EN BANC

[G.R. No. 133486. January 28, 2000]

ABS-CBN BROADCASTING COR ORATION, petitioner, vs. CO!!ISSION ON "#"CTIONS, respondent. D"CISION
ANGANIBAN, J.$ The holding of exit polls and the dissemination of their results through mass media constitute an essential part of the freedoms of speech and of the press. Hence, the Comelec cannot ban them totally in the guise of promoting clean, honest, orderly and credible elections. Quite the contrary, exit polls properly conducted and publici!ed can be "ital tools in eliminating the e"ils of election fixing and fraud. Narro#ly tailored countermeasures may be prescribed by the Comelec so as to minimi!e or suppress the incidental problems in the conduct of exit polls, #ithout transgressing in any manner the fundamental rights of our people. T%& Ca'& an( )%& *a+)' Before us is a $etition for Certiorari under %ule &' of the %ules of Court assailing Commission on Elections (Comelec) en banc %esolution No. *+ ,-,* dated April 0,, ,**+. 1n the said %esolution, the poll body
.,/

2%E3456E7 to appro"e the issuance of a restraining order to stop AB3 CBN or any other groups, its agents or representati"es from conducting such exit sur"ey and to authori!e the Honorable Chairman to issue the same.2 The %esolution #as issued by the Comelec allegedly upon 2information from .a/ reliable source that AB3 CBN (5ope! 8roup) has prepared a pro9ect, #ith $% groups, to conduct radio T6 co"erage of the elections x x x and to ma:e .an/ exit sur"ey of the x x x "ote during the elections for national officials particularly for $resident and 6ice $resident, results of #hich shall be .broadcast/ immediately.2 The electoral body belie"ed that such pro9ect might conflict #ith the official Comelec count, as #ell as the unofficial ;uic: count of the National <o"ement for =ree Elections (Namfrel). 1t also noted that it had not authori!ed or deputi!ed $etitioner AB3 CBN to underta:e the exit sur"ey.
.0/

4n <ay *, ,**+, this Court issued the Temporary %estraining 4rder prayed for by petitioner. >e directed the Comelec to cease and desist, until further orders, from implementing the assailed %esolution or the restraining order issued pursuant thereto, if any. 1n fact, the exit polls #ere actually conducted and reported by media #ithout any difficulty or problem. T%& I''u&'

$etitioner raises this lone issue? 2>hether or not the %espondent Commission acted #ith gra"e abuse of discretion amounting to a lac: or excess of 9urisdiction #hen it appro"ed the issuance of a restraining order en9oining the petitioner or any .other group/, its agents or representati"es from conducting exit polls during the x x x <ay ,, elections.2
.@/

1n his <emorandum, the solicitor general, in see:ing to dismiss the $etition, brings up additional issues? (,) mootness and (0) prematurity, because of petitionerAs failure to see: a reconsideration of the assailed Comelec %esolution.
.-/

T%& Cour),' Ru-.n/ The $etition is meritorious.

.'/

ro+&(ura- I''u&'$ Mootness and Prematurity The solicitor general contends that the petition is moot and academic, because the <ay ,,, ,**+ election has already been held and done #ith. Allegedly, there is no longer any actual contro"ersy before us. The issue is not totally moot. >hile the assailed %esolution referred specifically to the <ay ,,, ,**+ election, its implications on the peopleAs fundamental freedom of expression transcend the past election. The holding of periodic elections is a basic feature of our democratic go"ernment. By its "ery nature, exit polling is tied up #ith elections. To set aside the resolution of the issue no# #ill only postpone a tas: that could #ell crop up again in future elections.
.&/

1n any e"ent, in Salonga v. Cruz Pano, the Court had occasion to reiterate that it 2also has the duty to formulate guiding and controlling constitutional principles, precepts, doctrines, or rules. 1t has the symbolic function of educating bench and bar on the extent of protection gi"en by constitutional guarantees.2 3ince the fundamental freedoms of speech and of the press are being in"o:ed here, #e ha"e resol"ed to settle, for the guidance of posterity, #hether they li:e#ise protect the holding of exit polls and the dissemination of data deri"ed therefrom.
.B/

