This stemmed
from the decision of the COMELEC to stand by its new airtime allotment rule
despite the Network’s earlier appeal to seek clarification, and pray for the
recall and modification of the said resolution, as well as the re-application of
the per station airtime limits observed during past
elections.
In its petition,
GMA, thru legal counsel Atty. Roberto Rafael V. Lucila, Atty. Pierre M. Cantara,
Atty. Paul Erik D. Manalo, and Atty. Felipe Enrique M. Gozon, Jr. of Belo Gozon
Elma Parel Asuncion & Lucila Law Office, stressed on the urgency of the
matter involved in light of the approaching start of the campaign
period.
GMA said that
“the consequent damage in the event that the New Rules are not immediately
enjoined is likewise clear, widespread, and irreparable” primarily owing to the
“the need of the voting public to be effectively and adequately informed.”
The Network
submitted that “the aggregate airtime limits imposed by the COMELEC in the New
Rules are so restrictive that they amount to a State-sponsored suppression of
the right of the people to know their candidates, and the right of the
candidates to bring across their qualifications and platform of government to
the people, which are integral to the right of suffrage under Article V, Section
1 of the Constitution.”
GMA said that
the new airtime rule is “indeed a throwback to the days when the so-called
political ad ban was in effect.” Given that access to media is impaired,
GMA noted that “the New Rules therefore contradict and defeat the intent of the
Fair Elections Act,” a law which the COMELEC is supposed to implement.
The Network also
raised that “candidates and their political parties, to whom GMA is mandated by
law to provide equal access, will be prejudiced particularly the lesser known
candidates or political parties because they will not be able to reach most of
the voters and will be deprived of the most effective means of campaigning on a
national level.”
GMA also noted
that the application of a candidate’s or a political party’s aggregate airtime
limits under the New Rules constitutes “an infringement of the constitutionally
protected freedom of speech, of the press, and of expression.” According to the
Network, “there is no legitimate and substantial public or governmental
interest, deserving of the subservience of the right to free speech and
expression that is being advanced by the New Rules.”
GMA added that,
under the New Rules, media entities will be “constrained to undertake the
impossible task of monitoring the broadcast of other radio and television
stations and cable TV providers,” which would entail enormous added financial
and logistical burdens, “in order to avoid administrative and criminal
liability.
GMA also raised
with the Honorable Court its concerns on the manner of the issuance of the New
Rules, which was promulgated “without prior public participation particularly
from those affected by the said resolution.” The Network stressed that depriving
the stakeholders of a “meaningful participation in the drafting of said
administrative rule directing them” is a “clear denial of the right to due
process of law as regards the exercise of rule-making functions of government
agencies.”
GMA also
asserted that the hearing conducted by the COMELEC on January 31, 2013 cannot be
deemed as compliance with “the requirement of public consultation or even a
recognition of the affected parties’ right to due process” given that the
hearing was conducted only after the issuance of the New Rules on January 15,
2013, and only after GMA and the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas sent
their respective letters “assailing the constitutionality, legality, and
practicality of the New Rules.”
No comments:
Post a Comment