10. Osmena v Comelec

Embed Size (px)

Text of 10. Osmena v Comelec

  • 7/24/2019 10. Osmena v Comelec


    /---!e-library! 6.0 Philippines Copyright 2000 by Sony Valdez---\

    ["V2#2$%& [/'& $()*)+ (.,. +S($ and P*+ P. ,C)1 petitioners1 s. 34$C+(()SS)+5 +5 $*$C3)+5S1 respondent." (ar $n an7.,. 5o. 22% $ C) S ) + 5

    ($5%+81 9:

    3his is a petition ;or prohibition1 seeination o; the alidity o; [email protected] o;,.. 5o. 66#61 the $le7toral ,e;or>s *aB o; "1 Bhi7h prohibits >ass >edia ;ro>selling or giing ;ree o; 7harge print spa7e or air ti>e ;or 7a>paign or other politi7alpDrposes1 e=7ept to the Co>>ission on $le7tions. Petitioners are 7andidates ;orpDbli7 oE7e in the ;orth7o>ing ele7tions. Petitioner $>ilio (. ,. +s>eFa is7andidate ;or President o; the Philippines1 Bhile petitioner Pablo P. ar7ia isgoernor o; CebD Proin7e1 see>ission on $le7tions 2 Ghae 7alled into HDestion

    the alidity o; the ery pre>ises o; that [de7ision&.G 3here )s 5o Case or Controersy to %e7ide1

    +nly an 7ade>i7 %is7Dssion to 4old

    5PC . C+($*$C Dpheld the alidity o; ? @bA o; ,.. 5o. 66#6 against 7lai>s thatit abridged ;reedo> o; spee7h and o; the press. # )n Drging a ree=a>ination o; thatrDling1 petitioners 7lai> that e=perien7e in the last Ie years sin7e the de7ision inthat 7ase has shoBn the GDndesirable eJe7tsG o; the laB be7aDse Gthe ban onpoliti7al adertising has not only ;ailed to leel the playing Ield1 [bDt& a7tDallyBor

  • 7/24/2019 10. Osmena v Comelec


    7ontrary to the holding in 5PC 1 [email protected] Borpaign oDtside o; >ass >edia 7anhardly apply to the>. 3heir Inan7ial ability to sDstain a long draBn-oDt 7a>paign1Dsing >eans other than the >ass >edia to 7o>>Dni7ate Bith oters1 7annot bedoDbted. ); at all1 it is 7andidates liayor o; %aet1 Ca>arines 5orte1 Bho 7an 7o>plain against [email protected] o; ,.. 5o. 66#6.Dt Panotes is ;or the laB Bhi7h1 he says1 has Gto so>e e=tent1 redD7ed theadantages o; >oneyed politi7ians and parties oer their rials Bho are si>ilarlysitDated as ,+$, P5+3$S.G 4e 7lai>s that Gthe eli>ination o; this sDbstantialadantage is one reason Bhy ,+$, P5+3$S and others si>ilarly sitDated haedared to see< an ele7tie position this 7o>ing ele7tions.G "

    Ohat petitioners see< is not the adMDdi7ation o; a 7ase bDt si>ply the holding o; ana7ade>i7 e=er7ise. nd sin7e a >aMority o; the present CoDrt is DnpersDaded that itsde7ision in 5PC is ;oDnded in error1 it Bill sDE7e ;or present pDrposes si>ply toreaEr> the rDling in that 7ase. Stare de7isis et non HDieta >oere. 3his is Bhat

    >a the oerrDling de7isions inoe ;or the dertising Page and

    Co>>er7ials in (ass (edia

    3he ter> politi7al Gad ban1G Bhen Dsed to des7ribe [email protected] o; ,.. 5o. 66#61 is>isleading1 ;or een as [email protected] prohibits the sale or donation o; print spa7e and airti>e to politi7al 7andidates1 it >andates the C+($*$C to pro7Dre and itsel; allo7ateto the 7andidates spa7e and ti>e in the >edia. 3here is no sDppression o; politi7alads bDt only a regDlation o; the ti>e and >anner o; adertising.

    3hDs1 [email protected] states:

    Prohibited or>s o; $le7tion Propaganda. Q )n addition to the ;or>s o; ele7tionpropaganda prohibited in Se7tion "' o; atas Pa>bansa lg. ""1 it shall beDnlaB;Dl:

    === === ===

    @bA ;or any neBspapers1 radio broad7asting or teleision station1 or other >ass>edia1 or any person >aass >edia to sell or to gie ;ree o; 7harge

  • 7/24/2019 10. Osmena v Comelec


    print spa7e or air ti>e ;or 7a>paign or other politi7al pDrposes e=7ept to theCo>>ission as proided Dnder Se7tion 0 and 2 o; atas Pa>bansa lg. "". ny>ass >edia 7olD>nist1 7o>>entator1 annoDn7er or personality Bho is a 7andidate;or any ele7tie pDbli7 oE7e shall ta his Bor< as sD7hdDring the 7a>paign period.

    +n the other hand1 the +>nibDs $le7tion Code proisions re;erred to in [email protected] read:

    S$C. 0. Co>ele7 spa7e. Q 3he Co>>ission shall pro7Dre spa7e in at least oneneBspaper o; general 7ir7Dlation in eery proin7e or 7ity: Proided1 hoBeer. 3hatin the absen7e o; said neBspaper1 pDbli7ation shall be done in any other >agazineor periodi7al in said proin7e or 7ity1 Bhi7h shall be ele7 Spa7eGBherein 7andidates 7an annoDn7e their 7andida7y. Said spa7e shall be allo7ated1;ree o; 7harge1 eHDally and i>partially by the Co>>ission a>ong all 7andidatesBithin the area in Bhi7h the neBspaper is 7ir7Dlated. @Se7. #'1 " $CA.

    S$C. 2. Co>ele7 ti>e. Q 3he Co>>ission shall pro7Dre radio and teleisionti>e to be ele7 3i>eG Bhi7h shall be allo7ated eHDally andi>partially a>ong the 7andidates Bithin the area o; 7oerage o; all radio andteleision stations. or this pDrpose1 the ;ran7hise o; all radio broad7asting andteleision stations are hereby a>ended so as to proide radio or teleision ti>e1;ree o; 7harge1 dDring the period o; the 7a>paign. @Se7. #61 " $CA

    3he laBNs 7on7ern is not Bith the >essage or 7ontent o; the ad bDt Bith ensDring>edia eHDality betBeen 7andidates Bith Gdeep po7 in his opinion o; the CoDrt in 5PC 1 and those Bith less resoDr7es. 0 3he laB ispart o; a pa7s adopted in ". 7tDally1 si>ilar eJort Bas>ade in 0 to eHDalize the opportDnity o; 7andidates to adertise the>selesand their progra>s o; goern>ent by reHDiring the C+($*$C to hae a C+($*$Cspa7e in neBspapers1 >agazines1 and periodi7als and prohibiting 7andidates toadertise oDtside sD7h spa7e1 Dnless the na>es o; all the other 7andidates in thedistri7t in Bhi7h the 7andidate is rDnning are >entioned GBith eHDal pro>inen7e.G

    3he alidity o; the laB Bas 7hallenged in adoy1 9r. . C+($*$C . 3he oting BaseHDally diided @'-'A1 hoBeer1 Bith the resDlt that the alidity o; the laB Basdee>ed Dpheld.

    3here is a diJeren7e in posed by the ele7tion laB proisions in HDestion in this 7ase and those ;oDnd tobe Dn7onstitDtional in the 7ases 7ited by both petitioners and the Soli7itor eneral1Bho has tapaign de7als andsti7obile Dnits1 alloBing their lo7ation only in the C+($*$C 7o>>onposter area or billboard1 at the 7a>paign headHDarters o; the 7andidate or hispoliti7al party1 or at his residen7e. 3he CoDrt ;oDnd the restri7tion Gso broad that it

  • 7/24/2019 10. Osmena v Comelec


    en7o>passes een the 7itizenNs priate property1 Bhi7h in this 7ase is a priately-oBned 7ar.G 5or Bas there a sDbstantial goern>ental interest MDsti;ying therestri7tion.

    [3&he 7onstitDtional obMe7tie to gie a ri7h 7andidate and a poor 7andidate eHDal

    opportDnity to in;or> the ele7torate as regards their 7andida7ies1 >andated byrti7le ))1 Se7tion 26 and rti7le R)))1 Se7tion ) in relation to rti7le )[email protected] Se7tion # o;the ConstitDtion1 is not i>paired by posting de7als and sti7pared to the para>oDnt interest o; the State in gDaranteeing;reedo> o; e=pression1 any Inan7ial 7onsiderations behind the regDlation are o;>arginal signiI7an7e. #

    (DtD7 . C+($*$C ' is o; a pie7e Bith diong. n order o; the C+($*$Cprohibiting the playing o; taped 7a>paign Mingles throDgh soDnd syste>s >oDntedon >obile Dnits Bas held to be an inalid prior restraint BithoDt any apparentgoern>ental interest to pro>ote1 as the restri7tion did not si>ply regDlate ti>e1

    pla7e or >anner bDt i>posed an absolDte ban on the Dse o; the Mingles. 3heprohibition Bas a7tDally 7ontent-based and Bas ;or that reason bad as a priorrestraint on spee7h1 as inhibiting as prohibiting the 7andidate hi>sel; to Dse theloDdspeanists e=pressing opinion on anissDe in a plebis7ite a 7ontent restri7tion Bhi7h1 Dnless MDstiIed by 7o>pellingreason1 is Dn7onstitDtional. 6

    4ere1 on the other hand1 there is no total ban on politi7al ads1 >D7h less restri7tionon the 7ontent o; the spee7h. ien the ;a7t that print spa7e and air ti>e 7an be7ontrolled or do>inated by ri7h 7andidates to the disadantage o; poor 7andidates1there is a sDbstantial or legiti>ate goern>ental interest MDsti;ying e=er7ise o; the

    regDlatory poBer o; the C+($*$C Dnder rt. )R-C1 ?# o; the ConstitDtion1 Bhi7hproides:

    3he 7o>>ission >ay1 dDring the ele7tion period1 sDperise or regDlate theenMoy>ent or Dtilization o; all ;ran7hises or per>its ;or the operation o;transportation and other pDbli7 Dtilities1 >edia o; 7o>>Dni7ation or in;or>ation1 allgrants1 spe7ial priileges1 or 7on7essions granted by the oern>ent or anysDbdiision1 agen7y1 or instrD>entality thereo;1 in7lDding any goern>ent-oBned or7ontrolled 7orporation or its sDbsidiary. SD7h sDperision or regDlation shall ai> toensDre eHDal opportDnity1 ti>e1 and spa7e1 and the right to reply1 in7lDdingreasonable1 eHDal rates there;or1 ;or pDbli7 in;or>ation 7a>paigns and ;orD>sa>ong 7andidates in 7onne7tion Bith the obMe7tie o; holding ;ree1 orderly1 honest1pea7e;Dl1 and 7redible ele7tions.

    3he proisions in HDestion inole no sDppression o; politi7al ads. 3hey only prohibitthe sale or donation o; print spa7e and air ti>e to 7andidates bDt reHDire theC+($*$C instead to pro7Dre spa7e and ti>e in the >ass >edia ;or allo7ation1 ;reeo; 7harge1 to the 7andidates. )n eJe7t1 dDring the ele7tion period1 the C+($*$C

  • 7/24/2019 10. Osmena v Comelec


    ta>er7ial ti>e o; radio and3V stations and allo7ates these to the 7andidates.

    5or 7an the alidity o; the C+($*$C taporary period bedoDbted. )n PrDneyard Shopping Center . ,obbins1 " it Bas held that a 7oDrt

    order 7o>pelling a priate shopping 7enter to per>it Dse o; a 7orner o; its 7oDrtyard;or the pDrpose o; distribDting pa>phlets or soli7iting signatDres ;or a petitionopposing a L5 resolDtion Bas alid. 3he order neither Dnreasonably i>paired thealDe or Dse o; priate property nor iolated the oBnerNs right not to be 7o>pelledto e=press sDpport ;or any ieBpoint sin7e it 7an alBays disaoB any 7onne7tionBith the >essage.

    +n the other hand1 the alidity o; regDlations o; ti>e1 pla7e and >anner1 Dnder Bell-deIned standards1 is Bell-nigh beyond HDestion. Ohat is inoled here is si>plyregDlation o; this natDre. )nstead o; leaing 7andidates to adertise ;reely in the>ass >edia1 the laB proides ;or allo7ation1 by the C+($*$C1 o; print spa7e and air

    ti>e to gie all 7andidates eHDal ti>e and spa7e ;or the pDrpose o; ensDring G;ree1orderly1 honest1 pea7e;Dl1 and 7redible ele7tions.G

    )n onzales . C+($*$C1 20 the CoDrt sDstained the alidity o; a proision o; ,..5o. #""0 Bhi7h in part reads:

    S$C. '0-. *i>itation Dpon the period o; $le7tion Ca>paign or Partisan Politi7al7tiity. Q )t is DnlaB;Dl ;or any person Bhether or not a oter or 7andidate1 or ;orany groDp1 or asso7iation o; persons1 Bhether or not a politi7al party or politi7al7o>>ittee1 to engage in an ele7tion 7a>paign or partisan politi7al a7tiity e=7eptdDring the period o; one hDndred tBenty days i>>ediately pre7eding an ele7tion

    inoling a pDbli7 oE7e oted ;or at large and ninety days i>>ediately pre7edingan ele7tion ;or any other ele7tie pDbli7 oE7e.

