Osmeña & Garcia vs. Comelec

Two famous former governors of Cebu joined efforts to enrich the pages of Philippine jurisprudence in Constitutional Law, Political Law, and Election Laws. They were Lito Osmeña, grandson of President Don Sergio Osmeña Sr., and Pablo Garcia, father of the incumbent governor. They filed the landmark case of Emilio Osmeña and Pablo Garcia vs. Comelec, GR 132231, March 31, 1998.

The two leaders filed a petition before the Supreme Court asking for the prohibition against Comelec to implement what they alleged to be unconstitutional, which were Section 11, Paragraph B of RA 6646, the Electoral Reforms Law of 1987. That law prohibits print and broadcast media from selling or giving free space or air time for campaign or other political purposes. Exceptions were the Comelec time on air or Comelec space on print media. At that time, Lito was running for president, and Pabling for Cebu governor. It was their contention that the law violated the freedom of speech, of the press, and of expression.

They alleged that events after the Supreme Court decision in NPC vs. Comelec made it imperative to take a second look at the rationale for such a decision and called for the reversal of NPC vs. Comelec. They questioned the power of the government to infringe the freedom of the people to express themselves so they could tell the people their vision for the country and province. The petition also questioned the grave abuse of the government in infringing the candidates' liberty to express themselves via print and broadcast. They said that the law abridged the freedom of expression, under the guise of equitable political campaigning.

The Supreme Court, speaking through Justice Mendoza, dismissed the petition saying the two petitioners failed to present an actual controversy or case to decide but only an academic discussion to hold for the enrichment of our jurisprudence. This was very important to me, however, for classroom discussion with my students who are future lawyers. The Supreme Court also explained that there is no real infringement of the freedom of expression as the term "ad ban" in Section 11, B is misleading. The Supreme Court also cited many decisions where they upheld the validity of Comelec regulations designed to protect the sanctity of the ballot unfettered by any distractions and confusing interferences.

The penultimate paragraph of the decision is a capsule of its ratio decidendi: "The Court is just as profoundly aware that discussions of public issues and debate on the qualifications of candidates are essential to the proper functioning of the government. But it is precisely with this awareness that we think democratic efforts at reforms should be seen for what they are: genuine efforts to enhance the political process rather than infringements of the freedom of expression. This is a part of the reform measures adopted in 1987 in the aftermath of EDSA." The Supreme Court justified it as a democracy-enhancing measure to avoid elections that are unjustly skewed in favor of billionaires and corrupted by unbridled use of money and political machineries.

The Supreme Court reminded both Osmeña and Garcia that they were part of making such a law. "A reform-minded Congress after EDSA, passed bills which were consolidated into what is now RA 6646, with near unimity.” It was passed by the House where petitioner Pablo Garcia was a member, and he did not vote “No”. The lone dissenter was one Representative Eduardo Pilapil from Bicol. The Upper House approved it unanimously by senators that included Sonny Osmeña, brother of Lito. That decision ended with a quote from "The Irony of Free Speech”: a truth that is full of irony and contradiction, that the State can be both an enemy and a friend of speech.

Chief Justice Narvasa, Justices Regaladao, Davide Jr., Bellosillo, Kapunan, and Martinez concurred with Justice Mendoza. The political law expert, Justice R. Puno wrote a separate opinion, concurred in by Justice Melo. Justice Vitug also wrote a separate opinion concurred in by Justices Melo and Purisima, Justice Flerida Ruth Romer, President Cory's former legal adviser, UP Law professor and secretary general to the 1986 Con-Com, dissented, declaring: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." Justice Quisumbing also dissented.

What matters most is that we realize again that there can be as many separate opinions as there are how many lawyers involved in the discussion. Law is not an exact science. It is more of an art than a science, in fact.