SOCIAL WEATHER STATIONS, INC. vs. COMELEC

FACTS: Commission on Election’s (COMELEC) Resolution No. 9674 directed Social Weather Stations, Inc. (SWS) and Pulse Asia, Inc. (Pulse Asia), as well as other survey firms of similar circumstance to submit to COMELEC the names of all commissioners and payors of all surveys published from February 12, 2013 to April 23, 2013, including those of their “subscribers.” This resolves the Petition1 for certiorari and prohibition praying that respondent Commission on Election’s Resolution No. 96742 dated April 23, 2013 be nullified and set aside and that the Commission on Elections be permanently enjoined from enforcing the same Resolution, as well as prosecuting Social Weather Stations, Inc. and Pulse Asia, Inc. for violating it or otherwise compelling compliance with it. In the letter24 dated April 30, 2013, SWS and Pulse Asia informed COMELEC Chairman Brillantes that they have not received a copy of Resolution No. 9674. They also articulated their view that Resolution No. 9674 was tainted with irregularities, having been issued ultra vires (i.e., in excess of what the Fair Elections Act allows) and in violation of the nonimpairment of contracts clause of the Constitution. They also expressed their intention to bring the matter before this court on account of these supposed irregularities. Thus, they requested that COMELEC defer or hold in abeyance Resolution No. 9674’s enforcement.

ISSUE: Is Comelec Resolution No. 9674’s requirement of disclosing the names of subscribers to election surveys valid and constitutional?

HELD: YES. We sustain the validity of Resolution No. 9674. The names of those who commission or pay for election surveys, including subscribers of survey firms, must be disclosed pursuant to Section 5.2(a) of the Fair Elections Act. This requirement is a valid regulation in the exercise of police power and effects the constitutional policy of guaranteeing equal access to opportunities for public service. Section 5.2(a) requirement of disclosing subscribers neither curtails petitioners’ free speech rights nor violates the constitutional proscription against the impairment of contracts.

However, it is evident that Resolution No. 9674 was promulgated in violation of the period set by the Fair Elections Act.

Petitioners were also not served a copy of Resolution No. 9674 with which it was asked to comply. They were neither shown nor served copies of the criminal Complaint subject of E.O. Case No. 13-222. Petitioners’ right to due process was, thus, violated.