ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp v. COMELEC
January 28, 2000
January 28, 2000
FACTS:
COMELEC issued a Resolution approving the issuance of a restraining
order to stop ABS CBN or any other groups, its agents or representatives from
conducting exit surveys. The Resolution
was issued by
the Comelec allegedly upon "information from a reliable source that ABS-CBN (Lopez Group) has prepared a project, with PR groups, to conduct radio-TV coverage of the elections and to make an exit survey of the vote during the elections for national officials particularly for President and Vice President, results of which shall be broadcasted immediately.” The electoral body believed that such project might conflict with the official Comelec count, as well as the unofficial quick count of the National Movement for Free Elections (Namfrel). It also noted that it had not authorized or deputized ABS-CBN to undertake the exit survey.
the Comelec allegedly upon "information from a reliable source that ABS-CBN (Lopez Group) has prepared a project, with PR groups, to conduct radio-TV coverage of the elections and to make an exit survey of the vote during the elections for national officials particularly for President and Vice President, results of which shall be broadcasted immediately.” The electoral body believed that such project might conflict with the official Comelec count, as well as the unofficial quick count of the National Movement for Free Elections (Namfrel). It also noted that it had not authorized or deputized ABS-CBN to undertake the exit survey.
Two days before the elections on May 11, 1998, the Court issued the Temporary Restraining Order
prayed for by petitioner ABS-CBN. The
Comelec was directed to cease and desist, until further orders, from
implementing the assailed Resolution or the restraining order issued pursuant
thereto, if any. In fact, the exit polls were actually conducted and reported
by media without any difficulty or problem.
ISSUE: W/N
the Comelec, in the exercise of its powers, can absolutely ban exit
polls
ABS-CBN: The holding of exit polls and the nationwide reporting of their results are valid exercises of the freedoms of speech and of the press
COMELEC:
1)The issuance thereof 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."
2)It contends that "the conduct of exit
surveys might unduly confuse and influence the voters," and that the
surveys were designed "to condition the minds of people and cause
confusion as to who are the winners and the losers in the election," which
in turn may result in "violence and anarchy."
3)"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. It submits that the constitutionally
protected freedoms invoked by petitioner "are not immune to regulation by
the State in the legitimate exercise of its police power," such as in the
present case.
4) "[p]ress freedom may be curtailed if the exercise thereof
creates a clear and present danger to the community or it has a dangerous
tendency." It then contends that "an exit poll has the tendency to
sow confusion considering the randomness of selecting interviewees, which
further make[s] the exit poll highly unreliable. The probability that the
results of such exit poll may not be in harmony with the official count made by
the Comelec x x x is ever present. In other words, the exit poll has a clear
and present danger of destroying the credibility and integrity of the electoral
process."
SUPREME COURT: The COMELEC Resolution on exit polls ban is
nullified and set aside.
1) Clear and present danger of
destroying the integrity of electoral processes
Speculative and Untenable. First, by the very nature of a survey,
the interviewees or participants are selected at random, so that the results
will as much as possible be representative or reflective of the general
sentiment or view of the community or group polled. Second, the survey result is
not meant to replace or be
at par with the official Comelec count. It consists merely of the opinion of the polling group as to who the
electorate in general has probably voted for, based on the limited data
gathered from polled individuals. Finally, not at stake here are the
credibility and the integrity of the elections, which are exercises that are
separate and independent from the exit polls. The holding and the reporting of
the results of exit polls cannot undermine those of the elections, since the
former is only part of the latter. If at all, the outcome of one can only be
indicative of the other.
2) Overbroad
The Comelec's concern with the possible noncommunicative effect of
exit polls -- disorder and confusion in the voting centers -- does not justify
a total ban on them. Undoubtedly, the assailed Comelec Resolution is too broad,
since its application is without
qualification as to whether the polling is disruptive or not.[44] Concededly, the Omnibus Election Code
prohibits disruptive behavior around the voting centers.[45] There is no showing, however, that
exit polls or the means to interview voters cause chaos in voting centers.
Neither has any evidence been presented proving that the presence of exit poll
reporters near an election precinct tends to create disorder or confuse the
voters. Moreover, the prohibition
incidentally prevents the collection of exit poll data and their use for any
purpose. The valuable information and ideas that could be derived from them,
based on the voters' answers to the survey questions will forever remain
unknown and unexplored. Unless the ban is restrained, candidates, researchers,
social scientists and the electorate in general would be deprived of studies on
the impact of current events and of election-day and other factors on voters'
choices.
3) Violation of Ban Secrecy
The contention of public respondent that exit polls indirectly
transgress the sanctity and the secrecy of the ballot is off-tangent to the
real issue. Petitioner does not seek access to the ballots cast by the voters.
The ballot system of voting is not at issue here.
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.
In exit polls, the contents of the official ballot are not
actually exposed. Furthermore, the revelation of whom an elector has voted for
is not compulsory, but voluntary. Voters may also choose not to reveal their
identities. Indeed, narrowly tailored countermeasures may be prescribed by the
Comelec, so as to minimize
or suppress incidental
problems in the conduct of exit polls, without transgressing the fundamental
rights of our people.##
An exit poll is a species of electoral survey
conducted by qualified individuals or groups of individuals for the purpose of
determining the probable result of an election by confidentially asking
randomly selected voters whom they have voted for, immediately after they have
officially cast their ballots. The results of the survey are announced to the
public, usually through the mass media, to give an advance overview of how, in
the opinion of the polling individuals or organizations, the electorate voted.
In our electoral history, exit polls had not been resorted to until the recent
May 11, 1998 elections.
No comments:
Post a Comment