LAMBINO VS COMELEC

HAIG VS AGEE

NY TIMES VS U.S.

PPI VS. COMELEC

FACTS:
COMELEC promulgated Resolution No. 2772 directing newspapers to provide free COMELEC space of not less than one-half page for the common use of political
parties and candidates. The COMELC space shall be allocated by the Commission, free of charge, among all candidates to enable them to make known their
qualifications, their stand on public Issue and their platforms of government. It shall also be used by the Commission for dissemination of vital election information.
Petitioner PPI, a non-profit organization of newspaper and magazine publishers, asks the SC to declare the resolution unconstitutional and void on the ground that it
violates the prohibition imposed by the Constitution upon the government against the taking of private property for public use without just compensation. It also
constituted impositions of involuntary servitude. And that the resolution violated freedom of speech, of the press and of expression.
On behalf of COMELEC, the Solicitor General claimed that the Resolution is a permissible exercise of the power of supervision (police power) over the information
operations of print media enterprises during the election period to safeguard and ensure a fair, impartial, and credible election. Furthermore, the Solicitor General
contended that the resolution does not impose upon any obligation as it does not provide any criminal or administrative sanction for non-compliance.

ISSUE: Whether the COMELEC, through the subject resolution, validly exercised its power of eminent domain and police power

NO. The Supreme Court declared the Resolution as unconstitutional. It held that to compel print media companies to donate COMELEC space amounts to taking
of private personal property without payment of the just compensation required in expropriation cases. Moreover, the element of necessity for the taking has not
been established by respondent COMELEC, considering that the newspapers were not unwilling to sell advertising space. The taking of private property for public use
is authorized by the constitution, but not without payment of just compensation. Also Resolution No. 2772 does not constitute a valid exercise of the police power of
the state. In the case at bench, there is no showing of existence of a national emergency to take private property of newspaper or magazine publishers.

TIO VS VIDEOGRAM REGULATORY BOARD

JMM PROMOTION VS CA

DELA CRUZ VS PARAS

REPUBLIC VS PDLT

JESUS IS LORD CHRISTIAN SCHOOL VS MUNICIPALITY OF PASIG

BARDILLON VS BARANGAY MASILI, CALAMBA LAGUNA

REPUBLIC VS CASTELVI

FILMSTREAM INTERNATIONAL VS CA

LAGCAO VS JUDGE LABRA

ESLABAN VS DE ONORIO

REPUBLIC (DAR) VS CA

LANDBANK VS CA

NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION VS ANGAS

MACTAN CEBU AIRPORT VS MARCOS

REPUBLIC VS MUPAS