    3he ter> GCandidateG re;ers to any person aspiring ;or or seeinated by any politi7al party as its 7andidate.

    3he ter> G$le7tion Ca>paignG or GPartisan Politi7al 7tiityG re;ers to a7ts designedto hae a 7andidate ele7ted or not or pro>ote the 7andida7y o; a person or personsto a pDbli7 oE7e Bhi7h shall in7lDde:

    @aA or>ing +rganizations1 sso7iations1 ClDbs1 Co>>ittees or other groDps o;persons ;or the pDrpose o; soli7iting otes and/or Dndertapaign orpropaganda ;or or against a party or 7andidate

    @bA 4olding politi7al 7onentions1 7aD7Dses1 7on;eren7es1 >eetings1 rallies1 parades1or other si>ilar asse>blies1 ;or the pDrpose o; soli7iting otes and/or Dndertapaign or propaganda ;or or against a 7andidate or party: . .

  • 7/24/2019 10. Osmena v Comelec


    )n Val>onte . C+($*$C1 2 on the other hand1 the CoDrt Dpheld the alidity o; aC+($*$C resolDtion prohibiting >e>bers o; 7itizen groDps or asso7iations ;ro>entering any polling pla7e e=7ept to ote. )ndeed1 [email protected] $le7tionCode >aeters thereo;.

    3hese de7isions 7o>e doBn to this: the State 7an prohibit 7a>paigning1 oDtside a7ertain period as Bell as 7a>paigning1 Bithin a 7ertain pla7e. or Dnli>itede=penditDre ;or politi7al adertising in the >ass >edia so7rati7 sel;-goern>ent. Ohat is bad is i; the laB prohibits7a>paigning by 7ertain 7andidates be7aDse o; the ieBs e=pressed in the ad.Content regDlation 7annot be done in the absen7e o; any 7o>pelling reason.

    *aB 5arroBly %raBn to it

    ,egDlatory PDrpose

    3he >ain pDrpose o; [email protected] is regDlatory. ny restri7tion on spee7h is onlyin7idental1 and it is no >ore than is ne7essary to a7hiee its pDrpose o; pro>otingeHDality o; opportDnity in the Dse o; >ass >edia ;or politi7al adertising. 3herestri7tion on spee7h1 as pointed oDt in 5PC 1 is li>ited both as to ti>e and as tos7ope.

    Petitioners and the dissenters >ae than the ele7tion period.Petitioners state: G[)&n testing the reasonableness o; a ban on >oDntain-sited be7aDse it is en;or7ed only dDring the Binterseason.G 22 Ohat >aent oDtside the period BoDld >aportantly1 it shoDld be noted that a Gban on >oDntain say 7oDrt >edia to report and 7o>>ent on his person and hisprogra>s1 and >edia in the e=er7ise o; their dis7retion MDst >ight. )t does not1hoBeer1 ;olloB that a 7andidateNs ;reedo> o; e=pression is thereby enhan7ed1 orless abridged. ); Pedro is not alloBed to speaay spea< o; Bhat PedroBishes to say1 the 7Drtail>ent o; PedroNs ;reedo> o; e=pression 7annot be said to beany less li>ited1 MDst be7aDse 9Dan has the ;reedo> to speaise o; this argD>ent is that [email protected] i>poses a ban on >edia politi7aladertising. Ohat petitioners see> to >iss is that the prohibition against paid orsponsored politi7al adertising is only hal; o; the regDlatory ;ra>eBor

  • 7/24/2019 10. Osmena v Comelec


    hal; being the >andate o; the C+($*$C to pro7Dre print spa7e and air ti>e so thatthese 7an be allo7ated ;ree o; 7harge to the 7andidates.

    ,e;or> o; the (arissibleT

    Petitioners argDe that the reasoning o; 5PC is UaBed1 be7aDse it rests on a>is7on7eption that rt. )R-C1 ?# >andates the absolDte eHDality o; all 7andidatesregardless o; Inan7ial statDs1 Bhen Bhat this proision spea1 petitioners HDote the ;olloBing ;ro> theopinion o; the CoDrt Britten by 9Dsti7e eli7iano:

    3he obMe7tie Bhi7h ani>ates Se7tion @bA is the eHDalizing1 as ;ar as pra7ti7able1the sitDations o; ri7h and poor 7andidates by preenting the ;or>er ;ro> enMoyingthe DndDe adantage oJered by hDge 7a>paign GBar 7hests.G 2#

    3he CoDrt >eant eHDalizing >edia a77ess1 as the ;olloBing senten7es Bhi7h Bereo>itted 7learly shoB:

    Se7tion @bA prohibits the sale or donation o; print spa7e and air ti>e G;or7a>paign or other politi7al pDrposesG e=7ept to the Co>>ission on [email protected]>ele7GA. Lpon the other hand1 Se7tions 0 and 2 o; the +>nibDs $le7tion CodereHDire the Co>ele7 to pro7Dre GCo>ele7 spa7eG in neBspapers o; general7ir7Dlation in eery proin7e or 7ity and GCo>ele7 ti>eG on radio and teleisionstations. Drther1 the Co>ele7 is statDtorily 7o>>anded to allo7ate GCo>ele7spa7eG and GCo>ele7 ti>eG on a ;ree o; 7harge1 eHDal and i>partial basis a>ong all7andidates Bithin the area sered by the neBspaper or radio and teleision station

    inoled. 2'

    +n the other hand1 the dissent o; 9Dsti7e ,o>ero in the present 7ase1 in batting ;oran GDninhibited >ar D7ent >ay restri7t the spee7h o; so>e ele>ents in oDrso7iety in order to enhan7e the relatie oi7e o; the others is Bholly ;oreign to theirst >end>ent Bhi7h Bas designed to Gse7Dre the Bidest possible disse>inationo; in;or>ation ;ro> dierse and antagonisti7 soDr7esG and Gto assDre Dn;etteredinter7hange o; ideas ;or the bringing aboDt o; politi7al and so7ial 7hanges desired bythe people.G 26

    Dt do Be really beliee in thatT 3hat state>ent Bas >ade to MDsti;y striit on 7a>paign e=penditDre on the theory that >oney is spee7h. %o those Bhoendorse the ieB that goern>ent >ay not restri7t the spee7h o; so>e in order toenhan7e the relatie oi7e o; others also thin< that the 7a>paign e=penditDreli>itation ;oDnd in oDr ele7tion laBs 2 is Dn7onstitDtionalT 4oB aboDt the prin7ipleo; one person1 one ote1 2" is this not based on the politi7al eHDality o; otersTVoting a;ter all is spee7h. Oe spea< o; it as the oi7e o; the people Q een o; od.

  • 7/24/2019 10. Osmena v Comelec


    3he notion that the goern>ent >ay restri7t the spee7h o; so>e in order toenhan7e the relatie oi7e o; others >ay be ;oreign to the >eri7an ConstitDtion. )tis not to the Philippine ConstitDtion1 being in ;a7t an ani>ating prin7iple o; thatdo7D>ent.

    )ndeed1 rt. )R-C1 ?# is not the only proision in the ConstitDtion >andating politi7aleHDality. rt. R)))1 ? reHDires Congress to gie the Ghighest priorityG to theena7t>ent o; >easDres designed to redD7e politi7al ineHDalities1 Bhile rt. ))1 ?26de7lares as a ;Dnda>ental prin7iple o; oDr goern>ent GeHDal a77ess toopportDnities ;or pDbli7 seri7e.G 77ess to pDbli7 oE7e Bill be denied to poor7andidates i; they 7annot een hae a77ess to >ass >edia in order to rea7h theele7torate. Ohat ;ortress prin7iple trD>ps or oerrides these proisions ;or politi7aleHDalityT

    Lnless the idealis> and hopes Bhi7h Ired the i>agination o; those Bho ;ra>ed theConstitDtion noB appear di> to Ds1 hoB 7an the ele7toral re;or>s adopted by the>

    to i>ple>ent the ConstitDtion1 o; Bhi7h [email protected] o; ,.. 5o. 66#61 in relation to ??0and 2 are part1 be 7onsidered in;ringe>ents on ;reedo> o; spee7hT 3hat the;ra>ers 7onte>plated regDlation o; politi7al propaganda si>ilar to [email protected] is 7lear;ro> the ;olloBing portion o; the sponsorship spee7h o; Co>>issioner Vi7ente .oz:

    (,. +8. . . ,egarding the regDlation by the Co>>ission o; the enMoy>ent orDtilization o; ;ran7hises or per>its ;or the operation o; transportation and otherpDbli7 Dtilities1 >edia o; 7o>>Dni7ation or in;or>ation1 all grants1 spe7ial priilegesor 7on7essions granted by the oern>ent1 there is a proision that dDring theele7tion period1 the Co>>ission >ay regDlate1 a>ong other things1 the rates1

    reasonable ;ree spa7e1 and ti>e allot>ents ;or pDbli7 in;or>ation 7a>paigns and;orD>s a>ong 7andidates ;or the pDrpose o; ensDring ;ree1 orderly1 honest andpea7e;Dl ele7tions. 3his has to do Bith the >edia o; 7o>>Dni7ation or in;or>ation.2

    +n the Clai> that the ,e;or>s

    4ae een )neJe7tDal

    Petitioners 7ontend that [email protected] is not a reasonable >eans ;or a7hieing the pDrpose;or Bhi7h it Bas ena7ted. 3hey 7lai> that instead o; leelling the playing Ield as ;ar

    as the Dse o; >ass >edia ;or politi7al 7a>paign is 7on7erned1 [email protected] has abolishedit. 3hey ;Drther 7lai> that [email protected] does not preent ri7h 7andidates ;ro> Dsing theirsDperior resoDr7es to the disadantage o; poor 7andidates.

    ll this is o; 7oDrse >ere allegation. s stated in the beginning1 Bhat petitioners7lai> to be the nationNs e=perien7e Bith the laB is >erely argD>entation against itsalidity. 3he 7lai> Bill not bear analysis1 hoBeer. ssD>ing that ri7h 7andidates7an spend ;or parades1 rallies1 >otor7ades1 airplanes and the li

  • 7/24/2019 10. Osmena v Comelec


    7a>paign Bhile poor 7andidates 7an only aJord politi7al ads1 the gap betBeen thetBo Bill not ne7essarily be redD7ed by alloBing Dnli>ited >ass >edia adertisingbe7aDse ri7h 7andidates 7an spend ;or other propaganda in addition to >ass >ediaadertising. (oreoer1 it is not trDe that [email protected] has abolished the playing Ield. Ohatit has done1 as already stated1 is >erely to regDlate its Dse throDgh C+($*$C-

    sponsored adertising in pla7e o; adertise>ents paid ;or by 7andidates or donatedby their sDpporters.

    )t is Inally argDed that C+($*$C Spa7e and C+($*$C 3i>e are ineJe7tDal. )t is7lai>ed that people hardly read or Bat7h or listen to the>. gain1 this is a ;a7tDalassertion BithoDt any e>piri7al basis to sDpport it. Ohat is >ore1 it is an assertion7on7erning the adeHDa7y or ne7essity o; the laB Bhi7h shoDld be addressed toCongress. Oell-settled is the rDle that the 7hoi7e o; re>edies ;or an ad>itted so7ial>alady reHDiring goern>ent a7tion belongs to Congress. 3he re>edy pres7ribedby it1 Dnless 7learly shoBn to be repDgnant to ;Dnda>ental laB1 >Dst be respe7ted.0 s shoBn in this 7ase1 [email protected] o; ,.. 66#6 is a per>issible restri7tion on the

    ;reedo> o; spee7h1 o; e=pression and o; the press.

    %issenting1 9Dsti7e Panganiban argDes that adertising is the >ost eJe7tie >eanso; rea7hing oters. 4e aderts to a >ani;estation o; the C+($*$C laByer that theCo>>ission Gis not pro7Dring [Co>ele7 Spa7e& by irtDe o; the eJe7ts o; thede7ision o; this 4onorable CoDrt in the 7ase o; Philippine Press )nstitDte @PP)A s.Co>ele71 2## SC, 22.G

    3o be sDre1 this CoDrt did not hold in PP) . C+($*$C that it shoDld not pro7DreneBspaper spa7e ;or allo7ation to 7andidates. Ohat it rDled is that the C+($*$C7annot pro7Dre print spa7e BithoDt paying MDst 7o>pensation. Ohether by its

    >ani;estation the C+($*$C >eant it is not going to bDy print spa7e or only that itBill not reHDire neBspapers to donate ;ree o; 7harge print spa7e is not 7lear ;ro>the >ani;estation. )t is to be presD>ed that the C+($*$C1 in a77ordan7e Bith its>andate Dnder ?@bA o; ,.. 5o. 66#6 and ?0 o; the +>nibDs $le7tion Code1 Billpro7Dre print spa7e ;or allo7ation to 7andidates1 paying MDst 7o>pensation toneBspapers proiding print spa7e.

