Case Digest (G.R. No. 132231)
Facts:
In G.R. No. 132231 decided on March 31, 1998, petitioners Emilio M.R. Osmeña (presidential candidate) and Pablo P. Garcia (incumbent governor of Cebu) filed a petition for prohibition before the Supreme Court en banc. They challenged the constitutionality of Section 11(b) of R.A. No. 6646 (Electoral Reforms Law of 1987), which prohibits mass media entities from selling or donating print space or air time for campaign or political purposes to anyone other than the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). Petitioners argued that, despite the Court’s earlier decision in National Press Club v. Commission on Elections (207 SCRA 1 [1992]) upholding this provision, five years of experience showed the ban failed to equalize the playing field and in fact disadvantaged less-affluent candidates who cannot otherwise afford alternative campaign methods. They presented no empirical data, relying on theoretical argument. COMELEC and intervener Roger Panotes (a mayoral candidate) defended the law, wi...Case Digest (G.R. No. 132231)
Facts:
- Background
- Petitioners Emilio M. R. Osmeña (Presidential candidate) and Pablo P. Garcia (incumbent Cebu governor seeking re-election) challenged the validity of Section 11(b), R.A. No. 6646 (1987 Electoral Reforms Law).
- Section 11(b) prohibits newspapers, radio/TV stations or other mass media from selling or giving free print space or airtime for campaign or political purposes except to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC).
- Proceedings
- Petitioners filed for prohibition and declaratory relief before filing their certificates of candidacy, asserting standing as taxpayers, voters and prospective candidates.
- They asked the Court to re-examine National Press Club v. COMELEC (207 SCRA 1, 1992), which had upheld Section 11(b) against free-speech challenges.
- COMELEC defended Section 11(b) by pointing to its complementary mandate under the Omnibus Election Code to procure and allocate “COMELEC Space” (Sec. 90) in print and “COMELEC Time” (Sec. 92) on broadcast media, free of charge and equally among candidates.
Issues:
- Whether Section 11(b), R.A. No. 6646, abridges freedom of speech, expression or press guaranteed by Article III, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution.
- Whether the prohibition constitutes an unconstitutional prior restraint or content-based regulation of political speech.
- Whether the COMELEC’s scheme of procuring and allocating media space and time (COMELEC Space/Time) adequately offsets any incidental burden on candidates’ freedom of expression.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)