You are on page 1of 3

ABS-CBN Broadcasting Group vs COMELEC

Facts: The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court assailing
COMELEC Res. No. 98-1419 which resolved to approve the issuance of restraining order to stop
the petitioner or any groups, its agents or representatives from conducting exit survey. The
electoral body believed that the exit survey might conflict with the official COMELEC count, as
well as the unofficial quick count of the National Movement for Free Elections (NAMFREL). It
also had not authorized or deputized petitioner to undertake the exit survey.
The petitioner filed for a temporary restraining order which was granted by the court on May 9,
1998.
Solicitor General contends that the petition is already moot and academic because the May 11,
1998 elections has already been held and done with and there is no longer any actual
controversy. SG further contends that the Petition should be dismissed for petitioners failure to
exhaust available remedies before issuing forum, especially the filling of a motion for
reconsideration.
The Court believed that the issue is not totally moot because of the basic feature of our
democratic government which is the periodic elections where exit polling is said to be tied with
it. The Court ruled that the procedural requirement may be glossed over to prevent a miscarriage
of justice when the need for relief is extremely urgent and certiorari is the only adequate and
speedy remedy available. The Court based its judgment on the span of time the instant petition
was filed by the respondent and the time when the petitioner got hold of a copy thereof. Under
the circumstances, the court believed that there was hardly enough opportunity to move for
reconsideration and to obtain a swift resolution in time for the May 11, 1998 elections.
Moreover, not only is time of the essence; the Petition involves transcendental constitutional
issues. And the court also resolved to settle the issue because the fundamental freedoms of
speech and of the press are being invoked.
Argument of the Petitioner:
The petitioner argues that holding of exit polls and the nationwide reporting of their
results are valid exercises of the freedoms of speech and of the press.
That the COMELEC gravely abuse its discretion and grossly violated the petitioners
constitutional right.
Argument of the Respondent:
It insists that the issuance was "pursuant to its constitutional and statutory powers to
promote a clean, honest, orderly and credible May 11, 1998 elections" and "to protect,
preserve and maintain the secrecy and sanctity of the ballot."
That "exit surveys indirectly violate the constitutional principle to preserve the
sanctity of the ballots," as the "voters are lured to reveal the contents of ballots," in
violation of Section 2, Article V of the Constitution; and relevant provisions of the
Omnibus Election Code.
That the exit poll has a clear and present danger of destroying the credibility and
integrity of the electoral process
Issue: Whether or not the respondent acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to a lack or
excess of jurisdiction when it approved the issuance of a restraining order enjoining the
petitioner or any other group, its agents or representatives from conducting exit polls during the
May 11, 1998 elections.
Ruling:
Validity of Conducting Exit Polls: No law prohibits the holding and the reporting of exit polls.
Nature and Scope of Freedoms of Speech and of the Press: Freedom of expression is a
fundamental principle of our democratic government. Our Constitution clearly mandates that no
law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech or of the press. Limitation: a limitation on
the freedom of expression may be justified only by a danger of such substantive character that
the state has a right to prevent.
Even though the governments purpose is legitimate and substantial, they cannot be pursued by
means that broadly conceal fundamental liberties, when the end can be more narrowly achieved.
Secrecy of the Ballots
The Court noted that the COMELEC has the duty to secure the secrecy of the ballot and to
preserve the sanctity and the integrity of the electoral process. However, in order to justify a
restriction of the people's freedoms of speech and of the press, the state's responsibility of
ensuring orderly voting must far outweigh them. The Court contends that the contention of
public respondent that exit polls indirectly violated the sanctity of the ballot is off-tangent to the
real issue. The reason behind the principle of ballot secrecy is to avoid vote buying through
voter identification. What is forbidden is the association of voters with their respective votes,
for the purpose of assuring that the votes have been casted in accordance with the instruction of a
third party.
In exit polls, the contents of the official ballot are not actually exposed. Moreover, the revelation
of whom an elector has voted for is not compulsory, but VOLUNTARY.
On the contention of the COMELEC that exit poll has a clear and present danger of destroying
the credibility and integrity of the electoral process, the court ruled that such arguments are
purely speculative and clearly untenable. Because: 1) the participants are selected at random; 2)
the survey result is not meant to replace or be at par with the official COMELEC count. It is
merely an opinion. 3) credibility and integrity of the elections are not at stake here. The holding
and the reporting of the results of exit polls cannot undermine those of the elections, since the
exit poll is only part of the election.
The Court argues that the COMELEC has other valid and reasonable ways and means to avoid or
minimize disorder and confusion that may be brought about by exit surveys.

The petition is granted and the temporary restraining order issued by the court is made
permanent.
Resolution No. 98-1419 issued by the COMELEC is nullified and set aside.

You might also like