The solicitor general further contends that the $etition should be dismissed for petitionerAs failure to exhaust a"ailable remedies before the issuing forum, specifically the filing of a motion for reconsideration. This Court, ho#e"er, has ruled in the past that this procedural re;uirement may be glossed o"er to pre"ent a miscarriage of 9ustice, #hen the issue in"ol"es the principle of social 9ustice or the protection of labor, #hen the decision or resolution sought to be set aside is a nullity, or #hen the need for relief is extremely urgent and certiorari is the only ade;uate and speedy remedy a"ailable.
.+/ .*/ .,C/ .,,/

The instant $etition assails a %esolution issued by the Comelec en banc on April 0,, ,**+, only t#enty (0C) days before the election itself. Besides, the petitioner got hold of a copy thereof only on <ay -, ,**+. Dnder the circumstances, there #as hardly enough opportunity to mo"e for a reconsideration and to obtain a s#ift resolution in time for the <ay ,,, ,**+ elections.

<oreo"er, not only is time of the essenceE the $etition in"ol"es transcendental constitutional issues. 7irect resort to this Court through a special ci"il action for certiorari is therefore 9ustified. !a.n I''u&$ Validity of Conducting Exit Polls An exit poll is a species of electoral sur"ey conducted by ;ualified indi"iduals or groups of indi"iduals for the purpose of determining the probable result of an election by confidentially as:ing randomly selected "oters #hom they ha"e "oted for, immediately after they ha"e officially cast their ballots. The results of the sur"ey are announced to the public, usually through the mass media, to gi"e an ad"ance o"er"ie# of ho#, in the opinion of the polling indi"iduals or organi!ations, the electorate "oted. 1n our electoral history, exit polls had not been resorted to until the recent <ay ,,, ,**+ elections. 1n its $etition, AB3 CBN Broadcasting Corporation maintains that it is a responsible member of the mass media, committed to report balanced election related data, including 2the exclusi"e results of 3ocial >eather 3tation (3>3) sur"eys conducted in fifteen administrati"e regions.2 1t argues that the holding of exit polls and the nation#ide reporting of their results are "alid exercises of the freedoms of speech and of the press. 1t submits that, in precipitately and un;ualifiedly restraining the holding and the reporting of exit polls, the Comelec gra"ely abused its discretion and grossly "iolated the petitionerAs constitutional rights. $ublic respondent, on the other hand, "ehemently denies that, in issuing the assailed %esolution, it gra"ely abused its discretion. 1t insists that the issuance thereof #as 2pursuant to its constitutional and statutory po#ers to promote a clean, honest, orderly and credible <ay ,,, ,**+ elections2E and 2to protect, preser"e and maintain the secrecy and sanctity of the ballot.2 1t contends that 2the conduct of exit sur"eys might unduly confuse and influence the "oters,2 and that the sur"eys #ere designed 2to condition the minds of people and cause confusion as to #ho are the #inners and the .losers/ in the election,2 #hich in turn may result in 2"iolence and anarchy.2 $ublic respondent further argues that 2exit sur"eys indirectly "iolate the constitutional principle to preser"e the sanctity of the ballots,2 as the 2"oters are lured to re"eal the contents of ballots,2 in "iolation of 3ection 0, Article 6 of the ConstitutionE and rele"ant pro"isions of the 4mnibus Election Code. 1t submits that the constitutionally protected freedoms in"o:ed by petitioner 2are not immune to regulation by the 3tate in the legitimate exercise of its police po#er,2 such as in the present case.
.,0/ .,@/

The solicitor general, in support of the public respondent, adds that the exit polls pose a 2clear and present danger of destroying the credibility and integrity of the electoral process,2 considering that they are not super"ised by any go"ernment agency and can in general be manipulated easily. He insists that these polls #ould so# confusion among the "oters and #ould undermine the official tabulation of "otes conducted by the Commission, as #ell as the ;uic: count underta:en by the Namfrel.

