19. abs cbn v comelec

7/21/2019 19. ABS CBN v Comelec

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/19-abs-cbn-v-comelec 1/9

/---!e-library! 6.0 Philippines Copyright © 2000 by Sony Valdez---\

[2000V"S#$ %&S-C&' &()%#C%S*+', C)(P)(%*+)' petitioner s.

C)+SS+)' )' ""C*+)'S respondent.2000 1an 2"n &an3,.(. 'o. 4456# " C

+ S + ) '

P%',%'+&%' 1.

*he holding o7 e8it polls and the disse9ination o7 their res:lts thro:gh 9ass 9edia

3onstit:te an essential part o7 the 7reedo9s o7 spee3h and o7 the press. ;en3e the

Co9ele3 3annot ban the9 totally in the g:ise o7 pro9oting 3lean honest orderly

and 3redible ele3tions. <:ite the 3ontrary e8it polls -- properly 3ond:3ted and

p:bli3ized -- 3an be ital tools in eli9inating the eils o7 ele3tion-=8ing and 7ra:d.

'arro>ly tailored 3o:nter9eas:res 9ay be pres3ribed by the Co9ele3 so as to

9ini9ize or s:ppress the in3idental proble9s in the 3ond:3t o7 e8it polls >itho:t

transgressing in any 9anner the 7:nda9ental rights o7 o:r people.

*he Case and the ?a3ts

&e7ore :s is a Petition 7or Certiorari :nder (:le 6@ o7 the (:les o7 Co:rt assailing

Co99ission on "le3tions ACo9ele3B en ban3 (esol:tion 'o. -5[$ dated %pril

2 . +n the said (esol:tion the poll body

("S)V"# to approe the iss:an3e o7 a restraining order to stop %&S-C&' or any

other gro:ps its agents or representaties 7ro9 3ond:3ting s:3h e8it s:rey and to

a:thorize the ;onorable Chair9an to iss:e the sa9e.

*he (esol:tion >as iss:ed by the Co9ele3 allegedly :pon in7or9ation 7ro9 [a$

reliable so:r3e that %&S-C&' Aopez ,ro:pB has prepared a proDe3t >ith P( gro:psto 3ond:3t radio-*V 3oerage o7 the ele3tions 8 8 8 and to 9aEe [an$ e8it s:rey o7

the 8 8 8 ote d:ring the ele3tions 7or national oF3ials parti3:larly 7or President and

Vi3e President res:lts o7 >hi3h shall be [broad3ast$ i99ediately.[2$ *he ele3toral

body belieed that s:3h proDe3t 9ight 3onGi3t >ith the oF3ial Co9ele3 3o:nt as

>ell as the :noF3ial H:i3E 3o:nt o7 the 'ational oe9ent 7or ?ree "le3tions

A'a97relB. +t also noted that it had not a:thorized or dep:tized Petitioner %&S-C&'

to :ndertaEe the e8it s:rey.

)n ay this Co:rt iss:ed the *e9porary (estraining )rder prayed 7or by

petitioner. Ie dire3ted the Co9ele3 to 3ease and desist :ntil 7:rther orders 7ro9

i9ple9enting the assailed (esol:tion or the restraining order iss:ed p:rs:antthereto i7 any. +n 7a3t the e8it polls >ere a3t:ally 3ond:3ted and reported by 9edia

>itho:t any diF3:lty or proble9.

*he +ss:es

Petitioner raises this lone iss:e Ihether or not the (espondent Co99ission a3ted

>ith grae ab:se o7 dis3retion a9o:nting to a la3E or e83ess o7 D:risdi3tion >hen it



approed the iss:an3e o7 a restraining order enDoining the petitioner or any [other

gro:p$ its agents or representaties 7ro9 3ond:3ting e8it polls d:ring the 8 8 8 ay

ele3tions.[4$

+n his e9orand:9[5$ the soli3itor general in seeEing to dis9iss the Petition

brings :p additional iss:es AB 9ootness and A2B pre9at:rity be3a:se o7petitionerJs 7ail:re to seeE a re3onsideration o7 the assailed Co9ele3 (esol:tion.

*he Co:rtJs (:ling

*he Petition[@$ is 9eritorio:s.

Pro3ed:ral +ss:es ootness and Pre9at:rity

*he soli3itor general 3ontends that the petition is 9oot and a3ade9i3 be3a:se the

ay ele3tion has already been held and done >ith. %llegedly there is no

longer any a3t:al 3ontroersy be7ore :s.