    )n any eent1 the alidity o; a laB 7annot be >ade to depend on the ;aith;Dl7o>plian7e o; those 7harged Bith its en;or7e>ent bDt by appropriate 7onstitDtionalproisions. 3here is a re>edy ;or sD7h lapse i; it shoDld happen. )n addition1 there isthe C+($*$C 3i>e dDring Bhi7h 7andidates >ay adertise the>seles. ,esolDtion5o. 2"- o; the C+($*$C proides:

    S$C. 2. rant o; GCo>ele7 3i>e.G Q $ery radio broad7asting1 and teleision stationoperating Dnder ;ran7hise shall grant the Co>>ission1 Dpon pay>ent o; MDst7o>pensation1 at least thirty @0A >inDtes o; pri>e ti>e daily1 to be ele7 3i>eG1 eJe7tie ebrDary 01 " ;or 7andidates ;or President1 Vi7e-

  • 7/24/2019 10. Osmena v Comelec


    President and Senators1 and eJe7tie (ar7h 21 "1 ;or 7andidates ;or lo7alele7tie oE7es1 Dntil (ay 1 ". @$>phasis addedA

    ailDre o; *egislatie ,e>edy espeaade to se7Dre the a>end>ent or een repeal o;[email protected] o; ,.. 5o. 66#6. 5o less than Ie bills 2 Bere Iled in the Senate in the lastsession o; Congress ;or this pDrpose1 bDt they all ;ailed o; passage. Petitioners 7lai>it Bas be7aDse Congress adMoDrned BithoDt a7ting on the>. Dt that is MDst thepoint. Congress obioDsly did not see it It to a7t on the bills be;ore it adMoDrned.

    Oe thDs hae a sitDation in Bhi7h an a7t o; Congress Bas ;oDnd by this CoDrt to bealid so that those opposed to the statDte resorted to the legislatie depart>ent.

    3he latter re7onsidered the HDestion bDt a;ter doing so apparently ;oDnd no reason;or a>ending the statDte and there;ore did not pass any o; the bills Iled to a>end

    or repeal the statDte. (Dst this CoDrt noB grant Bhat Congress denied to the>T 3helegislatie silen7e here 7ertainly bespeaore than ina7tion.

    3est ;or Content-5eDtral ,estri7tions

    )n diong . C+($*$C # this CoDrt HDoted the ;olloBing ;ro> the de7ision o; theL.S. SDpre>e CoDrt in a 7ase sDstaining a *os ngeles City ordinan7e Bhi7hprohibited the posting o; 7a>paign signs on pDbli7 property:

    goern>ent regDlation is sDE7iently MDstiIed i; it is Bithin the 7onstitDtionalpoBer o; the oern>ent1 i; it ;Drthers an i>portant or sDbstantial goern>ental

    interest i; the goern>ental interest is Dnrelated to the sDppression o; ;reee=pression and i; the in7ident restri7tion on alleged irst >end>ent ;reedo>s isno greater than is essential to the ;Drtheran7e o; that interest. @)d.1 at 1 20 * $d2d 621 "" S Ct 6. @City CoDn7il . 3a=payers or Vin7ent1 #66 LS "1 "0 * $d 2d21 0# S Ct 2"["#&A '

    3his test Bas a7tDally ;or>Dlated in Lnited States . +Nrien. 6 )t is an appropriatetest ;or restri7tions on spee7h Bhi7h1 lianding standards.or e=a>ple1 a rDle sD7h as that inoled in Sanidad . C+($*$C 1 prohibiting

    7olD>nists1 7o>>entators1 and annoDn7ers ;ro> 7a>paigning either ;or or againstan issDe in a plebis7ite >Dst hae a 7o>pelling reason to sDpport it1 or it Bill notpass >Dster Dnder stri7t s7rDtiny. 3hese restri7tions1 it Bill be seen1 are 7ensorialand there;ore they bear a heay presD>ption o; 7onstitDtional inalidity. )n addition1they Bill be tested ;or possible oerbreadth and agDeness.

    )t is apparent that these do7trines hae no appli7ation to 7ontent-neDtralregDlations Bhi7h1 li

  • 7/24/2019 10. Osmena v Comelec


    3hese regDlations need only a sDbstantial goern>ental interest to sDpport the>." de;erential standard o; reieB Bill sDE7e to test their alidity.

    9Dsti7e PanganibanNs dissent inoedia ads do not partaent o; the peopleNs 7ardinal right to7hoose their >eans o; e=pression and o; a77ess to in;or>ation.G 3he 7lear-and-present-danger test is not1 hoBeer1 a soereign re>edy ;or all ;ree spee7hproble>s. s has been pointed oDt by a thoDght;Dl stDdent o; 7onstitDtional laB1 itBas originally ;or>Dlated ;or the 7ri>inal laB and only later appropriated ;or ;reespee7h 7ases. or the 7ri>inal laB is ne7essarily 7on7erned Bith the line at Bhi7hinno7ent preparation ends and a gDilty 7onspira7y or atte>pt begins. Clearly1 itis inappropriate as a test ;or deter>ining the 7onstitDtional alidity o; laBs Bhi7h1lieasDres BoDld be li>er to drie a nail Bhen a

    regDlar ha>>er is all that is needed.

    3he reason ;or this diJeren7e in the leel o; MDstiI7ation ;or the restri7tion o; spee7his that 7ontent-based restri7tions distort pDbli7 debate1 hae i>proper >otiation1and are DsDally i>posed be7aDse o; ;ear o; hoB people Bill rea7t to a parti7Dlarspee7h. 5o sD7h reasons Dnderlie 7ontent-neDtral regDlations1 lie1 pla7e and >anner o; holding pDbli7 asse>blies Dnder .P. lg. ""01 the PDbli7sse>bly 7t o; "'. pplying the +Nrien test in this 7ase1 Be Ind that [email protected] o;,.. 5o. 66#6 is a alid e=er7ise o; the poBer o; the State to regDlate >edia o;7o>>Dni7ation or in;or>ation ;or the pDrpose o; ensDring eHDal opportDnity1 ti>eand spa7e ;or politi7al 7a>paigns that the regDlation is Dnrelated to thesDppression o; spee7h that any restri7tion on ;reedo> o; e=pression is onlyin7idental and no >ore than is ne7essary to a7hiee the pDrpose o; pro>otingeHDality.

    === === ===

    3he CoDrt is MDst as pro;oDndly aBare as anyone else that dis7Dssion o; pDbli7 issDesand debate on the HDaliI7ations o; 7andidates in an ele7tion are essential to theproper ;Dn7tioning o; the goern>ent established by oDr ConstitDtion. Dt it ispre7isely Bith this aBareness that Be thin< de>o7rati7 eJorts at re;or> shoDld beseen ;or Bhat they are: genDine eJorts to enhan7e the politi7al pro7ess rather thanin;ringe>ents on ;reedo> o; e=pression. 3he statDtory proision inoled in this7ase is part o; the re;or> >easDres adopted in " in the a;ter>ath o; $%S. re;or>->inded Congress passed bills Bhi7h Bere 7onsolidated into Bhat is noB ,.5o. 66#6 Bith near Dnani>ity. 3he 4oDse o; ,epresentaties1 o; Bhi7h petitionerPablo P. ar7ia Bas a distingDished >e>ber1 oted 6 to @,ep. $dDardo PilapilA in;aor1 Bhile the Senate approed it -0. #0

  • 7/24/2019 10. Osmena v Comelec


    )n his re7ent booine de>o7ra7y bDt so>e Bonder;Dlthings to enhan7e it as Bell.G # Oe hold ,.. 5o. 66#61 [email protected] to be sD7h ade>o7ra7y-enhan7ing >easDre. or 4ol>esNs >aranti7 illDsion i; the ele7toral pro7ess is badly soney ;or 7a>paign propaganda.

    3he petition is %)S()SS$%.

    S+ +,%$,$%.

    5arasa1 C .9 .1 ,egalado1 %aide1 9r.1 ellosillo1 apDnan1 (artinez1 99 .1 7on7Dr.

    Separate +pinions

    PL5+1 9 .1 7on7Drring:

    )n .,. 5o. 221 petitioners assail the 7onstitDtionality o; Se7. @bA o; ,.. 5o.66#6 and ,esolDtion 5o. 2# o; the C+($*$C i>ple>enting said laB. 3hey7ontend:


    34$ P+*)3)C* % 5 )S (+V$% W 5 )5V*)% *$)S*3)V$ )53$531 L*3, V),$S+5 34$ P,3 + C+5,$SS1 5% V)+*3)V$ + 34$ V$,W C+5S3)3L3)+5*P,+V)S)+5 LP+5 O4)C4 )3 )S S+L43 3+ $ ,+L5%$%.


    C+53,,W 3+ 34$ 4+*%)5 )5 53)+5* P,$SS C*L1 34$ P+*)3)C* % 5 )S5+3 *)()3$% )5 3)($ 5% SC+P$ + PP*)C3)+5.

    . 34$ P+*)3)C* % 5 )S 5+3 *)()3$% )5 %L,3)+5 )3 )S S+*L3$1 **-$5sC+(PSS)51 C+(P,$4$5S)V$ 5% L5*)()3$%.

    . 34$ P+*)3)C* % 5 )S 5+3 *)()3$% )5 SC+P$ + PP*)C)*)3W. )5S+, S34$ C5%)%3$NS ,$$%+( 3+ $RP,$SS 34,+L4 34$ (SS ($%)1 )3 )SS+*L3$1 **-$5C+(PSS)51 C+(P,$4$5S)V$ 5% L5*)()3$%.

    )))34$ P+*)3)C* % 5 L5%$, S$C3)+5 @A1 ,.. 66#6 C+5S3)3L3$S P,)+,,$S3,)531 5% C,,)$S 4$VW P,$SL(P3)+5 )5S3 V*)%)3W.


    34$ P+*)3)C* % 5 )S 5+3 ,$S+5*$ 5$C$SS,W ($5S 3+ C4)$V$ 34$%$S),$% $5%.

  • 7/24/2019 10. Osmena v Comelec


    . )5S3$% + N*$V$*)5 34$ P*W)5 )$*%1N )5S+, S 34$ LS$ + (SS($%) +, P+*)3)C* PL,P+S$S )S C+5C$,5$%1 34$ P+*)3)C* % 5 4S+*)S4$% 34$ P*W)5 )$*%.

    . 34$,$ )S 5+ ,$S+5*$ 5$C$SS)3W +, 34$ % 51 $CLS$ )3 %+$S 5+3

    P,$V$53 34$ ,)C4 C5%)%3$ ,+( LS)5 4)S SLP$,)+, ,$S+L,C$S 3+ 34$L5%L$ %)S%V53$ + 34$ P++, C5%)%3$.

    C. 34$,$ )S 5+ ,$S+5*$ 5$C$SS)3W +, 34$ P+*)3)C* % 5 $CLS$%$XL3$ S$L,%S ,$ *$**W )5 P*C$ )5 +,%$, 3+ P,$V$53 34$ ,)C4C5%)%3$ ,+( 3)5 L5%L$ %V53$ + 4)S SLP$,)+, ,$S+L,C$S.


    34$ P+*)3)C* % 5 V)+*3$S 34$ ,)43 + 34$ P$+P*$ 3+ $ )5+,($% +5(33$,S + PL*)C C+5C$,5.


    34$,$ )S 5+ 5$$% +, N$(P),)C* %3N 3+ %$3$,()5$ O4$34$, 34$ P+*)3)C*% 5 +$5%S 34$ C+5S3)3L3)+5 +, 5+3.G

    3he Soli7itor eneral and the petitioners-in-interention lipairs;reedo> o; spee7h and o; the press.

    HDi7< glan7e at petitionersN argD>ents against se7tion @bA o; ,.. 5o. 66#6 Bill

    shoB that they are >ere rehash o; argD>ents in the 5PC 7ase. 3he la7< o; neBargD>ents is a tribDte to the brilliant >aMority de7ision and eHDally enlighteningdissenting opinions in said 7ase Bhi7h petitioners noB see< to ree=a>ine. repetition o; the 5PC rationale is thDs Dnne7essary.

