OSMENA VS.

COMELEC
G.R. NO. 132231, March 31, 1998

FACTS:

Petitioners Emilio R. Osmena and Pablo P. Gacia, who are candidates for public office, seek for the
reexamination of the validity of 11(b) of RA 6646, the Electoral Reforms Law of 1987, which prohibits
mass media from selling or giving free of charge print space or air time for campaign or other political
purpose, except to the Commission on Elections. Also, they contend the events after the ruling in
National Press Club V. COMELEC (“NPC case”) and have called into question the validity of the very
premise of the Court’s decision.

The Petitioners claim that in the last five years after the ruling on the NPC case, experience show the
undesirable effects of the law. Instead of being an advantage to poor candidates it turned out to be a
disadvantage. It deprived them of a medium they can afford to pay for while their more affluent rivals
can always resort to other means of reaching voters like airplanes, boats, rallies, parades, and handbills.

ISSUE: Is the Petitioners’ claim cognizable?

HELD: The Court held in the negative. The NPC case upheld the validity of 11(b) of RA 6646 against
claims that it abridged freedom of speech and of the press. The Petitioners urged for the reexmination
of the Court’s ruling. However, they have failed to support empirical data to their claim. Their
argumentation is made at the theoretical and not on the practical level. What they seek is a reargument
on a previously decided case supported by arguments which have already been considered and rejected.
What the Petitioners seek is not the adjudication of the case but simply the holding of an academic
exercise. The Court reaffirms its decision in the NPC case. Stare decisis et non quieta movere.