*he iss:e is not totally 9oot. Ihile the assailed (esol:tion re7erred spe3i=3ally to

the ay ele3tion its i9pli3ations on the peopleJs 7:nda9ental 7reedo9 o7

e8pression trans3end the past ele3tion. *he holding o7 periodi3 ele3tions is a basi3

7eat:re o7 o:r de9o3rati3 goern9ent. &y its ery nat:re e8it polling is tied :p >ith

ele3tions. *o set aside the resol:tion o7 the iss:e no> >ill only postpone a tasE that

3o:ld >ell 3rop :p again in 7:t:re ele3tions.[6$

+n any eent in Salonga . Cr:z Pano the Co:rt had o33asion to reiterate that it

also has the d:ty to 7or9:late g:iding and 3ontrolling 3onstit:tional prin3iples

pre3epts do3trines or r:les. +t has the sy9boli3 7:n3tion o7 ed:3ating ben3h and

bar on the e8tent o7 prote3tion gien by 3onstit:tional g:arantees.[K$ Sin3e the7:nda9ental 7reedo9s o7 spee3h and o7 the press are being inoEed here >e hae

resoled to settle 7or the g:idan3e o7 posterity >hether they liEe>ise prote3t the

holding o7 e8it polls and the disse9ination o7 data deried there7ro9.

*he soli3itor general 7:rther 3ontends that the Petition sho:ld be dis9issed 7or

petitionerJs 7ail:re to e8ha:st aailable re9edies be7ore the iss:ing 7or:9

spe3i=3ally the =ling o7 a 9otion 7or re3onsideration.

*his Co:rt ho>eer has r:led in the past that this pro3ed:ral reH:ire9ent 9ay be

glossed oer to preent a 9is3arriage o7 D:sti3e[$ >hen the iss:e inoles the

prin3iple o7 so3ial D:sti3e or the prote3tion o7 labor[$ >hen the de3ision orresol:tion so:ght to be set aside is a n:llity[0$ or >hen the need 7or relie7 is

e8tre9ely :rgent and 3ertiorari is the only adeH:ate and speedy re9edy aailable.

[$

*he instant Petition assails a (esol:tion iss:ed by the Co9ele3 en ban3 on %pril 2

only t>enty A20B days be7ore the ele3tion itsel7. &esides the petitioner got

hold o7 a 3opy thereo7 only on ay 5 . Lnder the 3ir3:9stan3es there >as



hardly eno:gh opport:nity to 9oe 7or a re3onsideration and to obtain a s>i7t

resol:tion in ti9e 7or the ay ele3tions. oreoer not only is ti9e o7 the

essen3eM the Petition inoles trans3endental 3onstit:tional iss:es. #ire3t resort to

this Co:rt thro:gh a spe3ial 3iil a3tion 7or 3ertiorari is there7ore D:sti=ed.

ain +ss:e Validity o7 Cond:3ting "8it Polls

%n e8it poll is a spe3ies o7 ele3toral s:rey 3ond:3ted by H:ali=ed indiid:als or

gro:ps o7 indiid:als 7or the p:rpose o7 deter9ining the probable res:lt o7 an

ele3tion by 3on=dentially asEing rando9ly sele3ted oters >ho9 they hae oted

7or i99ediately a7ter they hae oF3ially 3ast their ballots. *he res:lts o7 the s:rey

are anno:n3ed to the p:bli3 :s:ally thro:gh the 9ass 9edia to gie an adan3e

oerie> o7 ho> in the opinion o7 the polling indiid:als or organizations the

ele3torate oted. +n o:r ele3toral history e8it polls had not been resorted to :ntil

the re3ent ay ele3tions.

+n its Petition %&S-C&' &road3asting Corporation 9aintains that it is a responsible

9e9ber o7 the 9ass 9edia 3o99itted to report balan3ed ele3tion-related data

in3l:ding the e83l:sie res:lts o7 So3ial Ieather Station ASISB s:reys 3ond:3ted

in =7teen ad9inistratie regions.

+t arg:es that the holding o7 e8it polls and the nation>ide reporting o7 their res:lts

are alid e8er3ises o7 the 7reedo9s o7 spee3h and o7 the press. +t s:b9its that in

pre3ipitately and :nH:ali=edly restraining the holding and the reporting o7 e8it polls

the Co9ele3 graely ab:sed its dis3retion and grossly iolated the petitionerJs

3onstit:tional rights.