    ) Bish1 hoBeer1 to adert to the dissent o; (ada> 9Dsti7e ,o>ero Bhi7h 7itesD7e CoDrt rDled that li>itson 7a>paign e=penditDres iolate the gDarantee o; ;reedo> o; spee7h. 3he essen7eo; the D7ent >ay restri7t the spee7ho; so>e ele>ents o; so7iety in order to enhan7e the relatie oi7e o; others isBholly ;oreign to the irst >end>ent. . . .G 2

    reading o; >eri7an legal literatDre1 hoBeer1 Bill reeal that D7D7h needed ele7toral re;or>s. 3ypi7al o; the7riti7is>s is the obseration o; Oright that the D7oney in ele7tion 7a>paigns. s a resDlt1 oDrpoliti7al syste> >ay not Dse so>e o; its >ost poBer;Dl de;enses against ele7toral

  • 7/24/2019 10. Osmena v Comelec


    ineHDalities.G # 3he barrage o; 7riti7is>s 7aDsed the LS SDpre>e CoDrt to >odi;y itsabsolDte sDpport ;or ;ree spee7h in D7ber o; Co>>er7e1 ' it Dpheld the 7onstitDtionality o; a (i7higan laB thatprohibited 7orporations ;ro> Dsing 7orporate treasDry ;Dnds to sDpport or opposeany 7andidate ;or oE7e. ,etreating ;ro> D7pelling interest in regDlating 7a>paign e=penditDre. Oriting ;or the>aMority1 (r. 9Dsti7e 3hDrgood (arshall1 an i7on o; libertarians de7lared: G(i7higanidentiIed as a serioDs danger the signiI7ant possibility that 7orporate politi7ale=penditDres Bill Dnder>ine the integrity o; the politi7al pro7ess1 and it hasi>ple>ented a narroBly tailored solDtion to that proble>.G )n his 7on7Drring opinion1the last o; the libertarians in the LS 4igh CoDrt1 (r. 9Dsti7e rennan1 held: G)n (C*1Be held that a proision o; the ederal $le7tion Ca>paign 7t o; @$CA1 . . .si>ilar to the (i7higan laB at issDe here1 7oDld not be applied 7onstitDtionally to as>all1 anti-abortion ado7a7y groDp. )n ealDating the irst >end>ent 7hallenge1hoBeer1 Be a7a7y o; CongressN 7on7ern that organizationsthat a>ass great Bealth in the e7ono>i7 >ararent o;>easDres that prote7t and enhan7e the right o; all the people to hD>an dignity1

    redD7e so7ial1 e7ono>i71 and politi7al ineHDalities1 and re>oe 7DltDral ineHDities byeHDitably diJDsing Bealth and politi7al poBer ;or the 7o>>on good.

    rt. )R @7A @#A. Q 3he Co>>ission >ay1 dDring the ele7tion period1 sDperise orregDlate the enMoy>ent or Dtilization o; all ;ran7hises or per>its ;ro> the operationo; transportation and other pDbli7 Dtilities1 >edia o; 7o>>Dni7ation or in;or>ation1all grants1 spe7ial priileges1 or 7on7essions granted by the oern>ent or anysDbdiision1 agen7y1 or instrD>entality thereo;1 in7lDding any goern>ent-oBned or7ontrolled 7orporation or its sDbsidiary. SD7h sDperision or regDlation shall ai> toensDre eHDal opportDnity1 ti>e1 and spa7e1 and the right to reply1 in7lDdingreasonable1 eHDal rates there;or ;or pDbli7 in;or>ation 7a>paigns and ;or>s a>ong7andidates in 7onne7tion Bith the obMe7tie o; holding ;ree1 orderly1 honest1pea7e;Dl1 and 7redible ele7tions.G

    >e>ber o; the ConstitDtional Co>>ission1 noB oDr distingDished 7olleagDe1 (r.9Dsti7e 4ilario %aide1 9r.1 Bell e=plained these neB Brin

  • 7/24/2019 10. Osmena v Comelec


    GBare o; the la>entable ;a7t in the Philippines1 no gap betBeen these tBoDnaoidable e=tre>es o; so7iety is >ore pronoDn7ed than that in the Ield o;politi7s1 and eer >ind;Dl o; the dire 7onseHDen7es thereo;1 the ;ra>ers o; thepresent ConstitDtion saB it It to diJDse politi7al poBer in the so7ial MDsti7eproisions. +Drs has been a politi7s o; the elite1 the ri7h1 the poBer;Dl and the

    pedigreed. 3he i7tory o; a poor 7andidate in an ele7tion is al>ost alBays ane=7eption. rrayed against the ast resoDr7es o; a Bealthy opponent1 the ;or>er1een i; he is the >ost HDaliIed and 7o>petent1 does not stand a Ighting 7han7e. +;7oDrse1 there hae been isolated instan7es Q bDt yet so ;eB and ;ar betBeen QBhen poor 7andidates >ade it.G 6

    4e stressed that this thrDst ;or politi7al eHDality is an i>proe>ent o; oDr pastConstitDtions Bhi7h >erely soDght to establish eHDality in the e7ono>i7 and so7ialIelds.

    )t is diE7Dlt to thin< Bhy sD7h an egalitarian laB lined Bhen it eHDalizes the politi7al opportDnities o; oDr people.3he gap betBeen the per;D>ed ;eB and the perspiring >any in oDr 7oDntry isgalloping at a ;rightening pa7e. s the 7ost o; ele7tion spirals at an i>>oral speed1the leers o; politi7al poBer are Bielded >ore and >ore by the Bealthy alone. 3hesDbMe7t laB atte>pts to brea< this 7ontrol by redD7ing the pDr7hasing poBer o; thepeso o; the ri7h in the politi7al ;ree>aro7ra7y. 3he gDaranty o; ;reedo> o; spee7hshoDld not be Dsed to ;rDstrate legislatie atte>pts to leel the playing Ield inpoliti7s. ,.. 5o. 66#6 does not 7Drtail spee7h as it no >ore than preents theabDsie Dse o; Bealth by the ri7h to ;rDstrate the poor 7andidateNs a77ess to >edia.

    )t see>s to >e sel;-eident that i; Congress 7an regDlate the abDse o; >oney in thee7ono>i7 >arisDse in the politi7al ;ree>aronopolize >edia1 the politi7al ;ree>ararar o; spee7h as>eaning >ore spee7h ;or the ri7h ;or ;reedo> o; spee7h is not gDaranteed only tothose Bho 7an aJord its e=er7ise. 3here oDght to be no HDarrel Bith the propositionthat ;reedo> o; spee7h Bill be a 7hi>era i; Congress does not open theopportDnities ;or its e=er7ise. Ohen the opportDnities ;or its e=er7ise are obstrD7tedby the >oney o; the ri7h1 it is the dDty o; Congress to regDlate the >isDse o; >oney

    Q ;or in the politi7al >aroney Bin1 Be lose.*et Ds not also 7lose oDr eyes to the reality that in Dnderdeeloped 7oDntries Bheresharp disparities in Bealth e=ist1 the threat to ;reedo> o; spee7h 7o>es not only;ro> the goern>ent bDt ;ro> ested interests that oBn and 7ontrol the >edia.

    3oday1 ;reedo> o; spee7h 7an be restrained not only by the e=er7ise o; pDbli7 poBerbDt also by priate poBer. 3hDs1 Be shoDld be eHDally igilant in prote7ting ;reedo>o; spee7h ;ro> pDbli7 and priate restraints. 3he obseration o; a legal s7holar is

  • 7/24/2019 10. Osmena v Comelec


    Borth >editating1 iz.: GOith the deelop>ent o; priate restraints on ;reee=pression1 the idea o; a ;ree >arpete on their >eritshas be7o>e MDst as Dnrealisti7 in the tBentieth 7entDry as the e7ono>i7 theory o;per;e7t 7o>petition. 3he Borld in Bhi7h an essentially rationalist philosophy o; theIrst a>end>ent Bas born has anished and Bhat Bas rationalis> is noB ro>an7e.G


    ) ote to dis>iss the petitions.

    ,+($,+1 9 .1 dissenting:

    G ;oolish 7onsisten7y is the hobgoblin o; little >inds . . .G

    5ot Bishing to be held hostage by $>ersonNs Ghobgoblin1G ) dare to brea< aBay ;ro>a past position and en7apsDlize >y rD>inations in a dissenting opinion.

    Ohen1 ); t ll1 (ay 3he CoDrt ,eerse )tsel; T

    3he >aMority1 reiterating the 2 de7ision 5PC . C+($*$C 1 holds that [email protected] o; ,.. 66#6 is a reasonable restri7tion on the ;reedo> o; e=pressiongDaranteed by the ConstitDtion. 2 +Dr si=-year e=perien7e Bith the ban on politi7aladertise>ents1 hoBeer1 7onstrains >e to dissent. Ohile it is desirable1 eeni>peratie1 that this CoDrt1 in a77ordan7e Bith the prin7iple o; stare de7isis1 aJordstability to the laB by heBing to do7trines preioDsly established1 said prin7iple Basneer >eant as an obsta7le to the abandon>ent o; established rDlings Bhereabandon>ent is de>anded by pDbli7 interest and by 7ir7D>stan7es. ,eeren7e;or pre7edent si>ply as pre7edent 7annot preail Bhen 7onstitDtionalis> and pDbli7interest de>and otherBise. 3hDs1 a do7trine Bhi7h shoDld be abandoned or

    >odiIed a77ordingly. (ore pregnant than anything else is that the 7oDrt shoDld beright. #

    ) sDb>it that oDr 7oDntryNs past e=perien7e in the 2 and ' ele7tions1 as Bellas 7onte>porary eents1 has established that Se7tion @bA o; ,.. 66#6 ;alls shorto; the rigoroDs and e=a7ting standard ;or per>issible li>itation on ;ree spee7h and;ree press.

    )n 21 this CoDrt1 in 5PC . C+($*$C1 gae 7onstitDtional i>pri>atDr to [email protected] pronoDn7ing the sa>e to be aDthorized by rti7le )[email protected] Se7tion # o; theConstitDtion Bhi7h reads:

    GSe7tion #. 3he Co>>ission >ay1 dDring the ele7tion period1 sDperise or regDlatethe enMoy>ent or Dtilization o; all ;ran7hises or per>its ;or the operation o;transportation and other pDbli7 Dtilities1 >edia o; 7o>>Dni7ation or in;or>ation1 allgrants1 spe7ial priileges1 or 7on7essions granted by the oern>ent or anysDbdiision1 agen7y1 or instrD>entality thereo;1 in7lDding any goern>ent-oBned or7ontrolled 7orporation or its sDbsidiary. SD7h sDperision or regDlation shall ai> toensDre eHDal opportDnity1 ti>e1 and spa7e1 and the right to reply1 in7lDding

  • 7/24/2019 10. Osmena v Comelec


    reasonable1 eHDal rates there;or1 ;or pDbli7 in;or>ation 7a>paigns and ;orD>sa>ong 7andidates in 7onne7tion Bith the obMe7tie o; holding ;ree1 orderly1 honest1pea7e;Dl and 7redible ele7tions.G

    Pre;atorily1 it >Dst be borne in >ind that rti7le )[email protected] Se7tion # o; the ConstitDtion1

    is essentially1 an e=press >ani;estation o; the 7o>prehensie poli7e poBer o; theState.

    Poli7e poBer1 it has been de7lared o;ten enoDgh1 rests Dpon pDbli7 ne7essity andDpon the right o; the state and the pDbli7 to sel;-prote7tion. or this reason1 itss7ope e=pands and 7ontra7ts Bith 7hanging needs. ' )n the Bords o; (r. 9Dsti7e)sagani . CrDz:

    GPoli7e poBer is dyna>i71 not stati71 and >Dst >oe Bith the >oing so7iety it issDpposed to regDlate. Conditions 7hange1 7ir7D>stan7es ary and to eery sD7halteration the poli7e poBer >Dst 7on;or>. Ohat >ay be sDstained as a alide=er7ise o; the poBer noB >ay be7o>e 7onstitDtional heresy in the ;DtDre Dnder adiJerent ;a7tDal setting. +ld notions >ay be7o>e oDt>oded een as neB ideas areborn1 e=panding or 7onstri7ting the li>its o; the poli7e poBer. or e=a>ple1 poli7e>easDres alidly ena7ted I;ty years ago against the Bearing o; less than sedatesBi>sDits in pDbli7 bea7hes BoDld be laDghed oDt o; 7oDrt in these days o;per>issieness. . . @3Ahe poli7e poBer 7ontinDes to 7hange een as 7onstraints onliberty di>inish and priate property be7o>es >ore and >ore aJe7ted Bith pDbli7interest and there;ore sDbMe7t to regDlationG @$>phasis oDrsA. 6

    3hDs1 Bhen the te>per and 7ir7D>stan7es o; the ti>es ne7essitate a reieB1 thisCoDrt shoDld not hesitate to reerse itsel;1 een on 7onstitDtional issDes ;or the

    legal proble>s Bith Bhi7h so7iety is beset 7ontinDally 7annot be >erely 7onsideredin the abstra7t1 bDt >Dst be ieBed in light o; the inInite >otley ;a7ets o; hD>ane=perien7e. s aptly stated by (r. 9Dsti7e 4ol>es1 G3he li;e o; the laB has not beenlogi7: it has been e=perien7e.G

    y Bay o; illDstration1 Be Irst held1 in the 7elebrated lag SalDte Case1 that:

    Gthe Uag is not an i>age bDt a sy>bol o; the ,epDbli7 o; the Philippines1 an e>ble>o; national soereignty1 o; national Dnity and 7ohesion and o; ;reedo> and libertyBhi7h it and the ConstitDtion gDarantee and prote7t. Lnder a syste> o; 7o>pleteseparation o; 7hDr7h and state in the goern>ent1 the Uag is Dtterly deoid o; any

    religioDs signiI7an7e. SalDting the Uag does not inole any religioDs 7ere>ony. 3heUag salDte is no >ore a religioDs 7ere>ony than the taission to the barG

    === === ===

    3he 7hildren o; 9ehoahNs Oitnesses 7annot be e=e>pted ;ro> parti7ipation in theUag 7ere>ony. 3hey hae no alid right to sD7h e=e>ption. (oreoer1 e=e>ption to

  • 7/24/2019 10. Osmena v Comelec


    the reHDire>ent Bill disrDpt s7hool dis7ipline and de>oralize the rest o; the s7hoolpopDlation Bhi7h by ;ar 7onstitDte the great >aMority.

