Case Title: Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) vs.

Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa

Facts:
KMG staged a four-day mass action in front of the GSIS main office in Roxas Boulevard, Pasay
City, in October 2004. The mass action was aimed at GSIS President and General Manager
Winston Garcia and his management style and was attended by KMG members and employees
of other government agencies. The GSIS Investigating Unit issued a memorandum on October
10, 2004, directing 131 union and non-union members to explain why they should not be
charged administratively for participating in the rally.
KMG sought reconsideration of the directive but was denied, and on October 25, 2004, 110
KMG members were charged with grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest
of the service. KMG filed a Petition for Prohibition on November 2, 2004, to prevent the GSIS
management from pursuing the investigation of the administrative cases. However, the
investigation continued, and as of May 18, 2005, 207 out of the 278 cases filed had been
resolved, with 20 respondent-employees being exonerated, 182 reprimanded, and five
suspended for one month.
KMG claimed that Garcia had violated Civil Service Resolution No. 02-0316, which provides
guidelines for prohibited mass actions and urges government agencies to use the grievance
machinery or other modes of settlement sanctioned by law and existing civil service rules to
resolve employee grievances.
Issue:
Whether or not the filing of administrative charges against some of its members by the GSIS
management, violated the employees' right to freedom of expression and assembly.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court noted that while the Constitution gives employees the right to strike, this
right is qualified by the provision "in accordance with law". The Court cited Section 2 of
Executive Order 180, which recognizes the right of employees to form and join employee
organizations, and Section 3 which recognizes the right of government employees to engage in
concerted activities subject to reasonable regulation. Therefore, while employees have the right
to engage in mass actions and rallies, these must be exercised with due regard to the rights of
others, as well as the interests of the public and government service, and regulated by law. The
Court held that the GSIS had the right to discipline its employees who participated in the mass
action without observing proper guidelines under EO 180, and that the writ of prohibition issued
by the Court of Appeals was nullified.
OSMEÑA VS. COMELEC, 288 SCRA 447 (1998)
Facts:
In this petition for prohibition, candidates for public office Emilio M. R. Osmeña and Pablo P.
Garcia seek a reexamination of the validity of §11(b) of R.A. No. 6646, which prohibits mass
media from selling or giving free print space or airtime for campaign or political purposes, except
to the Commission on Elections. The petitioners argue that the ban on political advertising has
worked to the disadvantage of poor candidates, as it deprives them of a medium they can
afford, while their wealthier rivals can resort to other means of reaching voters.
However, the petitioners do not present any empirical data to support their claims. They argue
at a theoretical level and seek a reargument on the same issue already decided in the case of
National Press Club v. Commission on Elections, which upheld the validity of §11(b) of R.A. No.
6646 against claims that it abridged freedom of speech and of the press. Additionally, the
petitioners do not complain of any harm suffered as a result of the operation of the law, and their
financial ability to sustain a campaign using means other than mass media cannot be doubted.
Intervenor Roger Panotes, a candidate for mayor of Daet, Camarines Norte, supports the law
and claims that it has reduced the advantages of moneyed politicians and parties over their
rivals who are similarly situated. The petitioners' request is seen as an academic exercise, as
the majority of the present court is unpersuaded that its decision in NPC is founded in error.

Issue:
Whether or not §11(b) of R.A. No. 6646, which prohibits mass media from selling or giving free
of charge print space or air time for campaign or other political purposes except to the
Commission on Elections, is valid.

Ruling:
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and upheld the validity of §11(b) of R.A. No. 6646,
which prohibits mass media from selling or giving free of charge print space or air time for
campaign or other political purposes, except to the Commission on Elections. The Court found
that the petitioners failed to provide empirical evidence to support their claim that the law has
worked to the grave disadvantage of poor candidates. Additionally, the Court stated that the
petitioners' arguments were mainly theoretical and did not show any harm suffered as a result of
the operation of the law. The Court also noted that some of the arguments made were already
considered and rejected in a prior case.
The Court also emphasized that political campaigns are not just about money or media
exposure, and that candidates can still reach voters through other means such as personal
appearances, door-to-door campaigning, and the distribution of campaign literature. The Court
held that the restriction on media advertising is a reasonable regulation of the time, place, and
manner of campaign speech and that it does not violate the freedom of speech and of the press.
Therefore, the Court dismissed the petition and upheld the validity of §11(b) of R.A. No. 6646.