P:bli3 respondent on the other hand ehe9ently denies that in iss:ing the

assailed (esol:tion it graely ab:sed its dis3retion. +t insists that the iss:an3e

thereo7 >as p:rs:ant to its 3onstit:tional and stat:tory po>ers to pro9ote a 3lean

honest orderly and 3redible ay ele3tionsM and to prote3t presere and

9aintain the se3re3y and san3tity o7 the ballot. +t 3ontends that the 3ond:3t o7

e8it s:reys 9ight :nd:ly 3on7:se and inG:en3e the oters and that the s:reys

>ere designed to 3ondition the 9inds o7 people and 3a:se 3on7:sion as to >ho are

the >inners and the [losers$ in the ele3tion >hi3h in t:rn 9ay res:lt in iolen3e

and anar3hy.

P:bli3 respondent 7:rther arg:es that e8it s:reys indire3tly iolate the

3onstit:tional prin3iple to presere the san3tity o7 the ballots as the oters are

l:red to reeal the 3ontents o7 ballots in iolation o7 Se3tion 2 %rti3le V o7 the

Constit:tionM[2$ and releant proisions o7 the )9nib:s "le3tion Code.[4$ +t

s:b9its that the 3onstit:tionally prote3ted 7reedo9s inoEed by petitioner are not

i99:ne to reg:lation by the State in the legiti9ate e8er3ise o7 its poli3e po>er

s:3h as in the present 3ase.



*he soli3itor general in s:pport o7 the p:bli3 respondent adds that the e8it polls

pose a 3lear and present danger o7 destroying the 3redibility and integrity o7 the

ele3toral pro3ess 3onsidering that they are not s:perised by any goern9ent

agen3y and 3an in general be 9anip:lated easily. ;e insists that these polls >o:ld

so> 3on7:sion a9ong the oters and >o:ld :nder9ine the oF3ial tab:lation o7

otes 3ond:3ted by the Co99ission as >ell as the H:i3E 3o:nt :ndertaEen by the'a97rel.

%d9ittedly no la> prohibits the holding and the reporting o7 e8it polls. *he H:estion

3an th:s be 9ore narro>ly de=ned ay the Co9ele3 in the e8er3ise o7 its po>ers

totally ban e8it pollsN +n ans>ering this H:estion >e need to reie> H:i3Ely o:r

D:rispr:den3e on the 7reedo9s o7 spee3h and o7 the press.

'at:re and S3ope o7 ?reedo9s o7 Spee3h and o7 the Press

*he 7reedo9 o7 e8pression is a 7:nda9ental prin3iple o7 o:r de9o3rati3

goern9ent. +t is a Jpre7erredJ right and there7ore stands on a higher leel than

s:bstantie e3ono9i3 or other liberties. 8 8 8 [*$his 9:st be so be3a:se the lessons

o7 history both politi3al and legal ill:strate that 7reedo9 o7 tho:ght and spee3h is

the indispensable 3ondition o7 nearly eery other 7or9 o7 7reedo9.[5$

):r Constit:tion 3learly 9andates that no la> shall be passed abridging the

7reedo9 o7 spee3h or o7 the press.[@$ +n the land9arE 3ase ,onzales . Co9ele3

[6$ this Co:rt en:n3iated that at the ery least 7ree spee3h and a 7ree press

3onsist o7 the liberty to dis3:ss p:bli3ly and tr:th7:lly any 9atter o7 p:bli3 interest

>itho:t prior restraint.

*he 7reedo9 o7 e8pression is a 9eans o7 ass:ring indiid:al sel7-7:l=ll9ent o7

attaining the tr:th o7 se3:ring parti3ipation by the people in so3ial and politi3al

de3ision-9aEing and o7 9aintaining the balan3e bet>een stability and 3hange.[K$

+t represents a pro7o:nd 3o99it9ent to the prin3iple that debates on p:bli3 iss:es

sho:ld be :ninhibited rob:st and >ide open.[$ +t 9eans 9ore than the right to

approe e8isting politi3al belie7s or e3ono9i3 arrange9ents to lend s:pport to

oF3ial 9eas:res or to taEe re7:ge in the e8isting 3li9ate o7 opinion on any 9atter

o7 p:bli3 3onseH:en3e. %nd paraphrasing the e9inent D:sti3e )lier Iendell

;ol9es[$ >e stress that the 7reedo9 en3o9passes the tho:ght >e hate no less

than the tho:ght >e agree >ith.