    3he ;reedo> o; religioDs belie; gDaranteed by the ConstitDtion does not and 7annot>ean e=e>ption ;ro> or non-7o>plian7e Bith reasonable and non-dis7ri>inatory

    laBs1 rDles and regDlations pro>Dlgated by 7o>petent aDthority.G3he CoDrt ;Drther predi7ted that e=e>pting 9ehoahNs Oitnesses ;ro> parti7ipatingin the Uag 7ere>ony BoDld Dlti>ately lead to a sitDation Bherein:

    G[3&he Uag 7ere>ony Bill be7o>e a thing o; the past or perhaps 7ondD7ted Bithery ;eB parti7ipants1 and the ti>e Bill 7o>e Bhen Be BoDld hae 7itizens DntaDghtand Dnin7Dl7ated in and not i>bDed Bith reeren7e ;or the Uag and loe o; 7oDntry1ad>iration ;or national heroes1 and patriotis>-a patheti71 een tragi7 sitDation1 andall be7aDse a s>all portion o; the s7hool popDlation i>posed its Bill1 de>anded andBas granted an e=e>ption.G

    3hirty-tBo years later1 eents 7aDght Dp Bith the 7hanging politi7al 7li>ate1 sD7hthat an Dndiided CoDrt pronoDn7ed1 in $bralinag . 3he %iision SDperintendent o;S7hools o; CebD " that:

    Gthe idea that one >ay be 7o>pelled to salDte the Uag1 sing the national anthe>1and re7ite the patrioti7 pledge1 dDring a Uag 7ere>ony on pain o; being dis>issed;ro> oneNs Mob or o; being e=pelled ;ro> s7hool1 is alien to the 7ons7ien7e o; thepresent generation o; ilipinos Bho 7Dt their teeth on the ill o; ,ights Bhi7hgDarantees their right to ;ree spee7h and the ;ree e=er7ise o; religioDs pro;essionand Borship

    === === ===

    3he sole MDstiI7ation ;or a prior restraint or li>itation on the e=er7ise o; religioDs;reedo> is the e=isten7e o; a grae and present danger o; a 7hara7ter both graeand i>>inent1 o; a serioDs eil to pDbli7 sa;ety1 pDbli7 >orals1 pDbli7 health or anyother legiti>ate pDbli7 interest1 that the State has a right @and dDtyA to preentbsent sD7h a threat to pDbli7 sa;ety1 the e=pDlsion o; petitioners ;ro> the s7hoolsis not MDstiIed.G

    3he CoDrt held that its earlier predi7tion o; dire 7onseHDen7es had not 7o>e topass. )t 7on7lDded that e=e>pting 9ehoahNs Oitnesses ;ro> attending Uag

    7ere>onies BoDld not prodD7e a nation GDntaDght and Dnin7Dl7ated in and noti>bDed Bith reeren7e ;or the Uag and loe o; 7oDntry1 ad>iration ;or nationalheroes1 and patriotis>.G

    )n >D7h the sa>e >anner1 in the early 7ase o; People . Po>ar1 the CoDrt strD7 o; 7ontra7t1 a statDte pres7ribing a thirty-day

  • 7/24/2019 10. Osmena v Comelec


    a7ation Bith pay both be;ore and a;ter 7onIne>ent arising ;ro> pregnan7y. 3heCoDrt said:

    G3he rDle in this MDrisdi7tion is1 that the 7ontra7ting parties >ay establish anyagree>ents1 ter>s1 and 7onditions they >ay dee> adisable1 proided they are not

    7ontrary to laB1 >orals or pDbli7 poli7y.GCiting >eri7an 7ases that espoDsed the preailing laissez ;aire do7trine1 the CoDrtrDled that the right to 7ontra7t aboDt oneNs aJairs is a part o; the liberty o; theindiidDal gDaranteed by the dDe pro7ess 7laDse. 3he CoDrt also 7ited the GeHDalityo; rightG prin7iple1 holding that [email protected] all sD7h parti7Dlars the e>ployer and thee>ployee hae eHDality o; right1 and any legislation that distDrbs that eHDality is anarbitrary inter;eren7e Bith the liberty o; 7ontra7t1 Bhi7h no goern>ent 7an legally

    MDsti;y in a ;ree land . . . Poli7e poBer1 the CoDrt 7on7eded1 is an e=panding poBerbDt it 7annot groB ;aster than the ;Dnda>ental laB o; the state. . . ); the peopledesire to hae the poli7e poBer e=tended and applied to 7onditions and things

    prohibited by the organi7 laB1 they >Dst Irst a>end that laB.G 0

    Si=teen years later1 the alidity o; the aboe pronoDn7e>ent Bas reMe7ted by theCoDrt in nta>o< oldIelds (ining Co. . C),1 Bhi7h rationalized its olte-;a7estan7e1 thDs: [email protected] the >idst o; 7hanges that hae taay lient >ade by this 7oDrt in the 7ase o; People . Po>ar. . .still retains its irtDality as a liing prin7iple. 3he poli7y o; laissez ;aire has to so>ee=tent gien Bay to the assD>ption by the goern>ent o; the right o; interentioneen in 7ontra7tDal relations aJe7ted Bith pDbli7 interests.G

    Si>ilarly1 eents sDbseHDent to the CoDrtNs rDling in elino . CDen7o 2 i>pelled

    the CoDrt to reerse its original position. )n this 7ase1 the CoDrt initially re;Dsed totaine Bho Bas the right;Dlpresident o; the Philippine Senate1 rDling that in ieB o; the separation o; poBers1the HDestion Bas a politi7al one not Bithin its MDrisdi7tion. %espite sD7h a rDling1al>ost one-hal; o; the >e>bers o; the Senate re;Dsed to a7e to astandstill. )n the Bords o; 9Dsti7e Per;e7to1 Gthe sitDation has 7reated a eritablenational 7risis1 and it is apparent that solDtion 7annot be e=pe7ted ;ro> any HDarterother than this SDpre>e CoDrt. . . . 3he MDdi7iary oDght to ripen into >atDrity i; ithas to be trDe to its role as spoan o; the 7olle7tie 7ons7ien7e1 o; the7ons7ien7e o; hD>anity.G 3he CoDrt1 thDs1 assD>ed MDrisdi7tion oer the 7ase1rationalizing that sDperening eents MDstiIed its interention.

    ro> the ;oregoing1 it 7an be seen that the ine=orable >ar7h o; eents1 and theliberalizing Binds o; 7hange >ay ery Bell signal a needed shi;t in oDr 7on7eption o;the per>issible li>its o; regDlation in the na>e o; poli7e poBer. Verily1 Bhile thealidity o; 5PC . C+($*$C >ay hae been et7hed on granite at the ti>e o; itspro>Dlgation1 eents sDbseHDent thereto noB 7all into HDestion the ery

  • 7/24/2019 10. Osmena v Comelec


    Dnderpinnings o; said ponen7ia. 3o >y >ind1 the hoary >a=i> that Gti>e Dpsets>any Ighting ;aithsG still holds trDe1 and the CoDrt >Dst be eer resilient andadaptable in order to >eet the protean 7o>ple=ities o; the present and ;DtDregeneration.

    5PC . C+($*$C1 the CoDrt held that:[email protected] presD>ption o; inalidity arises in respe7t o; e=er7ises o; sDperisory orregDlatory aDthority on the part o; the Co>ele7 ;or the pDrpose o; se7Dring eHDalopportDnity a>ong 7andidates ;or politi7al oE7e1 althoDgh sD7h sDperision orregDlation >ay resDlt in so>e li>itation o; the right o; ;ree spee7h and ;ree press.or sDperision or regDlation o; the operations o; >edia enterprises is s7ar7ely7on7eiable BithoDt sD7h a77o>panying li>itation. 3hDs1 the appli7able rDle is thegeneral1 ti>e-honored one Q that a statDte is presD>ed to be 7onstitDtional andthat the party asserting its Ln7onstitDtionality >Dst dis7harge the bDrden o; 7learlyand 7onin7ingly proing that assertion.G

    3his Dpends the ;a>iliar holding that Gany syste> o; prior restraint o; e=pression7o>es to this CoDrt bearing a heay presD>ption against its 7onstitDtional alidity1Bith the oern>ent 7arrying a heay bDrden o; shoBing MDstiI7ation ;or theen;or7e>ent o; sD7h a restraint.G 3his presD>ption Bas een reiterated in there7ent 7ase o; )glesia ni Cristo . C1 # Bherein Be rDled that Gdeeply ens7on7ed inoDr ;Dnda>ental laB is its hostility against all prior restraints on spee7h. . . 4en7e1any a7t that restrains spee7h is hobbled by the presD>ption o; inalidity and shoDldbe greeted Bith ;DrroBed broBs. )t is the bDrden o; the respondent . . . to oerthroBthis presD>ption. ); it ;ails to dis7harge this bDrden1 its a7t o; 7ensorship Bill bestrD7< doBn.G 5PC . C+($*$C1 inso;ar as it bestoBs a presD>ption o; alidity Dpon

    a statDte aDthorizing C+($*$C to in;ringe Dpon the right o; ;ree spee7h and ;reepress1 7onstitDtes a departDre ;ro> this CoDrtNs preioDs rDlings as to >andate itsre-e=a>ination.

    )n this 7onne7tion1 it bears e>phasis that 5PC . C+($*$C Bas the prodD7t o; adiided 7oDrt1 >arposition o; the 7oDrt. Ohile a 7hange in 7oDrt 7o>position1 perse1 does not aDthorize abandon>ent o; de7isional pre7edents1 it is apropos to ind the pronoDn7e>ent by the CoDrt in Philippine 3rDst Co. and S>ith1 ell andCo. . (it7hell1 ' Bhi7h reads as ;olloBs:

    G)s the 7oDrt Bith neB >e>bership 7o>pelled to ;olloB blindly the do7trine o; theVelas7o 7aseT 3he rDle o; stare de7isis is entitled to respe7t. Stability in the laB1parti7Dlarly in the bDsiness Ield1 is desirable. Dt idolatroDs reeren7e ;orpre7edent1 si>ply as pre7edent1 no longer rDles. (ore i>portant than anything elseis that the 7oDrt shoDld be right.G @e>phasis oDrsA

    re 3he ,estri7tions )>posed by Se7. @bA +; ,..

  • 7/24/2019 10. Osmena v Comelec


    66#6 on reedo> o; $=pression ValidT

    Preli>inaries haing been disposed o;1 Be pro7eed to the 7rD= o; the >atter.reedo> o; spee7h has been deIned as the liberty to >Dni7ation o; ideas1 not e=7lDding the right to be in;or>ed on >atters o; pDbli77on7ern.

    3he CoDrt1 in 5PC . C+($*$C 1 ;oDnd the restri7tions i>posed by Se7tion @bA onthe ;reedo> o; e=pression1 to be alid. irst1 the prohibition is li>ited in the dDrationo; its appli7ability and en;or7eability to ele7tion periods. Pre7isely1 this is Bhat>aore odioDs. )t is i>posed dDring the 7a>paign period Bhenthe ele7torate 7la>ors ;or >ore and a77Drate in;or>ation as their basis ;orintelligent oting. 3o restri7t the sa>e only de;eats the pDrpose o; holding ele7toral7a>paigns Q to in;or> the HDaliIed oter o; the HDaliI7ations o; 7andidates ;or

    pDbli7 oE7e1 as Bell as the ideology and progra>s o; goern>ent and pDbli7seri7e they ado7ate1 to the end that Bhen ele7tion ti>e 7o>es1 the right o;sDJrage >ay be intelligently and ation to the esti>ated 6.# >illion oters is 7rD7ial ;ortheir intelligent e=er7ise o; the right o; sDJrage in the (ay polls1 7onsidering thatthey Bill be oting ;or an aerage o; thirty ele7tie positions. 6

    Se7ond1 the prohibition is o; li>ited appli7ation1 as the sa>e is applied only to thepDr7hase and sale o; print spa7e and air ti>e ;or 7a>paign or other politi7alpDrposes. GSe7tion @bA does not pDrport in any Bay to restri7t the reporting byneBspapers or radio or teleision stations o; neBs or neBsBorthy eents relating to

    7andidates1 their HDaliI7ations1 politi7al parties and progra>s o; goern>ent.G )tdoes not rea7h 7o>>entaries and e=pressions o; belie; or opinion by reporters orbroad7asters or editors or 7o>>entators or 7olD>nists in respe7t o; 7andidates1their HDaliI7ations1 and progra>s and so ;orth. 3o be sDre1 neBspapers1 radio1 andteleision stations >ay not be restri7ted ;ro> reporting on 7andidates1 theirHDaliI7ations1 and progra>s o; goern>ent1 yet1 ad>ittedly1 the ;reedo> o;e=pression o; the 7andidates the>seles in the >anner they 7hoose to1 is restri7ted.Candidates are thereby ;ore7losed ;ro> aailing o; the ;a7ilities o; >ass >edia1e=7ept throDgh the Iltering pris> o; the C+($*$C.