Admittedly, no la# prohibits the holding and the reporting of exit polls. The ;uestion can thus be more narro#ly defined? <ay the Comelec, in the exercise of its po#ers, totally ban exit pollsF 1n ans#ering this ;uestion, #e need to re"ie# ;uic:ly our 9urisprudence on the freedoms of speech and of the press. Nature and Scope of Freedoms of Speec and of t e Press The freedom of expression is a fundamental principle of our democratic go"ernment. 1t 2is a ApreferredA right and, therefore, stands on a higher le"el than substanti"e economic or other liberties. x x x .T/his must be so because the lessons of history, both political and legal, illustrate that freedom of thought and speech is the indispensable condition of nearly e"ery other form of freedom.2
.,-/

4ur Constitution clearly mandates that no la# shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech or of the press. 1n the landmar: case Gonzales v. Comelec, this Court enunciated that at the "ery least, free speech and a free press consist of the liberty to discuss publicly and truthfully any matter of public interest #ithout prior restraint.
.,'/ .,&/

The freedom of expression is a means of assuring indi"idual self fulfillment, of attaining the truth, of securing participation by the people in social and political decision ma:ing, and of maintaining the balance bet#een stability and change. 1t represents a profound commitment to the principle that debates on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and #ide open. 1t means more than the right to appro"e existing political beliefs or economic arrangements, to lend support to official measures, or to ta:e refuge in the existing climate of opinion on any matter of public conse;uence. And paraphrasing the eminent 9ustice 4li"er >endell Holmes, #e stress that the freedom encompasses the thought #e hate, no less than the thought #e agree #ith.
.,B/ .,+/ .,*/

!imitations The realities of life in a complex society, ho#e"er, preclude an absolute exercise of the freedoms of speech and of the press. 3uch freedoms could not remain unfettered and unrestrained at all times and under all circumstances. They are not immune to regulation by the 3tate in the exercise of its police po#er. >hile the liberty to thin: is absolute, the po#er to express such thought in #ords and deeds has limitations.
.0C/ .0,/

1n Cabansag v. Fernandez this Court had occasion to discuss t#o theoretical tests in determining the "alidity of restrictions to such freedoms, as follo#s?
.00/

2These are the Aclear and present dangerA rule and the Adangerous tendencyA rule. The first, as interpreted in a number of cases, means that the e"il conse;uence of the comment or utterance must be Aextremely serious and the degree of imminence extremely highA before the utterance can be punished. The danger to be guarded against is the Asubstanti"e e"ilA sought to be pre"ented. x x x2
.0@/

2The Adangerous tendencyA rule, on the other hand, x x x may be epitomi!ed as follo#s? 1f the #ords uttered create a dangerous tendency #hich the state has a

right to pre"ent, then such #ords are punishable. 1t is not necessary that some definite or immediate acts of force, "iolence, or unla#fulness be ad"ocated. 1t is sufficient that such acts be ad"ocated in general terms. Nor is it necessary that the language used be reasonably calculated to incite persons to acts of force, "iolence, or unla#fulness. 1t is sufficient if the natural tendency and probable effect of the utterance be to bring about the substanti"e e"il #hich the legislati"e body see:s to pre"ent.2
.0-/

Dn;uestionably, this Court adheres to the 2clear and present danger2 test. 1t implicitly did in its earlier decisions in Primicias v. Fugoso and American Bible Society v. City of ManilaE as #ell as in later ones, Vera v. Arca, avarro v. Villegas, !mbong v. Ferrer, Blo "m#ar Adiong v. Comelec and, more recently, in !glesia ni Cristo v. M$%CB. 1n setting the standard or test for the 2clear and present danger2 doctrine, the Court echoed the #ords of 9ustice Holmes? 2The ;uestion in e"ery case is #hether the #ords used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they #ill bring about the substanti"e e"ils that Congress has a right to pre"ent. 1t is a ;uestion of proximity and degree.2
.0'/ .0&/ .0B/ .0+/ .0*/ .@C/ .@,/ .@0/