i9itations

*he realities o7 li7e in a 3o9ple8 so3iety ho>eer pre3l:de an absol:te e8er3ise o7

the 7reedo9s o7 spee3h and o7 the press. S:3h 7reedo9s 3o:ld not re9ain

:n7ettered and :nrestrained at all ti9es and :nder all 3ir3:9stan3es.[20$ *hey are

not i99:ne to reg:lation by the State in the e8er3ise o7 its poli3e po>er.[2$ Ihile

the liberty to thinE is absol:te the po>er to e8press s:3h tho:ght in >ords and

deeds has li9itations.



+n Cabansag . ?ernandez[22$ this Co:rt had o33asion to dis3:ss t>o theoreti3al

tests in deter9ining the alidity o7 restri3tions to s:3h 7reedo9s as 7ollo>s

*hese are the J3lear and present dangerJ r:le and the Jdangero:s tenden3yJ r:le.

*he =rst as interpreted in a n:9ber o7 3ases 9eans that the eil 3onseH:en3e o7

the 3o99ent or :tteran3e 9:st be Je8tre9ely serio:s and the degree o7 i99inen3ee8tre9ely highJ be7ore the :tteran3e 3an be p:nished. *he danger to be g:arded

against is the Js:bstantie eilJ so:ght to be preented. 8 8 8[24$

*he Jdangero:s tenden3yJ r:le on the other hand 8 8 8 9ay be epito9ized as

7ollo>s +7 the >ords :ttered 3reate a dangero:s tenden3y >hi3h the state has a

right to preent then s:3h >ords are p:nishable. +t is not ne3essary that so9e

de=nite or i99ediate a3ts o7 7or3e iolen3e or :nla>7:lness be ado3ated. +t is

s:F3ient that s:3h a3ts be ado3ated in general ter9s. 'or is it ne3essary that the

lang:age :sed be reasonably 3al3:lated to in3ite persons to a3ts o7 7or3e iolen3e

or :nla>7:lness. +t is s:F3ient i7 the nat:ral tenden3y and probable eOe3t o7 the

:tteran3e be to bring abo:t the s:bstantie eil >hi3h the legislatie body seeEs topreent.[25$

LnH:estionably this Co:rt adheres to the 3lear and present danger test. +t

i9pli3itly did in its earlier de3isions in Pri9i3ias . ?:goso[2@$ and %9eri3an &ible

So3iety . City o7 anilaM[26$ as >ell as in later ones Vera . %r3a[2K$ 'aarro .

Villegas[2$ +9bong . ?errer[2$ &lo L9par %diong . Co9ele3[40$ and 9ore

re3ently in +glesia ni Cristo . *(C&.[4$ +n setting the standard or test 7or the

3lear and present danger do3trine the Co:rt e3hoed the >ords o7 D:sti3e ;ol9es

*he H:estion in eery 3ase is >hether the >ords :sed are :sed in s:3h

3ir3:9stan3es and are o7 s:3h a nat:re as to 3reate a 3lear and present danger that

they >ill bring abo:t the s:bstantie eils that Congress has a right to preent. +t isa H:estion o7 pro8i9ity and degree.[42$

% li9itation on the 7reedo9 o7 e8pression 9ay be D:sti=ed only by a danger o7 s:3h

s:bstantie 3hara3ter that the state has a right to preent. LnliEe in the dangero:s

tenden3y do3trine the danger 9:st not only be 3lear b:t also present. Present

re7ers to the ti9e ele9entM the danger 9:st not only be probable b:t ery liEely to

be ineitable.[44$ *he eil so:ght to be aoided 9:st be so s:bstantie as to D:sti7y

a 3la9p oer oneJs 9o:th or a restraint o7 a >riting instr:9ent.[45$

1:sti=3ation 7or a (estri3tion

#o3trinally the Co:rt has al>ays r:led in 7aor o7 the 7reedo9 o7 e8pression and

any restri3tion is treated an e8e9ption. *he po>er to e8er3ise prior restraint is not

to be pres:9edM rather the pres:9ption is against its alidity.[4@$ %nd it is

respondentJs b:rden to oerthro> s:3h pres:9ption. %ny a3t that restrains spee3h

sho:ld be greeted >ith 7:rro>ed bro>s[46$ so it has been said.