    5ot to be oerlooedia itsel; is partisan. )n a stDdy 7o>>issioned by the C+($*$C itsel; to deter>ine Bhether 7ertain neBspaperadhered to the prin7iples o; ;airness and i>partiality in their reportage o; thepresidential 7andidates in the 2 ele7tions1 the resDlts dis7losed that neBspapersshoBed biases ;or or against 7ertain 7andidates. 4en7e1 the 7ontention thatGSe7tion @bA does not 7Dt oJ the UoB o; >edia reporting1 opinion or 7o>>entaryaboDt 7andidates1 their HDaliI7ations and plat;or>s and pro>isesG si>ply is illDsory.$ditorial poli7y Bill alBays ensDre that ;aored 7andidates re7eie pro>inent

  • 7/24/2019 10. Osmena v Comelec


    7oerage Bhile less ;aored ones Bill get >ini>al e=posDre1 i; at all. 3hisDnders7ores the need to gie 7andidates the ;reedo> to adertise1 i; only to7oDntera7t negatie reporting Bith paid adertise>ents1 Bhi7h they 7annot haere7oDrse to Bith the present prohibition. Oorse1 the ban een en7oDrages 7orrDptiono; the >ass >edia by 7andidates Bho pro7Dre paid ha7asHDerading as

    legiti>ate MoDrnalists1 to sing the> paeans to the high heaens. Oittingly orDnBittingly1 the >ass >edia1 to the detri>ent o; poor 7andidates1 o77asionally lendthe>seles to the >anipDlatie dei7es o; the ri7h and inUDential 7andidates.

    inally1 it is alleged that Bhile Se7tion @bA prohibited the sale or donation by >ass>edia o; print spa7e or air ti>e ;or 7a>paign or other politi7al pDrposes1 C+($*$C1by Bay o; e=7eption1 Bas >andated to pDr7hase print spa7e or air ti>e1 Bhi7hspa7e and ti>e it Bas reHDired to allo7ate1 eHDally and i>partially1 a>ong the7andidates ;or pDbli7 oE7e. 4en7e1 Bhateer li>itation Bas i>posed by [email protected] Dpon the right to ;ree spee7h o; the 7andidates Bas ;oDnd not to be DndDlyrepressie or Dnreasonable inas>D7h as they 7oDld still realize their obMe7tie as

    long as it Bas 7oDrsed throDgh C+($*$C. C+($*$C it Bas that shall de7ide Bhat1Bho1 Bhi7h >edia to e>ploy and the ti>e allo7ation ;or the 7andidates Bho signi;ytheir desire to aail o; the agen7yNs air ti>e and print spa7e. Ohy a77ord toC+($*$C sD7h poBers in the na>e o; sDperision and regDlation at the e=pense o;the 7onstitDtionally halloBed ;reedo> o; e=pressionT

    ien the 7onditions then preailing1 the CoDrtNs rDling in 5PC . C+($*$C >ayhae been alid and reasonable yet today1 Bith the beneIt o; hindsight1 it is 7learthat the prohibition has be7o>e a Boe;Dl hindran7e to the e=er7ise by the7andidates o; their 7herished right to ;ree e=pression and 7on7o>itantly1 a iolationo; the peopleNs right to in;or>ation on >atters o; pDbli7 7on7ern. s applied1 it hasgien an DndDe adantage to Bell-ental 7iil liberties1 the right o; ;ree e=pression o77Dpies apre;erred position1 " the soereign people re7ognizing that it is indispensable in a;ree so7iety sD7h as oDrs. Verily1 one o; the toD7hstones o; de>o7ra7y is theprin7iple that ;ree politi7al dis7Dssion is ne7essary i; goern>ent is to re>ainresponsie to the Bill o; the people. )t is a gDarantee that the people Bill be ed at all ti>es sDE7iently to dis7harge the aBeso>e responsibilities o;soereignty.

    Wet1 it is also to be 7on7eded that ;reedo> o; e=pression is not an absolDte right.3he right or priilege o; ;ree spee7h and pDbli7ation has its li>itations1 the right notbeing absolDte at all ti>es and Dnder all 7ir7D>stan7es. or ;reedo> o; spee7h doesnot 7o>prehend the right to spea< Bheneer1 hoBeer1 and Bhereer one pleases1and the >anner1 and pla7e1 or ti>e o; pDbli7 dis7Dssion 7an be 7onstitDtionally7ontrolled.

  • 7/24/2019 10. Osmena v Comelec


    Still1 Bhile ;reedo> o; e=pression >ay not be i>>Dne ;ro> regDlation1 it does not;olloB that all regDlation is alid. ,egDlation >Dst be reasonable as not to 7onstitDtea repression o; the ;reedo> o; e=pression. irst1 it >Dst be shoBn that the interesto; the pDbli7 generally1 as distingDished ;ro> that o; a parti7Dlar 7lass reHDires sD7hregDlation. Se7ond1 it >Dst appear that the >eans Dsed are reasonably ne7essary

    ;or the a77o>plish>ent o; the pDrpose1 and not DndDly oppressie Dpon indiidDals.

    s to the Irst1 in 5PC . C+($*$C1 this CoDrt de7lared that the ban on politi7aladertising ai>s to assDre eHDality o; opportDnity to proJer onesel; ;or pDbli7seri7e by eHDalizing1 as ;ar as pra7ti7able1 the sitDations o; ri7h and poor7andidates by preenting the ;or>er ;ro> enMoying the DndDe adantage oJered byhDge 7a>paign GBar 7hests.G

    Ohile there 7an be no gainsaying the laDdable intent behind sD7h an obMe7tie1 theState being >andated to gDarantee eHDal a77ess to opportDnities ;or pDbli7 seri7e1the prohibition has had the opposite eJe7t. )nstead o; GeHDalizingG the position o;

    7andidates Bho oJer the>seles ;or pDbli7 oE7e1 the prohibition a7tDally gies anDn;air adantage to those Bho hae had Bide >edia e=posDre prior to the7a>paign period. )nstead o; pro>oting the interests o; the pDbli7 in general1 theban pro>otes the interest o; a parti7Dlar 7lass o; 7andidates1 the pro>inent andpopDlar 7andidates ;or pDbli7 oE7e. Ohat is in store ;or the relatiely obs7Dre7andidate Bho Bants to pDrsDe his 7andida7yT $ager to trD>pet his 7redentials andprogra> o; goern>ent1 he Inds hi>sel; barred ;ro> Dsing the ;a7ilities o; >ass>edia on his oBn. Ohile in7D>bent goern>ent oE7ials1 shoB bDsinesspersonalities1 athletes and pro>inent >edia >en enMoy the adantage o; na>ere7all dDe to past pDbli7 e=posDre1 the Dnsel; Bith other ;ora1 Bhi7h1 gien the li>ited 7a>paign period1 7annot rea7h theele7torate as eJe7tiely as it BoDld throDgh the >ass >edia. 3o be sDre1 the7andidate >ay aail hi>sel; o; GC+($*$C Spa7eG and GC+($*$C 3i>e1G bDt thesheer nD>ber o; 7andidates does not >ae an eJe7tie ehi7le o;7o>>Dni7ation. 5ot sDrprisingly1 C+($*$C Chair>an Pardo1 at the +ral rgD>entheld by the CoDrt en ban71 ad>itted that no 7andidate has as yet applied ;orC+($*$C air ti>e and spa7e.

    (ore telling1 the 7elebrities are laished Bith broader 7oerage ;ro> neBspapers1radio and teleision stations1 as Bell as ia the 7o>>entaries and e=pressions o;belie; or opinion by reporters1 broad7asters1 editors1 7o>>entators or 7olD>nists1

    as they are dee>ed >ore neBsBorthy by >edia1 thDs generating a sel;-perpetDating 7y7le Bherein politi7al Dnay be >ore desering o;pDbli7 oE7e1 7a>paign in relatie obs7Drity 7o>pared to their >ore popDlar rials.)nstead o; eHDalizing opportDnities ;or pDbli7 seri7e1 the prohibition not onlyperpetDates politi7al ineHDality1 bDt also inidioDsly dis7ri>inates against lesser-

  • 7/24/2019 10. Osmena v Comelec


    Ohile rti7le )[email protected] Se7tion 0 o; the ConstitDtion proides that [email protected] Ide7andidates ;or any pDbli7 oE7e shall be ;ree ;ro> any ;or> o; harass>ent anddis7ri>ination1G rti7le )[email protected] Se7tion # is nothing i; not antitheti7al to the ;or>erproision as1 in its appli7ation1 it is prodD7tie o; a sitDation Bherein politi7alneophytes are blatantly dis7ri>inated against. (D7h as Be re7ognize the basi7

    7anon in ConstitDtional 7onstrD7tion that the ConstitDtion >Dst be interpreted insD7h a Bay as to har>onize all its proisions i; the Charter is to be 7onstrDed as asingle1 7o>prehensie do7D>ent and not as a series o; disMointed arti7les orproisions1 the predi7table eJe7t is ;or one proision to negate the other.

    s to the se7ond reHDisite1 e=perien7e shoBs that the ban on politi7aladertise>ents has not been reasonably ne7essary to a77o>plish its desired end.irst1 there are >ore than 0 proin7es1 >ore than 60 7ities and >ore than athoDsand >Dni7ipalities spread all oer the ar7hipelago. PreioDs ele7tions haeshoBn that the ban on politi7al adertising ;or7es a 7andidate to 7ondD7t anationBide Bhistle-stop 7a>paign to attain >a=i>D> e=posDre o; his 7redentials

    and his progra> o; goern>ent. +bioDsly1 this ne7essitates tre>endoDs resoDr7es;or sDndry e=penses indispensable ;or politi7al 7a>paigns1 all Bithin a li>ited periodo; 0 days. ien the enor>oDs logisti7s needed ;or sD7h a >assie eJort1 Bhat arethe 7han7es ;or an i>pe7DnioDs 7andidate Bho sin7erely aspires ;or national oE7eT

    +n the other hand1 radio and teleision rea7h oDt to a great >aMority o; thepopDla7e >ore than other instrD>ents o; in;or>ation and disse>ination1 being the>ost perasie1 eJe7tie1 and ine=pensie. 0-se7ond teleision adertise>ent17osting aroDnd P'1000.00 at present rates1 BoDld1 in an instant1 rea7h >illions o;ieBers aroDnd the 7oDntry in the 7o>;ort o; their ho>es. )ndeed1 the Dse o;>odern >ass >edia gies the poor 7andidate the opportDnity to >asel;eans o; 7o>>Dni7ationare denied sD7h 7andidates dDe to the i>agined apprehension that >ore aKDent7andidates >ay >onopolize the airBaes. 3his ;ear1 hoBeer1 need not >aterializeas the C+($*$C is pre7isely e>poBered to regDlate >ass >edia to preent sD7h a>onopoly. *iposed by laB Dpon all7andidates1 regardless1 Bill also sere as a deterrent.

    Se7ond1 the >eans e>ployed is less than eJe7tie1 ;or Bith or BithoDt the ban1>oneyed 7andidates1 althoDgh si>ilarly barred ;ro> bDying >ass >edia 7oerage1are in a position to laish their ;Dnds on other propaganda a7tiities Bhi7h their

    lesser-endoBed rials 7an ill-aJord. Drther>ore1 Be taiting politi7al adertising to G7o>>onposter areas.G (any pla7es in 7ities hae been Dngainly plastered Bith 7a>paign>aterials o; the better oJ 7andidates. Ohat Dse is there in banning politi7aladertise>ents to eHDalize the sitDation betBeen ri7h and poor 7andidates1 Bhenthe C+($*$C itsel;1 by its ;ailDre to 7Drb the politi7al e=7esses o; 7andidates1eJe7tiely en7oDrages the preailing disparitiesT Ohy then single oDt politi7aladertisingT Ohat is the reasonable ne7essity o; doing soT

  • 7/24/2019 10. Osmena v Comelec


    3o be realisti71 MDdi7ial noti7e >Dst be tapaign Q Bhi7h ne7essarily entails possessionand/or aailability o; sDbstantial Inan7ial resoDr7es. ien this reHDire>ent1 theobMe7tie o; eHDalizing ri7h and poor 7andidates >ay no longer Ind relean7e1 the

    7andidates Dlti>ately alloBed to rDn being relatiely eHDal1 as ;ar as resoDr7es are7on7erned. dditionally1 the disHDaliI7ation o; nDisan7e 7andidates1 allegedly dDe totheir inability to laDn7h serioDs 7a>paigns1 itsel; 7asts doDbt on the alidity o; theprohibition as a >eans to a7hiee the state poli7y o; eHDalizing a77ess toopportDnities ;or pDbli7 seri7e. ); poor and Dn it has been pri>arily i>posed hae been shDntedaside and thDs1 are Dnable to enMoy its beneIts.

    )t >Dst be ind that the holding o; periodi7 ele7tions 7onstitDte the eryessen7e o; a repDbli7an ;or> o; goern>ent1 these being the >ost dire7t a7t and

    parti7ipation o; a 7itizen in the 7ondD7t o; goern>ent. )n this pro7ess1 politi7alpoBer is entrDsted by hi>1 in 7on7ert Bith the entire body o; the ele7torate1 to theleaders Bho are to goern the nation ;or a spe7iIed period. 3o >aeaning;Dl1 it is the dDty o; goern>ent to see to it that ele7tions are ;ree andhonest and that the oter is Dnha>pered by oert and 7oert inroads o; ;raDd1 ;or7eand 7orrDption so that the 7hoi7e o; the people >ay be Dntra>>elled and the ballotbo= an a77Drate repository o; pDbli7 opinion. nd sin7e so >any i>ponderables >ayaJe7t the oDt7o>e o; ele7tions Q HDaliI7ations o; oters and 7andidates1edD7ation1 >eans o; transportation1 health1 pDbli7 dis7Dssion1 priate ani>osities1the Beather1 the threshold o; a oterNs resistan7e to pressDre Q the Dt>ost

    entilation o; opinion o; >en and issDes1 throDgh asse>bly1 asso7iation andorganizations1 both by the 7andidate and the oter1 be7o>es a sine HDa non ;orele7tions to trDly reUe7t the Bill o; the ele7torate.

