Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

NATIONAL PRESS CLUB v. COMELEC

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 206020 2015-04-14	1-UNITED TRANSPORT KOALISYON v. COMELEC REYES, J.
In National Press Club v. COMELEC,[18] while the Court upheld the constitutionality of a prohibition on the selling or giving free of charge, except to the COMELEC, of advertising space and commercial time during an election period, it was emphasized that the grant of supervisory and regulatory powers to the COMELEC under Section 4, Article IX-C of the Constitution, is limited to ensuring equal opportunity, time, space, and the right to reply among candidates.
	GR No. 205728 2015-01-21	DIOCESE OF BACOLOD v. COMELEC LEONEN, J.
Respondents also cite National Press Club v. COMELEC[126] in arguing that its regulatory power under the Constitution, to some extent, set a limit on the right to free speech during election period.[127]
	GR No. 212398 2014-11-25	EMILIO RAMON “E.R.” P. EJERCITO v. COMELEC PERALTA, J.
Indeed, in Osmeña v. COMELEC,[114] this Court, in reaffirming its ruling in National Press Club v. Commission on Elections[115] that Section 11 (b) of R.A. No. 6646[116] does not invade and violate the constitutional guarantees comprising freedom of expression, remarked in response to the dissent of Justice Flerida Ruth P. Romero: On the other hand, the dissent of Justice Romero in the present case, in batting for an "uninhibited market place of ideas," quotes the following from Buckley v. Valeo:
	GR No. 205357 2014-09-02	GMA NETWORK v. COMELEC PERALTA, J.
From the foregoing, it does appear that the Comelec did not have any other basis for coming up with a new manner of determining allowable time limits except its own idea as to what should be the maximum number of minutes based on its exercise of discretion as to how to level the playing field. The same could be encapsulized in the remark of the Comelec Chairman that "if the Constitution allows us to regulate and then it gives us the prerogative to amplify then the prerogative to amplify you should leave this to the discretion of the Commission."[40]
	GR No. 205357 2014-09-02	GMA NETWORK v. COMELEC PERALTA, J.
On the other hand, respondent posits in its Comment and Opposition[13] dated March 8, 2013, that the petition should be denied based on the following reasons: Respondent contends that the remedies of certiorari and prohibition are not available to petitioners, because the writ of certiorari is only available against the COMELEC's adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers, while the writ of prohibition only lies against the exercise of judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions. Said writs do not lie against the COMELEC's administrative or rule-making powers.