*o D:sti7y a restri3tion the pro9otion o7 a s:bstantial goern9ent interest 9:st be

3learly sho>n.[4K$ *h:s

% goern9ent reg:lation is s:F3iently D:sti=ed i7 it is >ithin the 3onstit:tional

po>er o7 the goern9ent i7 it 7:rthers an i9portant or s:bstantial goern9ent

interestM i7 the goern9ental interest is :nrelated to the s:ppression o7 7reee8pressionM and i7 the in3idental restri3tion on alleged ?irst %9end9ent 7reedo9s is

no greater than is essential to the 7:rtheran3e o7 that interest.[4$

;en3e een tho:gh the goern9entJs p:rposes are legiti9ate and s:bstantial they

3annot be p:rs:ed by 9eans that broadly stiGe 7:nda9ental personal liberties

>hen the end 3an be 9ore narro>ly a3hieed.[4$

*he 7reedo9s o7 spee3h and o7 the press sho:ld all the 9ore be :pheld >hen >hat

is so:ght to be 3:rtailed is the disse9ination o7 in7or9ation 9eant to add 9eaning

to the eH:ally ital right o7 s:Orage.[50$ Ie 3annot s:pport any r:ling or order the

eOe3t o7 >hi3h >o:ld be to n:lli7y so ital a 3onstit:tional right as 7ree spee3h.[5$

Ihen 7a3ed >ith borderline sit:ations in >hi3h the 7reedo9 o7 a 3andidate or a

party to speaE or the 7reedo9 o7 the ele3torate to Eno> is inoEed against a3tions

allegedly 9ade to ass:re 3lean and 7ree ele3tions this Co:rt shall lean in 7aor o7

7reedo9. ?or in the :lti9ate analysis the 7reedo9 o7 the 3itizen and the StateJs

po>er to reg:late sho:ld not be antagonisti3. *here 3an be no 7ree and honest

ele3tions i7 in the eOorts to 9aintain the9 the 7reedo9 to speaE and the right to

Eno> are :nd:ly 3:rtailed.[52$

*r:e the goern9ent has a staEe in prote3ting the 7:nda9ental right to ote by

proiding oting pla3es that are sa7e and a33essible. +t has the d:ty to se3:re the

se3re3y o7 the ballot and to presere the san3tity and the integrity o7 the ele3toralpro3ess. ;o>eer in order to D:sti7y a restri3tion o7 the peopleJs 7reedo9s o7 spee3h

and o7 the press the stateJs responsibility o7 ens:ring orderly oting 9:st 7ar

o:t>eigh the9.

*hese 7reedo9s hae additional i9portan3e be3a:se e8it polls generate i9portant

resear3h data >hi3h 9ay be :sed to st:dy inG:en3ing 7a3tors and trends in oting

behaior. %n absol:te prohibition >o:ld th:s be :nreasonably restri3tie be3a:se it

eOe3tiely preents the :se o7 e8it poll data not only 7or ele3tion-day proDe3tions

b:t also 7or long-ter9 resear3h.[54$

Co9ele3 &an on "8it Polling

+n the 3ase at bar the Co9ele3 D:sti=es its assailed (esol:tion as haing been

iss:ed p:rs:ant to its 3onstit:tional 9andate to ens:re a 7ree orderly honest

3redible and pea3e7:l ele3tion. Ihile ad9itting that the 3ond:3t o7 an e8it poll and

the broad3ast o7 the res:lts thereo7 [are$ 8 8 8 an e8er3ise o7 press 7reedo9 it

arg:es that [p$ress 7reedo9 9ay be 3:rtailed i7 the e8er3ise thereo7 3reates a 3lear

and present danger to the 3o99:nity or it has a dangero:s tenden3y. +t then



3ontends that an e8it poll has the tenden3y to so> 3on7:sion 3onsidering the

rando9ness o7 sele3ting interie>ees >hi3h 7:rther 9aEe[s$ the e8it poll highly

:nreliable. *he probability that the res:lts o7 s:3h e8it poll 9ay not be in har9ony

>ith the oF3ial 3o:nt 9ade by the Co9ele3 8 8 8 is eer present. +n other >ords

the e8it poll has a 3lear and present danger o7 destroying the 3redibility and

integrity o7 the ele3toral pro3ess.