    Oith the prohibition on politi7al adertise>ents e=7ept throDgh the Co>ele7 spa7eand ti>e1 hoB 7an a ;Dll dis7Dssion o; >en1 issDes1 ideologies and progra>s berealizedT rti7le )))1 Se7tion # o; the ConstitDtion proides that [email protected] laB shall bepassed abridging the ;reedo> o; spee7h1 o; e=pression1 o; the press1 or the right o;the people pea7eably to asse>ble and petition the goern>ent ;or redress o;griean7es.G )>pli7it in this gDarantee is the right o; the people to spea< and pDblishtheir ieBs and opinions on politi7al and other issDes1 BithoDt prior restraint and/or

    ;ear o; sDbseHDent pDnish>ent. Wet Se7tion @bA1 by aDthorizing politi7aladertise>ents only ia the C+($*$C eJe7tiely preents the 7andidates ;ro>;reely Dsing the ;a7ilities o; print and ele7troni7 >ass >edia to rea7h the ele7torate. >ore blatant ;or> o; prior restraint on the ;ree UoB o; in;or>ation and ideas 7anhardly be i>agined. 3o be sDre1 it does not 7onstitDte an absolDte restri7tion1 bDt itis restri7tion nonetheless1 as odioDs and insidioDs as any that >ay be 7on7eied by>inds 7analized in deepening grooes.

  • 7/24/2019 10. Osmena v Comelec


    ) hold that1 gien oDr e=perien7e in the past tBo ele7tions1 politi7al adertise>entson radio and teleision BoDld not endanger any sDbstantial pDbli7 interest. )ndeed1alloBing adertise>ents BoDld a7tDally pro>ote pDbli7 interest by ;Drthering pDbli7aBareness o; ele7tion issDes. 3he obMe7tie1 eHDalizing opportDnities ;or pDbli7seri7e1 Bhile o; so>e i>>edia7y dDring ele7tion ti>es1 does not MDsti;y 7Drtailing

    the 7itizenNs right o; ;ree spee7h and e=pression.

    G5ot only >Dst the danger be patently 7lear and pressingly present bDt the eilsoDght to be aoided >Dst be so sDbstantie as to MDsti;y a 7la>p oer oneNs >oDthor a Briting instrD>ent to be stilled. or these reasons1 any atte>pt to restri7t theseliberties >Dst be MDstiIed by 7lear pDbli7 interest1 threatened not doDbt;Dlly orre>otely bDt by 7lear and present danger. 3he rational 7onne7tion betBeen there>edy proided and the eil to be 7Drbed1 Bhi7h in other 7onte=t >ight sDpportlegislation against atta7< on dDe pro7ess groDnds1 Bill not sDE7e. 3hese rights reston Ir>er ;oDndation. 77ordingly1 Bhateer o77asion BoDld restrain orderlydis7Dssion and persDasion1 at appropriate ti>e and pla7e1 >Dst hae 7lear sDpport

    in pDbli7 danger1 a7tDal or i>pending. +nly the greatest abDses1 endangeringper>anent interests1 gie o77asion ;or per>issible li>itation.G 20

    5o sD7h 7lear and present danger e=ists here as to MDsti;y banning politi7aladertise>ents ;ro> radio and teleision stations.

    Past e=perien7e shoBs that the C+($*$C has been hard pDt eJe7tiely in;or>ingthe oting popDla7e o; the 7redentials1 a77o>plish>ents1 and plat;or>s o;goern>ent o; the 7andidates. 3here are 16 national and lo7al ele7tie pDbli7positions 2 Bhi7h Bill be 7ontested by an esti>ated 001000 7andidates 22 on (ay1 ". or national positions1 the list has been tri>>ed doBn to 7andidates

    ;or president1 7andidates ;or i7e-president1 and #0 7andidates ;or senator. )t isdiE7Dlt to see hoB the nD>ber o; 7andidates 7an be adeHDately a77o>>odated byGC+($*$C Spa7eG and GC+($*$C 3i>e.G ,esolDtion 5o. 2" o; the C+($*$C1issDed in 7o>plian7e Bith Se7tion 2 o; .P. ""1 >andates that at least thirty>inDtes o; pri>e ti>e be granted to the Co>>ission1 ;ree o; 7harge1 ;ro> ebrDary01 " Dntil (ay 1 ". 2 3hirty >inDtes o; pri>e-ti>e ;or eighty-nine days@"A is s7ar7ely enoDgh ti>e to introdD7e 7andidates to the oters1 >D7h less toproperly in;or> the ele7torate o; the 7redentials and plat;or>s o; all 7andidatesrDnning ;or national oE7e. *et Ds be re>inded that those rDnning ;or lo7al ele7tiepositions Bill also need to Dse the sa>e spa7e and ti>e ;ro> (ar7h 2 to (ay 1

    "1 and that the C+($*$C itsel; is aDthorized to Dse the spa7e and ti>e todisse>inate ital ele7tion in;or>ation. 2# Clearly1 GC+($*$C Spa7eG and GC+($*$C3i>eG sa7riI7es the right o; the 7itizenry to be sDE7iently in;or>ed regarding theHDaliI7ations and progra>s o; the 7andidates. 3he net eJe7t o; Se7tion @bA is1thDs1 a iolation o; the peopleNs right to be in;or>ed on >atters o; pDbli7 7on7ernand >a o;e=pression. 5ot only this1 the ;ailDre o; GCo>ele7 Spa7eG and GCo>ele7 3i>eG toadeHDately in;or> the ele7torate1 only highlights the Dnreasonableness o; the

  • 7/24/2019 10. Osmena v Comelec


    >eans e>ployed to a7hiee the obMe7tie o; eHDalizing opportDnities ;or pDbli7seri7e betBeen ri7h and poor 7andidates.

    gain1 5PC . C+($*$C1 Inds Se7tion @bA alid1 as paid politi7al adertise>entsare alloBed in ;ora other than >odern >ass >edia1 thDs: Gaside ;ro> Se7tion @bA

    o; ,.. 66#6 proiding ;or NC+($*$C Spa7eN and NC+($*$C 3i>e1N Se7tions and 0o; the sa>e laB aJord a 7andidate seeral enDes by Bhi7h he 7an ;Dlly e=er7ise his;reedo> o; e=pression1 in7lDding ;reedo> o; asse>bly.G 7on7Drring opinion pointsto the >andate o; C+($*$C to en7oDrage non-politi7al1 non-partisan priate or 7ii7organizations to initiate and hold in eery 7ity and >Dni7ipality1 pDbli7 ;ora at Bhi7hall registered 7andidates ;or the sa>e oE7e >ay parti7ipate in1 the designation o;7o>>on poster areas1 the right to hold politi7al 7aD7Dses1 7on;eren7es1 >eetings1rallies1 parades1 and other asse>blies1 as Bell as the pDbli7ation and distribDtion o;7a>paign literatDre. ll these dei7es 7oneniently gloss oer the ;a7t that ;or theele7torate1 as shoBn in sDreys by the teneo de (anila LniersityNs Center ;orSo7ial Poli7y and PDbli7 aJairs1 >ass >edia re>ains to be the >ost i>portant and

    a77essible soDr7e o; in;or>ation aboDt 7andidates ;or pDbli7 oE7e.

    )t >Dst be borne in >ind that the noel party-list syste> Bill be i>ple>ented in thei>pending ele7tions. 3he party-list syste>1 an innoation introdD7ed by the "ConstitDtion in order to en7oDrage the groBth o; a >Dlti-party syste> is designed togie a 7han7e to >arginalized se7tors o; so7iety to ele7t their representaties to theCongress. s7he>e ai>ed at giing >eaning;Dl representation to the interests o;se7tors Bhi7h are not adeHDately attended to in nor>al legislatie deliberations1 itis enisioned that syste> Bill en7oDrage interest in politi7al aJairs on the part o; alarge nD>ber o; 7itizens Bho ;eel that they are depried o; the opportDnity to ele7tspoen o; their oBn 7hoosing Dnder the present syste>. )t is e=pe7ted to;orestall resort to e=tra-parlia>entary >eans by >inority groDps Bhi7h BoDld Bishto e=press their interests and inUDen7e goern>ental poli7ies1 sin7e eery 7itizen isgien a sDbstantial representation. 2'

    Lnder ,.. #1 7t1 the labor1 peasant1 Isher;ol>Dnities1 elderly1 handi7apped1 Bo>en1 yoDth1eterans1 oerseas Borents1hoBeer1 those parties Bho Bish to hae their 7andidates ele7ted as se7toralrepresentaties1 are preented ;ro> dire7tly disse>inating their plat;or>s o;

    goern>ent throDgh the >ass >edia. 3he ban on politi7al adertise>ents thDsseres as a deterrent to the deelop>ent o; sel;-relian7e1 sel;-deelop>ent1logisti7al and organizational 7apability on the part o; se7toral parties/organizations1een as it inhibits the> ;ro> rea7hing their target aDdien7es. Ohat >ore eJe7tieBay o; depriing the> o; the 7han7e o; 7onsolidating a >ass base sorely needed ;ora ;air 7han7e o; sD77ess in a highly 7o>petitie politi7al e=er7ise. *i

  • 7/24/2019 10. Osmena v Comelec


    the people belonging to these se7tors to be in;or>ed on >atters o; 7on7ern to the>is lients as

    Gappealing to the non-intelle7tie ;a7Dlties o; the 7aptie and passie aDdien7e1G itsays that anyhoB1 the only li>itation i>posed by Se7tion @bA Dpon the ;reespee7h o; 7andidates is on their right to bo>bard the helpless ele7torate Bith paidadertise>ents 7o>>only repeated in the >ass >edia ad naDsea>.

    SDE7e it to say that1 Bith the e=7eption o; obs7enity1 seditioDs spee7h1 libel1 andthe liine Bhat the people >ay or >ay not Bat7hor read. $en G>ind-nD>bingG politi7al adertise>ents are sDbMe7t to the7onstitDtional sa;egDard o; dDe pro7ess.

    reedo> +; Spee7h $=pression ,e>ains resh and Vital Verity

    3he gDarantee o; the ;reedo> o; spee7h Bhi7h has been deIned by Oendell Phillipsas Gthe instrD>ent and gDarantee and the bright and 7onsD>>ate UoBer o; allliberty1G has alBays been granted a predo>inant statDs in the hierar7hy o;indiidDal rights. 2" )t is ;oDnded on the belie; that the Inal end o; the state Bas to>aen ;ree to deelop their ;a7Dlties and that ;reedo> to thin< as yoD Bill andto spea< as yoD thin< are >eans indispensable to the dis7oery and spread o;politi7al trDth. 2 )ts pDrpose is to presere an Dninhibited >arately preail. 0 Gn indiidDal Bho seeent bye=posing it to opposition and >ainds. %is7Dssion >Dst be

    atter hoB 7ertainly trDe an a77epted opinion >ay be >any o; the>ost Bidely a77epted opinions hae tDrned oDt to be erroneoDs. Conersely1 thesa>e prin7iples apply no >atter hoB ;alse or perni7ioDs the neB opinion >ay be;or the Dna77epted opinion >ay be trDe and partially trDe and een i; ;alse1 itspresentation and open dis7Dssion 7o>pel a rethinay Bat7h on the groDnd that the sa>e appeals only to his non-intelle7tie;a7Dlties or is >ind-deadening and repetitie. eritable Gig rotherG looa

  • 7/24/2019 10. Osmena v Comelec


    3V 7hannels dDring 7o>>er7ial breaote 7ontrol dei7e1 has be7o>e the bane o; adertisers eeryBhere.