A limitation on the freedom of expression may be 9ustified only by a danger of such substanti"e character that the state has a right to pre"ent. Dnli:e in the 2dangerous tendency2 doctrine, the danger must not only be clear but also present. 2$resent2 refers to the time elementE the danger must not only be probable but "ery li:ely to be ine"itable. The e"il sought to be a"oided must be so substanti"e as to 9ustify a clamp o"er oneAs mouth or a restraint of a #riting instrument.
.@@/ .@-/

Justification for a "estriction 7octrinally, the Court has al#ays ruled in fa"or of the freedom of expression, and any restriction is treated an exemption. The po#er to exercise prior restraint is not to be presumedE rather the presumption is against its "alidity. And it is respondentAs burden to o"erthro# such presumption. Any act that restrains speech should be greeted #ith furro#ed bro#s, so it has been said.
.@'/ .@&/

To 9ustify a restriction, the promotion of a substantial go"ernment interest must be clearly sho#n. Thus?
.@B/

2A go"ernment regulation is sufficiently 9ustified if it is #ithin the constitutional po#er of the go"ernment, if it furthers an important or substantial go"ernment interestE if the go"ernmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expressionE and if the incidental restriction on alleged =irst Amendment freedoms is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest.2
.@+/

Hence, e"en though the go"ernmentAs purposes are legitimate and substantial, they cannot be pursued by means that broadly, stifle fundamental personal liberties, #hen the end can be more narro#ly achie"ed.
.@*/

The freedoms of speech and of the press should all the more be upheld #hen #hat is sought to be curtailed is the dissemination of information meant to add meaning to the e;ually "ital right of suffrage. >e cannot support any ruling or order 2the effect of #hich #ould be to nullify so "ital a constitutional right as free speech.2 >hen faced #ith borderline situations in #hich the freedom of a candidate or a party to spea: or the freedom of the electorate to :no# is in"o:ed against actions allegedly made to assure clean and free elections, this Court shall lean in fa"or of freedom. =or in the ultimate analysis, the freedom of the citi!en and the 3tateAs po#er to regulate should not be antagonistic. There can be no free and honest elections if, in the efforts to maintain them, the freedom to spea: and the right to :no# are unduly curtailed.
.-C/ .-,/ .-0/

True, the go"ernment has a sta:e in protecting the fundamental right to "ote by pro"iding "oting places that are safe and accessible. 1t has the duty to secure the secrecy of the ballot and to preser"e the sanctity and the integrity of the electoral process. Ho#e"er, in order to 9ustify a restriction of the peopleAs freedoms of speech and of the press, the stateAs responsibility of ensuring orderly "oting must far out#eigh them. These freedoms ha"e additional importance, because exit polls generate important research data #hich may be used to study influencing factors and trends in "oting beha"ior. An absolute prohibition #ould thus be unreasonably restricti"e, because it effecti"ely pre"ents the use of exit poll data not only for election day pro9ections, but also for long term research.
.-@/

Comelec #an on Exit Polling 1n the case at bar, the Comelec 9ustifies its assailed %esolution as ha"ing been issued pursuant to its constitutional mandate to ensure a free, orderly, honest, credible and peaceful election. >hile admitting that 2the conduct of an exit poll and the broadcast of the results thereof .are/ x x x an exercise of press freedom,2 it argues that 2.p/ress freedom may be curtailed if the exercise thereof creates a clear and present danger to the community or it has a dangerous tendency.2 1t then contends that 2an exit poll has the tendency to so# confusion considering the randomness of selecting inter"ie#ees, #hich further ma:e.s/ the exit poll highly unreliable. The probability that the results of such exit poll may not be in harmony #ith the official count made by the Comelec x x x is e"er present. 1n other #ords, the exit poll has a clear and present danger of destroying the credibility and integrity of the electoral process.2 3uch arguments are purely speculati"e and clearly untenable. =irst, by the "ery nature of a sur"ey, the inter"ie#ees or participants are selected at random, so that the results #ill as much as possible be representati"e or reflecti"e of the general sentiment or "ie# of the community or group polled. Second, the sur"ey result is not meant to replace or be at par #ith the official Comelec count. 1t consists merely of the o#inion of the polling group as to #ho the electorate in general has probably "oted for, based on the limited data gathered from polled indi"iduals. =inally, not at sta:e here are the credibility and the integrity of the elections, #hich are exercises that are separate and independent from the exit polls. The holding and the reporting of the results of exit polls cannot undermine those of the elections, since the former is only part of the latter. 1f at all, the outcome of one can only be indicati"e of the other.

