G.R. No.

132231 March 31, 1998

EMILIO M. R. OSMEÑA and PABLO P. GARCIA, petitioners,

vs.
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent.

MENDOZA, J.: Ponente

FACTS:

This is a petition for prohibition, seeking a reexamination of the validity of §11(b) of R.A. No. 6646,
theElectoral Reforms Law of 1987, which prohibits mass media from selling or giving free of charge
printspace or air time for campaign or other political purposes, except to the Commission on Elections.
[1]Petitioners are candidates for public office in the forthcoming elections. Petitioner Emilio M. R.
Osmeñais candidate for President of the Philippines, while petitioner Pablo P. Garcia is governor of
CebuProvince, seeking reelection.

On June 20, 1991, RA No. 7056 was enacted. Such RA was made for the 1992 National and
LocalElections

On July 30, 1991, Governor Emilio Osmeña of Cebu

et al

filed a petition against the COMELECfor the nullity of the said RA on the reason that the said law was
unconstitutional.

Such provisions in the said RA that were deemed by the petitioners unconstitutional were:

Republic Act 7056 violates the mandate of the Constitution for the holding ofsynchronized national and
local elections on the second Monday of May 1992.

o
Republic Act 7056, particularly the 2nd paragraph of Section 3 thereof, providing that allincumbent
provincial, city and municipal officials shall hold over beyond June 30, 1992and shall serve until their
successors shall have been duly elected and qualified violatesSection 2, Article XVIII (Transitory
Provision) of the Constitution.

The same paragraph of Section 3 of Republic Act 7056, which in effect, shortens theterm or tenure of
office of local officials to be elected on the 2nd Monday of November,1992 violates Section 8, Article X
of the Constitution.

Section 8 of Republic Act 7056, providing for the campaign periods for Presidential, Vice-Presidential and
Senatorial elections, violates the provision of Section 9, Article IX underthe title "Commission on
Elections" of the Constitution.

The so-called many difficult if not insurmountable problems mentioned in Republic Act7056 to
synchronized national and local elections set by the Constitution on the secondMonday of May, 1992,
are not sufficient, much less, valid justification for postponingthe local elections to the second Monday
of November 1992, and in the processviolating the Constitution itself. If, at all, Congress can devise ways
and means, withinthe parameters of the Constitution, to eliminate or at least minimize these
problemsand if this, still, is not feasible, resort can be made to the self-correcting mechanism built in the
Constitution for its amendment or revision.

The respondents, COMELEC, questioned the jurisdiction of the Court to review such case for they stated
that the controversy was merely a political one and therefore does not fall under the court’s jurisdiction

ISSUE:

Whether COMELEC was entitled to free speech.

HELD:

The reason for this difference in the level of justification for the restriction of speech is that
content-basedrestrictions distort public debate, have improper motivation, and are usually imposed
because of fear ofhow people will react to a particular speech. No such reasons underlie content-
neutral regulations, likeregulations of time, place and manner of holding public assemblies under B.P.
Blg. 880, the PublicAssembly Act of 1985. Applying the O’Brien test in this case, we find that §11(b) of
R.A. No. 6646 is avalid exercise of the power of the State to regulate media of communication or
information for thepurpose of ensuring equal opportunity, time and space for political campaigns; that
the regulation isunrelated to the suppression of speech; that any restriction on freedom of expression is
only incidentaland no more than is necessary to achieve the purpose of promoting equality