S:3h arg:9ents are p:rely spe3:latie and 3learly :ntenable. ?irst by the ery

nat:re o7 a s:rey the interie>ees or parti3ipants are sele3ted at rando9 so that

the res:lts >ill as 9:3h as possible be representatie or reGe3tie o7 the general

senti9ent or ie> o7 the 3o99:nity or gro:p polled. Se3ond the s:rey res:lt is

not 9eant to repla3e or be at par >ith the oF3ial Co9ele3 3o:nt. +t 3onsists 9erely

o7 the opinion o7 the polling gro:p as to >ho the ele3torate in general has probably

oted 7or based on the li9ited data gathered 7ro9 polled indiid:als. ?inally not at

staEe here are the 3redibility and the integrity o7 the ele3tions >hi3h are e8er3ises

that are separate and independent 7ro9 the e8it polls. *he holding and the

reporting o7 the res:lts o7 e8it polls 3annot :nder9ine those o7 the ele3tions sin3e

the 7or9er is only part o7 the latter. +7 at all the o:t3o9e o7 one 3an only be

indi3atie o7 the other.

*he Co9ele3Js 3on3ern >ith the possible non3o99:ni3atie eOe3t o7 e8it polls --

disorder and 3on7:sion in the oting 3enters -- does not D:sti7y a total ban on the9.

Lndo:btedly the assailed Co9ele3 (esol:tion is too broad sin3e its appli3ation is

>itho:t H:ali=3ation as to >hether the polling is disr:ptie or not.[55$ Con3ededly

the )9nib:s "le3tion Code prohibits disr:ptie behaior aro:nd the oting 3enters.

[5@$ *here is no sho>ing ho>eer that e8it polls or the 9eans to interie> oters

3a:se 3haos in oting 3enters. 'either has any eiden3e been presented proing

that the presen3e o7 e8it poll reporters near an ele3tion pre3in3t tends to 3reate

disorder or 3on7:se the oters.

oreoer the prohibition in3identally preents the 3olle3tion o7 e8it poll data and

their :se 7or any p:rpose. *he al:able in7or9ation and ideas that 3o:ld be deried

7ro9 the9 based on the otersJ ans>ers to the s:rey H:estions >ill 7oreer re9ain

:nEno>n and :ne8plored. Lnless the ban is restrained 3andidates resear3hers

so3ial s3ientists and the ele3torate in general >o:ld be depried o7 st:dies on the

i9pa3t o7 3:rrent eents and o7 ele3tion-day and other 7a3tors on otersJ 3hoi3es.

+n #aily ;erald Co. . :nro[56$ the LS S:pre9e Co:rt held that a stat:te one o7

the p:rposes o7 >hi3h >as to preent the broad3asting o7 early ret:rns >as

:n3onstit:tional be3a:se s:3h p:rpose >as i9per9issible and the stat:te >as

neither narro>ly tailored to adan3e a state interest nor the least restri3tie

alternatie. ?:rther9ore the general interest o7 the State in ins:lating oters 7ro9

o:tside inG:en3es is ins:F3ient to D:sti7y spee3h reg:lation. 1:st as 3:rtailing

ele3tion-day broad3asts and ne>spaper editorials 7or the reason that they 9ight



indire3tly aOe3t the otersJ 3hoi3es is i9per9issible so is reg:lating spee3h ia an

e8it poll restri3tion.[5K$

*he absol:te ban i9posed by the Co9ele3 3annot there7ore be D:sti=ed. +t does

not leae open any alternatie 3hannel o7 3o99:ni3ation to gather the type o7

in7or9ation obtained thro:gh e8it polling. )n the other hand there are other alidand reasonable >ays and 9eans to a3hiee the Co9ele3 end o7 aoiding or

9ini9izing disorder and 3on7:sion that 9ay be bro:ght abo:t by e8it s:reys.

?or instan3e a spe3i=3 li9ited area 7or 3ond:3ting e8it polls 9ay be designated.

