Sanidad vs Comelec Group 2 Navarro

Facts: COMELEC promulgated a resolution no. 2167 to govern the conduct of plebiscite on organic act. Petitioner assails the validity of the said resolution, particularly sec. 19 which prohibits the mass media, columnist, commentator, announcer or personality to use their column or radio or television time to campaign for or against the plebiscite issues during plebiscite campaign period and on the day before and on the plebiscite day. Petitioner alleged that it violates the constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression and of the press. COMELEC argued that said section does not absolutely bar petitioner because he may do so through the COMELEC time and space. Issues: What did COMELEC prohibit? Was it an unconstitutional restraint on freedom of expression? Why? Did the law pass the test of Overbreadth and Vagueness? Was it an appropriate test for restrictions of free speech? Held: -Sec. 19 of Resolution no 2167, which prohibits the mass media, columnist, commentator, announcer or personality to use their column or radio or television time to campaign for or against the plebiscite issues during plebiscite campaign period and on the day before and on the plebiscite day. - this form of regulation is tantamount to a restriction of petitioner's freedom of expression for no justifiable reason. Plebiscite issues are matters of public concern and importance. Comelec spaces and Comelec radio time may provide a forum for expression but they do not guarantee full dissemination of information to the public concerned because they are limited to either specific portions in newspapers or to specific radio or television times. -No, because governmental purpose may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms. -No, the test appropriate is what was stated in US vs. OBrien on speech that is content-neutral. A government regulation is sufficiently justified if it is within the constitutional power of the Government, if it furthers an important or substantial governmental interest; if the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression; and if the incident restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest. There must be a compelling reason to support it, or it will not pass muster under strict scrutiny. In addition, they will be tested for possible overbreadth and vagueness.