The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Renato Guevarra, a radio commentator and candidate for councilor, for violating election laws by using his radio program to campaign and malign opponents without taking a leave of absence. This decision underscores that media practitioners who are also political candidates must adhere to regulations ensuring fair and equal opportunities for all candidates during elections. The ruling reinforces the importance of maintaining impartiality in media broadcasts during campaign periods, preventing unfair advantages, and safeguarding the integrity of the electoral process.

The Anchorman Candidate: Must Media Professionals Step Aside for Fair Elections?

Renato Guevarra, a candidate for councilor in Butuan City, found himself in legal trouble after allegedly using his radio program to promote his candidacy and attack his political rivals. The case hinged on whether Guevarra, as a radio commentator, violated Section 34 of COMELEC Resolution No. 10049, which requires media practitioners running for office to take a leave of absence during the campaign period. The central legal question was whether Guevarra’s actions constituted a breach of election laws designed to ensure fairness and impartiality in media coverage of political campaigns.

The prosecution presented evidence that Guevarra, during his radio program Batang Butuan: Oras Na! Raon Na, aired on Radyo Trumpeta, not only promoted his own candidacy but also made disparaging remarks against incumbent Congressman Laurence Lemuel A. Fortun. Witnesses testified that Guevarra referred to Fortun with derogatory terms such as “Lawig Traydor,” “ignorant,” and “corrupt.” The recordings of these broadcasts became key evidence, leading the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to conclude that Guevarra was indeed the program’s anchorman and commentator, not merely a guest as he claimed. This finding was crucial, as it placed Guevarra squarely within the ambit of COMELEC Resolution No. 10049.

Guevarra defended himself by arguing that he had resigned from his position as a radio commentator years before the election period. He presented a resignation letter and testimonies from colleagues to support his claim. However, the RTC and later the Court of Appeals (CA) found these arguments unconvincing. The courts noted that even if Guevarra had resigned, his active participation in the radio program during the campaign period, directing the show and introducing guests, indicated a clear violation of election laws. The courts emphasized that media practitioners, even if not formally employed, are prohibited from using their platforms to favor any candidate or party.

The Supreme Court, in its decision, upheld the CA’s ruling, emphasizing the importance of the rule respecting the immutability of final judgments. Citing Bernardo vs. Court of Appeals, the Court acknowledged exceptions to this rule only in rare cases to prevent a miscarriage of justice. However, the Court found no such exceptional circumstances in Guevarra’s case that would warrant overturning the lower courts’ decisions. The Court also addressed Guevarra’s claim that the CA erred in not sending its Resolution to his proper address, noting that while the CA had been remiss, service to his counsel of record, Atty. Casiño, was sufficient notice.

The Court’s analysis delved into the provisions of Republic Act No. 9006 and COMELEC Resolution No. 10049, highlighting that these laws contemplate two classes of offenders. The first includes media practitioners who are candidates, party-list nominees, or campaign volunteers, who must take a leave of absence during the campaign period. The second includes media practitioners who are officials or members of a campaign staff, who are prohibited from using their time or space to favor any candidate or party. The Court found that Guevarra fell under the first category, as he was a candidate actively practicing his profession during the campaign period without taking the required leave of absence.

Justice Leonen, in his concurring opinion, emphasized the significance of free speech in a democratic society but also underscored the need to regulate its exercise to ensure fair elections. He argued that the prohibition against commentator-candidates practicing their profession during the campaign period is designed to protect free speech to the benefit of all candidates, media practitioners, and the electorate. Allowing commentator-candidates to continue their media-related professions would create an unfair advantage, monopolizing channels of expression and undermining the principle of equal opportunity.

Building on this principle, Justice Leonen highlighted that preventing commentator-candidates from practicing their profession encourages the right of people to participate in public affairs and criticize candidates. The marketplace of ideas is democratized rather than skewed in favor of a few. This approach contrasts with a scenario where commentator-candidates dominate airtime, impairing the speech of other candidates and the public. The very candidates who should be the subject of political speech should not control the available fora.

The practical implications of this case are significant. It serves as a reminder to media practitioners aspiring for public office that they must strictly adhere to election laws designed to ensure fairness and impartiality. Failure to do so can result in criminal liability. This ruling also reinforces the Commission on Elections’ (COMELEC) mandate to regulate media activities during campaign periods to prevent undue influence and ensure a level playing field for all candidates. The COMELEC’s regulatory powers are essential to safeguarding the integrity of the electoral process and upholding the principles of democracy.

Moreover, the decision has implications for media organizations. They must be vigilant in ensuring that their employees who are also candidates comply with election laws. Media outlets should implement internal policies and guidelines to prevent the misuse of their platforms for partisan political activities. This proactive approach is crucial to maintaining public trust and credibility in the media.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Guevarra v. Court of Appeals reaffirms the importance of balancing freedom of speech with the need for fair and equal opportunities in elections. The ruling underscores that media practitioners who are also political candidates must take a leave of absence from their media-related professions during the campaign period to avoid any appearance of bias or undue influence. This decision serves as a crucial reminder to media professionals, candidates, and the public about the importance of maintaining impartiality and integrity in the electoral process.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether a radio commentator, who was also a candidate for councilor, violated election laws by using his radio program to campaign and malign opponents without taking a leave of absence.
What election law did Guevarra violate?	Guevarra was found guilty of violating Section 34 of COMELEC Resolution No. 10049, in relation to Section 13 of Republic Act No. 9006 and Section 264 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881.
What is the requirement for media practitioners running for office?	Media practitioners who are candidates for any elective public office must either be deemed resigned or take a leave of absence from their work during the campaign period, as required by their employer.
Did Guevarra take a leave of absence?	No, the courts found that Guevarra did not take a leave of absence and was actively practicing his profession as a radio commentator during the campaign period.
What was Guevarra’s defense?	Guevarra claimed that he had resigned from his position as a radio commentator and was merely a guest on the radio program during the campaign period.
Why did the courts reject Guevarra’s defense?	The courts found that the evidence, particularly the recordings of the radio program, showed that Guevarra was the program’s anchorman and commentator, not merely a guest.
What is the purpose of the law that Guevarra violated?	The law aims to ensure fair and equal opportunities for all candidates during elections by preventing media practitioners from using their platforms to favor any candidate or party.
What was the Supreme Court’s ruling?	The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts’ decisions, finding Guevarra guilty of violating election laws and upholding the importance of maintaining impartiality in media broadcasts during campaign periods.

This case highlights the stringent requirements placed on media practitioners who seek public office in the Philippines. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the critical need for these individuals to adhere to election laws, ensuring that their professional activities do not compromise the fairness and integrity of the electoral process. This ruling serves as a guidepost for future cases, promoting a more transparent and equitable political landscape.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Guevarra v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 276682, February 10, 2025