Summary of the Decision 1. Judgment on the POEA Provision The POEA Provision authorizes the Deliberation Commission to determine and pronounce matters necessary to ensure fairness of online election news reports. Banning online media from publishing columns, etc. written by election candidates for a certain period and subsequently limiting the Complainant’s freedom of speech is based on the Time Restriction Provisions. The POEA Provision itself is not regarded to have directly infringed upon the fundamental right of the Complainant. Thus, the complaint over the POEA Provision is inadmissible as it does not fulfill the directness requirement for constitutional fundamental right infringement. 2. Judgment on the Time Restriction Provisions a. Violation of Statutory Reservation Principle The Time Restriction Provisions were grounded in law, being delegated by the POEA Provision and Article 8-5 Section 9, etc. of the Public Official Election Act. The Time Restriction Provisions do not preemptively prohibit online media from publishing columns, etc. written by an election candidate. Instead, they regulate the online media to voluntarily follow the rules and correct violations, if any, afterwards. This is to widely ensure both freedom of election news reports and fairness of online election news reports. Therefore, it is acknowledged that the mother law needs to somehow broadly delegate the matters that should be included in the Deliberation Standard Provision. In the meantime, publishing columns, etc. that a candidate wrote for the online media when the election nears would likely undermine the fairness in the election news reports and, accordingly, the Deliberation Standard Provision needs to impose restrictions on such publication. The Public Official Election Act has various restrictions as of 90 days before the election and the Time Restriction Provisions are regulated by the 90-day time limit to respect the purpose. Thus, the Time Restriction Provisions do not violate the principle of statutory reservation or infringe upon the Complainant’s freedom of speech. 3