least 30 minutes of prime time daily for such.

    Issues:
    1. Whether or not Section 92 of B.P. No. 881 denies radio and television

    broadcast companies the equal protection of the laws. 2. Whether or not Section 92 of B.P. No. 881 constitutes taking of property without due process of law and without just compensation. Held: Petitioners argument is without merit. All broadcasting, whether radio or by television stations, is licensed by the government. Airwave frequencies have to be

    allocated as there are more individuals who want to broadcast that there are frequencies to assign. Radio and television broadcasting companies, which are given franchises, do not own the airwaves and frequencies through which they transmit broadcast signals and images. They are merely given the temporary privilege to use them. Thus, such exercise of the privilege may reasonably be burdened with the performance by the grantee of some form of public service. In granting the privilege to operate broadcast stations and supervising radio and television stations, the state spends considerable public funds in licensing and supervising them. The argument that the subject law singles out radio and television stations to provide free air time as against newspapers and magazines which require payment of just compensation for the print space they may provide is likewise without merit. Regulation of the broadcast industry requires spending of public funds which it does not do in the case of print media. To require the broadcast industry to provide free air time for COMELEC is a fair exchange for what the industry gets. As radio and television broadcast stations do not own the airwaves, no private property is taken by the requirement that they provide air time to the COMELEC.

    You might also like