Post

Rappler, Inc. vs. Andres D. Bautista

Posted
By Anonymous
6 min read
Rappler, Inc. vs. Andres D. Bautista

Case Title and Citation

Rappler, Inc., petitioner, vs. Andres D. Bautista, respondent.
G.R. No. 222702, April 5, 2016
Supreme Court - En Banc
Ponente: Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio

Facts

  • On September 21, 2015, respondent (COMELEC Chairman) called a meeting with various media outlets to discuss the “PiliPinas 2016 Debates.” Respondent proposed that Rappler and Google handle online and social media engagement and announced KBP would coordinate media entities.
  • On September 22, 2015, petitioner Rappler sent a draft for broadcast pool guidelines to COMELEC and KBP.
  • On October 19, 2015, a meeting at the COMELEC office discussed a draft Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). The draft dropped petitioner and Google from online participation in favor of online outlets owned by the Lead Networks.
  • The MOA, executed on January 13, 2016 by COMELEC (through respondent), KBP, Lead Networks (ABS-CBN, GMA, Nine Media, TV5) and various print partners, designated KBP as Debate Coordinator and named Lead Networks for each debate.
  • Sponsors and schedules under the MOA:
    1. GMA and Philippine Daily Inquirer — presidential debate in Mindanao, February 21, 2016.
    2. TV5, Philippine Star, BusinessWorld — presidential debate in the Visayas, March 20, 2016.
    3. ABS-CBN and Manila Bulletin — presidential debate in Luzon, April 24, 2016.
    4. CNN Philippines (Nine Media), Business Mirror, and Rappler — sole vice-presidential debate, April 10, 2016.
  • Petitioner received the draft MOA on the evening of January 12, 2016 and executed the MOA on January 13, 2016 after being told time was of the essence. Petitioner raised concerns about online streaming and a two-minute maximum excerpt limit for news reporting but received no satisfactory response from respondent or the Commissioners.
  • Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition seeking to nullify Part VI(C), paragraph 19 and Part VI(D), paragraph 20 of the MOA for being executed without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion and for violating petitioner’s constitutional rights; and prayed for injunctive relief pending resolution.

Issues

  1. Did the COMELEC act without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in executing Part VI(C), paragraph 19 of the MOA (online streaming clause)?
  2. Did the COMELEC act without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in executing Part VI(D), paragraph 20 of the MOA (two-minute excerpt limit for news reporting/fair use)?
  3. Should the Court entertain the petition despite alleged procedural defects (improper remedy), given the public importance and urgency of the issues?

Ruling

  1. No - The Court directed the COMELEC Chairman to implement Part VI(C), paragraph 19 of the MOA, holding that the clause allowing debates to be shown or streamed on other websites is permissible and must be implemented subject to applicable copyright conditions and clear source attribution.
  2. No - The Court did not grant the petition to nullify Part VI(D), paragraph 20; relief with respect to that paragraph was not granted in this Resolution.
  3. Yes - The Court exercised its discretion to resolve the petition despite procedural defects because of the public importance of the issues and the time-sensitive nature of the upcoming debates.

Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi

  • The MOA’s Part VI(C), paragraph 19 expressly allows the debates produced by the Lead Networks “to be shown or streamed on other websites” but makes this allowance “subject to copyright conditions or separate negotiations with the Lead Networks.”
  • Section 184.1(c) of the Intellectual Property Code (copyright limitations) provides that the reproduction or communication to the public by mass media of addresses and similar works delivered in public does not constitute infringement if:
    1. Use is for information purposes;
    2. The work has not been expressly reserved by the copyright holder;
    3. The source is clearly indicated.
  • The Court interpreted the MOA’s allowance for streaming as evidence that the Lead Networks did not “expressly reserve” reproduction of the debates; therefore, the three conditions in Section 184.1(c) apply.
  • Petitioner’s proposed live streaming satisfies condition (1) (information purpose) and can satisfy condition (3) by clearly indicating the Lead Network as source. Condition (2) is satisfied by the MOA’s express allowance for streaming.
  • The Court held that once the Section 184.1(c) conditions are met, the debates may be communicated by mass media without constituting copyright infringement; this implicates freedom of the press (Section 4, Article III of the Constitution) and the public interest in widest possible dissemination for voter education.
  • The MOA also recognizes COMELEC’s supervisory role and obligation to “resolve issues that may arise” and to promote maximum audience, supporting the Court’s directive that COMELEC implement the online-streaming clause.
  • The Court cited precedent and exercised remedial flexibility (citing GMA Network, Inc. v. Commission on Elections) to hear the petition despite remedy technicalities due to urgency and public interest.

Doctrine / Legal Principle

  • The limitations in Section 184.1(c) of the Intellectual Property Code permit mass media reproduction or communication of public addresses for information purposes where the work is not expressly reserved and the source is indicated.
  • MOA provisions that expressly allow reproduction or streaming operate as a waiver or non-reservation for purposes of Section 184.1(c).
  • Freedom of the press protects dissemination of information of public interest and limits prior restraint on publication, especially in the context of election debates intended to inform the electorate.
  • The COMELEC has supervisory authority to organize debates and resolve disputes among participating media entities; courts may act urgently on election-related matters despite procedural imperfections.

Disposition

  • The petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED.
  • Respondent Andres D. Bautista, as Chairman of the COMELEC, is directed to implement Part VI(C), paragraph 19 of the MOA, permitting the debates to be shown or live streamed unaltered on petitioner’s and other websites, subject to the copyright condition that the source is clearly indicated.
  • The Resolution is immediately executory.
  • The petition’s relief as to Part VI(D), paragraph 20 (the two-minute excerpt limit) was not granted in this Resolution.

Concurring / Dissenting Opinions

  • Concurring opinion: Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen.
  • No dissenting opinion noted in the Resolution; the decision records concurrence of the listed Justices.

Significance / Notes

  • Practical effect: Online media entities (including petitioner) may live stream the debates in their entirety without infringing copyright provided they comply with Section 184.1(c) conditions: information purpose, absence of an express reservation, and clear source attribution.
  • If an online outlet seeks a clean feed without Lead Network proprietary graphics or wishes to alter audio (e.g., remove ads), separate negotiation with the Lead Network is required.
  • Reinforces that election debates are matters of public interest warranting the widest dissemination and strengthened protection under freedom of the press.
  • Confirms that the Court will relax technical remedy requirements in matters of urgent public importance and election timing, citing prior practice in GMA Network, Inc. v. Commission on Elections.
  • The COMELEC retains responsibility to implement the MOA provisions and to resolve inter-party issues in organizing debates.
Election Law Freedom of Speech Judicial Review
This post is licensed under CC BY 4.0 by the author.