)nly pro7essional s:rey gro:ps 9ay be allo>ed to 3ond:3t the sa9e. Pollsters 9ay

be Eept at a reasonable distan3e 7ro9 the oting 3enter. *hey 9ay be reH:ired to

e8plain to oters that the latter 9ay re7:se to be interie>ed and that the

interie> is not part o7 the oF3ial balloting pro3ess. *he pollsters 9ay 7:rther be

reH:ired to >ear distin3tie 3lothing that >o:ld sho> they are not ele3tion oF3ials.

[5$ %dditionally they 9ay be reH:ired to :ndertaEe an in7or9ation 3a9paign on

the nat:re o7 the e8er3ise and the res:lts to be obtained there7ro9. *hese9eas:res together >ith a general prohibition o7 disr:ptie behaior 3o:ld ens:re a

3lean sa7e and orderly ele3tion.

?or its part Petitioner %&S-C&' e8plains its s:rey 9ethodology as 7ollo>s AB

3o99:nities are rando9ly sele3ted in ea3h proin3eM A2B residen3es to be polled in

s:3h 3o99:nities are also 3hosen at rando9M A4B only indiid:als >ho hae already

oted as sho>n by the indelible inE on their =ngers are interie>edM A5B the

interie>ers :se no 3a9eras o7 any sortM A@B the poll res:lts are released to the

p:bli3 only on the day a7ter the ele3tions.[5$ *hese pre3a:tions together >ith the

possible 9eas:res earlier stated 9ay be :ndertaEen to abate the Co9ele3Js 7ear

>itho:t 3onseH:ently and :nD:sti=ably stilling the peopleJs oi3e.

Iith the 7oregoing pre9ises >e 3on3l:de that the interest o7 the state in red:3ing

disr:ption is o:t>eighed by the drasti3 abridg9ent o7 the 3onstit:tionally

g:aranteed rights o7 the 9edia and the ele3torate. <:ite the 3ontrary instead o7

disr:pting ele3tions e8it polls -- properly 3ond:3ted and p:bli3ized -- 3an be ital

tools 7or the holding o7 honest orderly pea3e7:l and 3redible ele3tionsM and 7or the

eli9ination o7 ele3tion-=8ing 7ra:d and other ele3toral ills.

Violation o7 &allot Se3re3y

*he 3ontention o7 p:bli3 respondent that e8it polls indire3tly transgress the san3tityand the se3re3y o7 the ballot is oO-tangent to the real iss:e. Petitioner does not seeE

a33ess to the ballots 3ast by the oters. *he ballot syste9 o7 oting is not at iss:e

here.

*he reason behind the prin3iple o7 ballot se3re3y is to aoid ote b:ying thro:gh

oter identi=3ation. *h:s oters are prohibited 7ro9 e8hibiting the 3ontents o7 their

oF3ial ballots to other persons 7ro9 9aEing 3opies thereo7 or 7ro9 p:tting



disting:ishing 9arEs thereon so as to be identi=ed. %lso pros3ribed is =nding o:t

the 3ontents o7 the ballots 3ast by parti3:lar oters or dis3losing those o7 disabled

or illiterate oters >ho hae been assisted. Clearly >hat is 7orbidden is the

asso3iation o7 oters >ith their respe3tie otes 7or the p:rpose o7 ass:ring that the

otes hae been 3ast in a33ordan3e >ith the instr:3tions o7 a third party. *his res:lt

3annot ho>eer be a3hieed 9erely thro:gh the otersJ erbal and 3on=dentialdis3los:re to a pollster o7 >ho9 they hae oted 7or.

+n e8it polls the 3ontents o7 the oF3ial ballot are not a3t:ally e8posed. ?:rther9ore

the reelation o7 >ho9 an ele3tor has oted 7or is not 3o9p:lsory b:t ol:ntary.

Voters 9ay also 3hoose not to reeal their identities. +ndeed narro>ly tailored

3o:nter9eas:res 9ay be pres3ribed by the Co9ele3 so as to 9ini9ize or s:ppress

in3idental proble9s in the 3ond:3t o7 e8it polls >itho:t transgressing the

7:nda9ental rights o7 o:r people.

I;"("?)(" the Petition is ,(%'*"# and the *e9porary (estraining )rder iss:ed

by the Co:rt on ay is 9ade P"(%'"'*. %ssailed in:te (esol:tion 'o.-5 iss:ed by the Co9ele3 en ban3 on %pril 2 is hereby 'L+?+"# and

S"* %S+#". 'o 3osts.

S) )(#"("#.

19. abs cbn v comelec

Documents