The ComelecAs concern #ith the possible noncommunicati"e effect of exit polls disorder and confusion in the "oting centers does not 9ustify a total ban on them. Dndoubtedly, the assailed Comelec %esolution is too broad, since its application is #ithout ;ualification as to #hether the polling is disrupti"e or not. Concededly, the 4mnibus Election Code prohibits disrupti"e beha"ior around the "oting centers. There is no sho#ing, ho#e"er, that exit polls or the means to inter"ie# "oters cause chaos in "oting centers. Neither has any e"idence been presented pro"ing that the presence of exit poll reporters near an election precinct tends to create disorder or confuse the "oters.
.--/ .-'/

<oreo"er, the prohibition incidentally pre"ents the collection of exit poll data and their use for any purpose. The "aluable information and ideas that could be deri"ed from them, based on the "otersA ans#ers to the sur"ey ;uestions #ill fore"er remain un:no#n and unexplored. Dnless the ban is restrained, candidates, researchers, social scientists and the electorate in general #ould be depri"ed of studies on the impact of current e"ents and of election day and other factors on "otersA choices. 1n &aily 'erald Co. v. Munro, the D3 3upreme Court held that a statute, one of the purposes of #hich #as to pre"ent the broadcasting of early returns, #as unconstitutional because such purpose #as impermissible, and the statute #as neither narro#ly tailored to ad"ance a state interest nor the least restricti"e alternati"e. =urthermore, the general interest of the 3tate in insulating "oters from outside influences is insufficient to 9ustify speech regulation. Gust as curtailing election day broadcasts and ne#spaper editorials for the reason that they might indirectly affect the "otersA choices is impermissible, so is regulating speech "ia an exit poll restriction.
.-&/ .-B/

The absolute ban imposed by the Comelec cannot, therefore, be 9ustified. 1t does not lea"e open any alternati"e channel of communication to gather the type of information obtained through exit polling. 4n the other hand, there are other "alid and reasonable #ays and means to achie"e the Comelec end of a"oiding or minimi!ing disorder and confusion that may be brought about by exit sur"eys. =or instance, a specific limited area for conducting exit polls may be designated. 4nly professional sur"ey groups may be allo#ed to conduct the same. $ollsters may be :ept at a reasonable distance from the "oting center. They may be re;uired to explain to "oters that the latter may refuse to be inter"ie#ed, and that the inter"ie# is not part of the official balloting process. The pollsters may further be re;uired to #ear distincti"e clothing that #ould sho# they are not election officials. Additionally, they may be re;uired to underta:e an information campaign on the nature of the exercise and the results to be obtained therefrom. These measures, together #ith a general prohibition of disrupti"e beha"ior, could ensure a clean, safe and orderly election.
.-+/

=or its part, $etitioner AB3 CBN explains its sur"ey methodology as follo#s? (,) communities are randomly selected in each pro"inceE (0) residences to be polled in such communities are also chosen at randomE (@) only indi"iduals #ho ha"e already "oted, as sho#n by the indelible in: on their fingers, are inter"ie#edE (-) the inter"ie#ers use no cameras of any sortE (') the poll results are released to the public only on the day after the elections. These precautions, together #ith
.-*/

