Cited Laws
TL;DR — Ruling
the appeal was considered as clearly an inappropriate remedy.
accordingly in the future. Seventh, petitioners rightly claim that they had no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law that could free them from the injurious effects of respondents acts in violation of their right to freedom of expression. In this case, the repercussions of the assailed issuances on this basic right constitute an exceptionally compelling reason to justify the direct resort to this court. The lack of other sufficient remedies in the course of law alone is sufficient ground to allow direct resort to this court. Eighth, the petition includes questions that are dictated by public welfare and the advancement of public policy, or demanded by the broader interest of justice, or the orders complained of were found to be patent nullities, or the appeal was considered as clearly an inappropriate remedy. [82] In the past, questions similar to these which this court ruled on immediately despite the doctrine of hierarchy of courts included citizens right to bear arms, [83] government contracts involving modernization of voters registration lists, [84] and the status and existence of a public office. [85] This case also poses a question of similar, if not greater import. Hence, a direct action to this court is permitted. It is not, however, necessary that all of these exceptions must occur at the same time to justify a direct resort to this court. While generally, the hierarchy of courts is respected, the present case falls under the recognized exceptions and, as such, may be resolved by this court directly. I.D The concept of a political question Respondents argue further that the size limitation and its reasonableness is a political question, hence not within the ambit of this courts power of review. They cite Justice Vitugs separate opinion in Osmeña v. COMELEC [86] to support their position: It might be worth mentioning that Section 26, Article II, of the Constitution also states that the State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law. I see neither Article IX (C)(4) nor Section 26, Article II, of the Constitution to be all that adversarial or irreconcilably inconsistent with the right of free expression. In any event, the latter, being one of general application, must yield to the specific demands of the Constitution. The freedom of expression concededly holds, it is true, a vantage point in hierarchy of constitutionally-enshrined rights but, like all fundamental rights, it is not without limitations. The case is not about a fight between the rich and the poor or between the powerful and the weak in our society but it is to me a genuine attempt on the part of Congress and the Commission on Elections to ensure that all candidates are given an equal chance to media coverage and thereby be equally perceived as giving real life to the candidates right of free expression rather than being viewed as an undue restr