G.R. No. 132231 , March 31, 1998
EMILIO M. R. OSMEÑA and PABLO P. GARCIA, petitioners, vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent.

(Separate Concurring Opinion, Vitug, J.)

FACTS

Petitioners Emilio M. R. Osmeña and Pablo P. Garcia sought a re-examination of the Supreme Court’s decision in National Press Club vs. Commission on Elections, which upheld the validity of Section 11(b) of Republic Act No. 6646 (the Electoral Reforms Law of 1987). They challenged the constitutionality of this provision, along with Section 18(e) of COMELEC Resolution No. 2974. These contested provisions prohibit newspapers, radio and television stations, and other mass media from selling or giving free print space or air time for campaign or political purposes, except to the COMELEC for its allotted “COMELEC Time” under the Omnibus Election Code. Petitioners argued that these provisions abridge the freedom of speech, expression, and the press guaranteed under Section 4, Article III of the Constitution .

ISSUE

Whether or not Section 11(b) of R.A. No. 6646 and Section 18(e) of COMELEC Resolution No. 2974 are unconstitutional for allegedly violating the freedom of speech, expression, and the press.

RULING

No. In his separate concurring opinion, Justice Vitug voted to dismiss the petition and upheld the constitutionality of the challenged provisions. He opined that these provisions are a faithful compliance with the specific constitutional mandate under Article IX(C)(4) of the 1987 Constitution , which authorizes the COMELEC to supervise or regulate media of communication during the election period. The objective of such regulation is to ensure equal opportunity, time, and space for public information campaigns among candidates to achieve free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections. Justice Vitug emphasized that the freedom of expression, while fundamental, is not absolute and may yield to specific constitutional demands aimed at ensuring equal access to public service opportunities, as also envisioned in Section 26, Article II of the Constitution . The law is a genuine attempt by Congress and the COMELEC to give all candidates an equal chance at media coverage, thereby giving life to, rather than unduly restricting, the candidates’ right to free expression. The wisdom of the law is a legislative prerogative beyond the Court’s normal review power. Justices Melo and Purisima concurred with this opinion.