    3he line betBeen gaining a77ess to an aDdien7e and ;or7ing the aDdien7e to hear isso>eti>es diE7Dlt to draB1 leaing the 7oDrts Bith no 7lear7Dt do7trine on issDes

    arising ;ro> this edia. 3he LS 7ases 7ited as aDthorities on the 7aptie aDdien7epheno>enon1 Bhi7h1 in7identally1 did not inole the issDe o; ele7tion 7a>paigns1 proide little gDidan7e as to Bhether ;reedo> o; spee7h >ay be in;ringed dDringthe 7a>paign period ;or national ele7tions on a77oDnt o; the indiidDalNs right topria7y. # PrDden7e BoDld di7tate against an in;ringe>ent o; the ;reedo> o;spee7h i; Be are to tapaign is as >D7h a>eans o; disse>inating ideas as attaining politi7al oE7e ' and ;reedo> o; spee7hhas its ;Dllest and >ost Drgent appli7ation to spee7h Dttered dDring ele7tion7a>paigns. 6 )n D7paign 7t1 the Lnited States SDpre>e CoDrt

    per 7Dria> held that:

    Gthe 7on7ept that the goern>ent >ay restri7t the spee7h o; so>e ele>ents in oDrso7iety in order to enhan7e the relatie oi7e o; the others is Bholly ;oreign to theirst >end>ent Bhi7h Bas designed to Gse7Dre the Bidest possible disse>inationo; in;or>ation ;ro> dierse and antagonisti7 soDr7es G and Gto assDre Dn;etteredinter7hange o; ideas ;or the bringing aboDt o; politi7al and so7ial 7hanges desired bythe people.G >phasis sDppliedA

    3he ;ear that the 7andidates Bill bo>bard the helpless ele7torate Bith paidadertise>ents1 Bhile not entirely Dn;oDnded1 is only to be e=pe7ted 7onsidering

    the natDre o; politi7al 7a>paigns. 3he sDpposition hoBeer that Gthe politi7aladertise>ents Bhi7h Bill be GintroMe7ted into the ele7troni7 >edia and repeatedBith >ind deadening ;reHDen7yG are 7o>>only 7ra;ted not so >D7h to in;or> andedD7ate as to 7ondition and >anipDlate1 not so >D7h to proos as to appeal to theintelle7tie ;a7Dlties o; the 7aptie and passie aDdien7eG is not a alid MDstiI7ation;or the in;ringe>ent o; so para>oDnt a right granted by the ConstitDtion inas>D7has it is the priilege o; the ele7torate in a de>o7rati7 so7iety to >ainds as to the >erit o; the adertise>ents presented. 3he goern>ent deries itspoBer ;ro> the people as the soereign and it >ay not i>pose its standards o; Bhat

    is trDe and Bhat is ;alse1 Bhat is in;or>atie and Bhat is not ;or the indiidDal Bho1as a Gparti7leG o; the soereignty is the only one entitled to e=er7ise this priilege.

    oern>ent >ay regDlate 7onstitDtionally prote7ted spee7h in order to pro>ote a7o>pelling interest i; it 7hooses the least restri7tie >eans to ;Drther the saidinterest BithoDt Dnne7essarily inter;ering Bith the gDarantee o; ;reedo> o;e=pression. (ere legislatie pre;eren7e ;or one rather than another >eans ;or7o>bating sDbstantie eils >ay Bell be an inadeHDate ;oDndation on Bhi7h to rest

  • 7/24/2019 10. Osmena v Comelec


    regDlations Bhi7h are ai>ed at or in their operation di>inish the eJe7tie e=er7iseo; rights so ne7essary to >aintenan7e o; de>o7rati7 institDtions. "

    )t shoDld be noted that legislatDre has already seen It to i>pose a 7eiling on the7andidatesN total 7a>paign e=penditDres and has li>ited the politi7al 7a>paign

    period to 0 days ;or 7andidates rDnning ;or national oE7e and 60 days ;or7ongress>en and other lo7al oE7ials. Oith these restri7tions1 it 7annot be gainsaidthat the 7onstitDtional proision on so7ial MDsti7e has been sDE7iently 7o>pliedBith. Oe see no reason Bhy another restri7tion1 >Dst be i>posed Bhi7h onlybDrdens the 7andidate and oters aliaatters Borse1 Be are not een7ertain as to the eE7a7y o; the GadbanG in 7Drtailing the ;eared 7onseHDen7es o; theobMe7t o; its restri7tion. +; 7oDrse1 this is not to say that the laB is being strD7ainly be7aDse it is eE7a7ioDs or ineE7a7ioDs. ); this isthe only issDe Bhi7h 7on;ronts Ds1 there BoDld hae been no need to gie dDe7oDrse to the petition inas>D7h as Be BoDld be inHDiring as to the Bisdo> o; thelaB and treading into an area Bhi7h right;Dlly belongs to the legislatDre. Verily1

    7oDrts 7annot rDn a ra7e o; opinions Dpon points o; right1 reason and e=pedien7yBith the laB->a o; $=pression )n7o>patible Oith So7ial 9Dsti7eT

    3he 7onstitDtional HDestion at hand is not MDst a si>ple >atter o; de7iding Bhetherthe GadbanG is eJe7tie or ineJe7tie in bridging the Inan7ial disparity betBeen theri7h and poor 7andidates. Se7 @bA o; , 5o. 66#6 stri o; e=pression. )t is Dn7onstitDtional not be7aDse Be are Dn7ertain as toBhether it a7tDally leels the playing Ield ;or the 7andidates bDt be7aDse the>eans Dsed to regDlate ;reedo> o; e=pression is on all points 7onstitDtionally

    i>per>issible. )t tells the 7andidates Bhen1 Bhere and hoB to disse>inate theirideas Dnder pain o; pDnish>ent shoDld they re;Dse to 7o>ply. 3he i>pli7ations o;the ban are indeed >ore 7o>ple= and ;ar rea7hing than appro=i>ating eHDalitya>ong the ri7h and poor 7andidates.

    3he pri>a7y a77orded the ;reedo> o; e=pression is a ;Dnda>ental postDlate o; oDr7onstitDtional syste>. 3he trend as reUe7ted in Philippine and >eri7an de7isions isto re7ognize the broadest s7ope and assDre the Bidest latitDde to this gDaranty. )trepresents a pro;oDnd 7o>>it>ent to the prin7iple that debate o; pDbli7 issDeshoDld be Dninhibited1 robDst and Bide open and >ay best sere its high pDrposeBhen it indD7es a 7ondition o; Dnrest1 7reates dissatis;a7tion Bith 7onditions as theyare or een stirs people to anger. #

    3he repression o; e=pression in an atte>pt to leel the playing Ield betBeen theri7h and the poor 7andidates is not only Dnrealisti7 bDt goes beyond the per>issibleli>its o; ;reedo> o; e=pression as enshrined in the 7onstitDtion. So7ial MDsti7e is alaDdable obMe7tie bDt it shoDld not be Dsed as a >eans to MDsti;y in;ringe>ent o;the ;reedo> o; e=pression i; it 7an be a7hieed by >eans that do not Dnne7essarily

  • 7/24/2019 10. Osmena v Comelec


    tren7h on the indiidDalNs ;Dnda>ental right. 3he 7ase o; Dido . ,Dral Progressd>inistration1 #2 is parti7Dlarly enlightening. )n said 7ase1 Be had o77asion tostate that:

    G4and in hand Bith the annoDn7ed prin7iple1 herein inootion o;

    so7ial MDsti7e to insDre the Bell being and e7ono>i7 se7Drity o; all people shoDld bethe 7on7ern o; the stateN1 is a de7laration Bith Bhi7h the ;or>er shoDld bere7on7iled1 that Nthe Philippines is a ,epDbli7an stateN 7reated to se7Dre to theilipino people Nthe blessings in independen7e Dnder a regi>e o; MDsti7e1 liberty andde>o7ra7yN %e>o7ra7y as a Bay o; li;e enshrined in the ConstitDtion1 e>bra7es asits ne7essary 7o>ponents ;reedo> o; 7ons7ien7e1 ;reedo> o; e=pression1 and;reedo> in pDrsDit o; happiness . . . So7ial MDsti7e does not 7ha>pion diision o;property or eHDality o; e7ono>i7 statDs Bhat it and the ConstitDtion do gDaranteeare eHDality o; e7ono>i7 opportDnity1 eHDality o; politi7al rights1 eHDality be;ore thelaB1 eHDality betBeen alDes gien and re7eied . . .G

    Ohile Be 7on7ede the possibility that the ri7h 7andidates >ay do>inate theairBaes to the detri>ent o; the poor 7andidates1 the latter shoDld not be preented;ro> replying. Ohile they >ay be restri7ted on a77oDnt o; their Inan7ial resoDr7es1they are not denied a77ess to the >edia altogether. 3his is Bhat is >eant by thephrase GeHDal ti>e1 spa7e1 eHDal opportDnity and the right o; replyG Dnder rti7le )[email protected]@#A o; the " ConstitDtion Bhi7h Bas inserted by the ;ra>ers o; theConstitDtion as a rea7tion to a " rDling o; the SDpre>e CoDrt that Bhen thepresident speae. #

    )t is ironi7 that the gDarantee o; ;reedo> o; e=pression shoDld be pitted against the7onstitDtional proision on so7ial MDsti7e be7aDse the ;reedo> o; spee7h is the >ostpotent instrD>ent o; pDbli7 opinion1 not to spea< o; its being the >ost eJe7tieBeapon ;or eJe7ting politi7al and so7ial re;or>s. Certainly1 an in;ringe>ent o; the;reedo> o; spee7h in a less than heroi7 atte>pt at attaining so7ial MDsti7e 7annot be7oDntenan7ed1 ;or in the Dlti>ate analysis so7ial MDsti7e 7annot UoDrish i; thepeopleNs right to spea

  • 7/24/2019 10. Osmena v Comelec


    3he noelist eorge +rBell on7e said1 G)n a so7iety in Bhi7h there is no laB1 and intheory no 7o>pDlsion1 the only arbiter o; behaior is pDbli7 opinion. Dt pDbli7opinion1 be7aDse o; the tre>endoDs Drge to 7on;or>ity in gregarioDs ani>als1 is lesstolerant than any other syste> o; laB.G or Bant o; legislatDre to eHDalize theplaying Ield betBeen the ri7h and the poor 7andidates1 it has1 by i>posing a

    7o>plete prohibition on paid politi7al adertise>ents1 bDrned doBn a hoDse to roasta pig. or ;ear o; a77Dsations that it >ight be treading into an area Bhi7h right;Dllybelongs to the legislatDre1 the CoDrt today1 by san7tioning an Dnne7essaryin;ringe>ent on the ;reedo> o; spee7h1 has DnBittingly alloBed the 7a>elNs noseinto the tent.

    (y 7olleagDe1 9Dsti7e ,eynato PDno1 in his separate opinion1 apparently oerloopose a 7eiling on the 7andidatesN total

    7a>paign e=penditDres. #' Pre7isely1 Be hae repeatedly e>phasized in thedissenting opinion that Be see no reason Bhy another restri7tion >Dst be i>posedon the 7onstitDtional gDarantee o; ;reedo> o; spee7h Bhi7h only bDrdens the7andidates and ele7torates aliposing a 7eiling on the7andidatesN total 7a>paign e=penditDres and li>iting the 7a>paign period to 0days ;or 7andidates rDnning ;or national oE7e and 60 days ;or 7ongress>en andother lo7al oE7ials. Oe hae >entioned D7a7y a77orded to ;reedo> o; spee7h1 7oDrts1 as a rDle are Bary toi>pose greater restri7tions as to any atte>pt to 7Drtail spee7hes Bith politi7al

    7ontent. 3o presere the san7tity o; the statDs a77orded to the said ;reedo>1 the LSSDpre>e CoDrt has1 in ;a7t1 gone as ;ar as inalidating a ;ederal laB li>itingindiidDal e=penditDres o; 7andidates rDnning ;or politi7al oE7e.

    )n any 7ase1 to address so>e >is7on7eptions aboDt e=isting MDrisprDden7e on the>atter1 Be noB present a brie; dis7Dssion on D7 held that a;ederal laB li>iting indiidDal 7ontribDtions to 7andidates ;or oE7e sered thestateNs 7o>pelling interest in li>iting the a7tDality and appearan7e o; 7orrDption.4oBeer a laB li>iting e=penditDres by 7andidates1 indiidDals and groDps Bas heldDn7onstitDtional. 3he rationale ;or the di7hoto>y betBeen 7a>paign e=penditDres

    and 7ontribDtions has been e=plained in this Bise Q 7a>paign 7ontribDtions are>arginal be7aDse they 7oney only an DndiJerentiated e=pression o; sDpport ratherthan the spe7iI7 alDes Bhi7h >otiate the sDpport. $=penditDres1 on the otherhand1 as dire7tly related to the e=pression o; politi7al ieBs1 are on a higher plane o;7onstitDtional alDes. 3he CoDrt1 in noting that a >ore stringent MDstiI7ation isne7essary ;or legislatie intrDsion into prote7ted spee7h said1 G restri7tion on thea>oDnt o; >oney a person or a groDp 7an spend on politi7al 7o>>Dni7ation

  • 7/24/2019 10. Osmena v Comelec


    ne7essarily redD7es the HDantity o; e=pression by restri7ting the nD>ber o; issDesdis7Dssed1 the depth o; their e=ploration1 and the size o; the aDdien7e rea7hed. 3hisis be7aDse irtDally eery >eans o; 7o>>Dni7ating in todayNs >ass so7iety reHDiresthe e=penditDre o; >oney.G #6

    >ore dis7erning s7rDtiny o; the LS 7ases ;olloBing D7D7h lessdis7redited. )n Cali;ornia (edi7al sso7iation s. $C 1 # a laB li>iting the a>oDntan in7orporated asso7iation 7an 7ontribDte to a >Dlti-7andidate politi7al 7o>>itteeBas Dpheld. 3he spending Bas ieBed not as independent politi7al spee7h bDtrather as Gspee7h by pro=y1G hen7e1 the spending Bas dee>ed analogoDs to groDp7ontribDtions Bhi7h 7an be regDlated.

    )n $C s. 5ational Conseratie Politi7al 7tion Co>>1 #" the LS SDpre>e CoDrtinalidated a se7tion o; the Presidential $le7tion Ca>paign Dnd 7t Bhi7h >ainal oJense ;or an independent politi7al 7o>>ittee to spend >ore than

    Z1000 to ;Drther the ele7tion o; a presidential 7andidate Bho ele7ts pDbli7 ;Dnding.5ational Conseratie Politi7al 7tion Co>>ittee @5CPCA and the Dnd ;or aConseratie (aMority @C(A1 tBo politi7al a7tion 7o>>ittees or PCNs1 soli7ited;Dnds in sDpport o; President ,eaganNs "0 presidential 7a>paign. 3he PCNs spentthese ;Dnds on radio and teleision adertising in sDpport o; ,eagan. 3he CoDrt1relying on D7>itteesBere 7onstitDtionally prote7ted ;or they GprodD7e spee7h at the 7ore o; the irst>end>entG ne7essitating a GrigoroDs standard o; reieB.G 9Dsti7e ,ehnHDist1 ;orthe 7oDrt1 lipliIer. s in D7paign1 Bere seen aspresenting a