the possible measures earlier stated, may be underta:en to abate the ComelecAs fear, #ithout conse;uently and un9ustifiably stilling the peopleAs "oice. >ith the foregoing premises, #e conclude that the interest of the state in reducing disruption is out#eighed by the drastic abridgment of the constitutionally guaranteed rights of the media and the electorate. Quite the contrary, instead of disrupting elections, exit polls properly conducted and publici!ed can be "ital tools for the holding of honest, orderly, peaceful and credible electionsE and for the elimination of election fixing, fraud and other electoral ills. Violation of #allot Secrecy The contention of public respondent that exit polls indirectly transgress the sanctity and the secrecy of the ballot is off tangent to the real issue. $etitioner does not see: access to the ballots cast by the "oters. The ballot system of "oting is not at issue here. The reason behind the principle of ballot secrecy is to a"oid "ote buying through "oter identification. Thus, "oters are prohibited from exhibiting the contents of their official ballots to other persons, from ma:ing copies thereof, or from putting distinguishing mar:s thereon so as to be identified. Also proscribed is finding out the contents of the ballots cast by particular "oters or disclosing those of disabled or illiterate "oters #ho ha"e been assisted. Clearly, #hat is forbidden is the association of "oters #ith their respecti"e "otes, for the purpose of assuring that the "otes ha"e been cast in accordance #ith the instructions of a third party. This result cannot, ho#e"er, be achie"ed merely through the "otersA "erbal and confidential disclosure to a pollster of #hom they ha"e "oted for. 1n exit polls, the contents of the official ballot are not actually exposed. =urthermore, the re"elation of #hom an elector has "oted for is not compulsory, but "oluntary. 6oters may also choose not to re"eal their identities. 1ndeed, narro#ly tailored countermeasures may be prescribed by the Comelec, so as to minimi!e or suppress incidental problems in the conduct of exit polls, #ithout transgressing the fundamental rights of our people. 01"R"*OR", the $etition is G%A $(&, and the Temporary %estraining 4rder issued by the Court on <ay *, ,**+ is made P(%MA ( $. Assailed <inute %esolution No. *+ ,-,* issued by the Comelec en bancon April 0,, ,**+ is hereby "))!F!(& and S($ AS!&(. No costs. SO ORD"R"D. &avide, *r., C*., Bellosillo, Puno, +uisumbing, Purisima, Buena, Gonzaga,%eyes, -nares, Santiago, and &e )eon *r., **., concur. Melo, *., 9oins separate opinion of G. 6itug. Vitug, *., see separate opinion. .a#unan, *., see dissenting opinion.

Mendoza, *., 9oins separate opinion of G. 6itug. Pardo, *., no part.

%ollo, p. ,-. !bid. >ords in parentheses in the originalE those in brac:ets supplied. .@/ $etition, p. -. .-/ %ollo, p. B+ et se;. .'/ This case #as deemed submitted for resolution on Ganuary ,*, ,***, upon receipt by the Court of the <emorandum for the %espondent .&/ 3ee 8amboa Gr. ". Aguirre Gr., 8% No. ,@-0,@, Guly 0C, ,***. .B/ ,@- 3C%A -@+, -&@, =ebruary ,+, ,*+'E per 8utierre! Gr., *. .+/ 3olis v. N5%C, 0&@ 3C%A &0*, 4ctober 0+, ,**&. .*/ Hurbano 3r. v. N5%C, 00+ 3C%A ''&, 7ecember ,B, ,**@. .,C/ Alfante v. N5%C, 0+@ 3C%A @-C, 7ecember ,', ,**BE 3aldana v. Court of Appeals, ,*C 3C%A @+&, 4ctober ,,, ,**C. .,,/ %epublic v. 3andiganbayan, 0&* 3C%A @,&, <arch B, ,**BE 8elmart 1ndustries $hils., 1nc. v. N5%C, ,B& 3C%A 0*', August ,C, ,*+*E $hilippine Air 5ines Employees Association v. $hilippine Air 5ines, 1nc., ,,, 3C%A 0,', Ganuary @C, ,*+0. .,0/ 23ec. 0. The congress shall pro"ide a system for securing the secrecy and sanctity of the ballot x x x.2 .,@/ Citing II ,*', ,*&, 0CB and 0&, (! ', B J ,&) .,-/ 3alonga v. Cru! $aKo, supra, pp. -'+ -'*. 3ee also 8on!ales v. Comelec, 0B 3C%A +@', +-*, +'& +'B, April ,+, ,*&*E $hilippine Blooming <ills Employees 4rgani!ation v. $hilippine Blooming <ills Co., 1nc., ', 3C%A ,*,, Gune ', ,*B@E National $ress Club v. Comelec, 0CB 3C%A ,, *, <arch ', ,**0E Blo Dmpar Adiong v. Comelec, 0CB 3C%A B,0, B,', <arch @,, ,**0. .,'/ I -, Art. 111 of the Constitution. .,&/ Su#ra, p. +'&, per =ernando, *. (later C*) .,B/ !bid., p. +'BE citing Emerson, to#ard a 8eneral Theory of the =irst Amendment (,*&&) .,+/ !bid., citing Ne# Lor: Times Co. v. 3ulli"an, @B& D3 0'-, 0BC (,*&-) .,*/ D3 v. 3ch#immer, 0B* D3 &-- (,*0*) .0C/ !bid., p. +'+. .0,/ Badoy Gr. v. Comelec, @' 3C%A 0+', 0+*, 4ctober ,B, ,*BC. .00/ ,C0 $hil ,'0, 4ctober ,+, ,*'B, per Bautista Angelo, *. .0@/ !bid., p. ,&,. .0-/ !bid., citing 8itlo# v. Ne# Lor:, 0&+ D3 &'0, &* 5 ed. ,,@+ (,*0') .0'/ +C $hil B, (,*-+) .0&/ ,C, $hil @+& (,*'B) .0B/ 0+ 3C%A @',, <ay 0&, ,*&*. .0+/ @, 3C%A B@,, =ebruary 0&, ,*BC. .0*/ @' 3C%A 0+, 3eptember ,,, ,*BC. .@C/ Su#ra. .@,/ 0'* 3C%A '0*, Guly 0&, ,**&. .@0/ Cabansag v. =ernande!, su#raE citing 3chenc: v. D3, 0-* D3 -B (,*,*) .@@/ 8on!ales v. Comelec, su#ra, pp. +&C +&,. .@-/ Adiong v. Comelec, su#ra. .@'/ 1glesia ni Cristo v. Court of Appeals, su#raE 8on!ales v. Matigba:, ,@B 3C%A B,B, Guly 00, ,*+'. .@&/ 1glesia ni Cristo v. Court of Appeals, su#ra, pp. '-' '-&E citing Near v. <innesota, 0+@ D3 &*B (,*@,)E Bantam boo:s, 1nc. v. 3ulli"an, @B0 D3 '+ (,*&@)E and Ne# Lor: Times Co. v. 3ulli"an, su#ra. .@B/ Blo Dmpar Adiong v. Comelec, su#ra. 3ee also National $ress Club v. Comelec, su#ra. .@+/ Adiong v. Comelec, su#ra. .@*/ 8on!ales v. Comelec, su#ra, p. +B,, citing 3helton v. Tuc:er, @&- D3 -B*, -++. .-C/ <utuc v. Comelec, @& 3C%A 00+, 0@@ @-, No"ember 0&, ,*BCE per =ernando, *. (later C*)
.,/ .0/

!bid., p. 0@&. Adiong v. Comelec, su#ra. .-@/ Exit $olls and the =irst Amendment, *+ Har"ard 5a# %e"ie# ,*0B (,*+') .--/ 3ee CB3 v. 3mith, &+, =. 3upp. B*- (37 =la. ,*++) .-'/ 3ee I 0&, (d, e, f, : J ! ,,). 3ee also Arts. ,-+, ,-* J ,'@ of the %e"ised $enal Code. .-&/ +@+ = 0d @+C (*th Cir. ,*++) .-B/ !bid., citing <ills v. Alabama, @+- D3 0,-, 0,+ 0C, +& 3 Ct. ,-@-, ,-@& @B, ,& 5 Ed. 0d -+- (,*&&)E 6anasco v. 3ch#art!, -C, = 3upp. +B, ,CC (37NL ,*B'), affNd mem., -0@ Ds ,C-,, *& 3 Ct. B&@, -& 5 Ed. 0d &@C (,*B&) .-+/ Exit $olls and the =irst Amendment, su#ra, p. ,*@'. .-*/ $etitionerNs <emorandum, p. ,'.
.-,/ .-0/