EN BANC
G.R. No. 252119, August 25, 2020
ABS-CBN CORPORATION, PETITIONER, V. NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION,* RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Before the Court is a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition (With Urgent Applications for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order [TRO] and/or a Writ of Preliminary Injunction [WPI])1 assailing the Order2 dated May 5, 2020 issued by respondent National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) which directed petitioner ABS-CBN Corporation (ABS-CBN) to immediately cease and desist from operating its radio and television stations (CDO) due to the expiration of its legislative franchise granted under Republic Act No. (RA) 7966, entitled "An Act Granting the ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation a Franchise to Construct, Install, Operate and Maintain Television and Radio Broadcasting Stations in the Philippines, and for Other Purposes."3cralawred
Broadcast and television stations are required to obtain a legislative franchise, a requirement imposed by the Radio Control Act and affirmed by our ruling in Associated Broadcasting. After securing their legislative franchises, stations are required to obtain CPCs from the NTC before they can operate their radio or television broadcasting systems. Such requirement while traceable also to the Radio Control Act, currently finds its basis in E.O. No. 546, the law establishing the NTC.72 (Emphasis supplied)In this case, ABS-CBN seeks that the Court annul and set aside the CDO issued by the NTC ordering it to cease and desist from operating its radio and television stations enumerated therein. The core of ABS-CBN's petition rests on its argument that the NTC should not have pre-empted the will of Congress by directing it (ABS-CBN) to halt its broadcasting operations through said stations pending the determination of Congress on the renewal of its legislative franchise based on the bills specifically filed therefor. In other words, ABS-CBN banks on the fact that since Congress has yet to act on these pending bills, there is still a possibility that its legislative franchise would be renewed; hence, the NTC should not have overtaken Congress' action on these pending bills by issuing the assailed CDO. In this regard, ABS-CBN claims that Congress has the "corollary power" to define and preserve rights and obligations pending its final determination on the matter.73 Notably, ABS-CBN's position is echoed in the "guidance" issued by the DOJ Secretary, which submits that the plenary power of Congress includes the auxiliary power to define and preserve the rights of the franchise applicant pending final determination of the renewal of the franchise.74
Indeed, the adoption of the TWG's recommendation by the House Committee on Legislative Franchises is considered as the official expression of the legislative will that has dispelled any previous uncertainty regarding ABS-CBN's franchise status insofar as the pending franchise renewal bills are concerned. Hence, the supervening denial of these bills means that ABS-CBN cannot any more invoke the same as basis for continuing the operation of the radio and television networks covered by the CDO issued by the NTC. Accordingly, the issue on the "corollary/auxiliary" powers of Congress pending the renewal of these bills had already been rendered moot.RESOLUTION
DENYING THE FRANCHISE APPLICATION OF ABS-CBN CORPORATION TO CONSTRUCT, INSTALL, ESTABLISH, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN RADIO AND BROADCASTING STATIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES
WHEREAS, Republic Act (RA) No. 7966 granted ABS-CBN Corporation (formerly ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation) a franchise to construct, operate and maintain television and radio broadcasting stations throughout the Philippines;
WHEREAS, prior to expiration of RA No. 7966 on 05 May 2020, several House Bills and House Resolutions were filed including House Bill Nos. 676, 3521, 3713, 3947, 4305, 5608, 5705, 5753, 6052, 6138, 6293 and 6694, and House Resolution Nos. 639 and 853 relative to the grant or renewal of ABS-CBN Corporation's franchise;
WHEREAS, the Committee on Legislative Franchises sought the position of the stakeholders, relevant government agencies and constituencies on the franchise application of ABS-CBN Corporation;
WHEREAS, the Committee on Legislative Franchises conducted its initial hearing on March 10, 2020 and the Joint Committees on Legislative Franchises and Good Government and Public Accountability conducted extensive hearings from May 26 to July 9, 2020 to discuss the various issues raised against ABS-CBN Corporation;
WHEREAS, the Committee on Legislative Franchises created a Technical Working Group (TWG) to discuss the findings and recommend a decision of the Committee on Legislative Franchises on the franchise application of ABS-CBN Corporation;
WHEREAS, the TWG, after due consideration of the testimonies, documents, submissions and arguments has come up with its findings and recommendations contained in the TWG Report;
WHEREAS, the TWG recommended to deny the franchise application of ABS-CBN Corporation and the Committee on Legislative Franchises to adopt its recommendation;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED AS IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, that the members of the Committee on Legislative Franchises deny the application of ABS-CBN Corporation for a franchise to construct, install, establish, operate and maintain radio and broadcasting stations in the Philippines;
RESOLVED FURTHER that, pursuant to Section 49 of the 18th Congress Rules of the House of Representatives, all of the House Bills and House Resolutions relative to the grant or renewal of the franchise application of ABS-CBN Corporation are hereby laid on the table; and the authors thereof shall be notified in writing and, as far as practicable, through electronic mail of the action within five (5) days stating the reason(s) thereof.
x x x x (Emphases and underscoring supplied)
Very truly yours, (SGD) EDGAR O. ARICHETA Clerk of Court |
Endnotes:
* As per the Court's Resolution dated May 19, 2020, the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Philippines were both impleaded as parties to this case, and consequently, directed to file their respective comments to the petition (see rollo, pp. 320-AA-320-CC). However, for the reasons discussed below, they are dropped as parties to this case; hence, their non-inclusion in the caption.
1Rollo, pp. 10-55.
2 In NTC Adm. Case No. 2020-008 issued by Commissioner Gamaliel A. Cordoba and Deputy Commissioners Edgardo V. Cabarios and Delilah F. Deles. Id. at 62-65.
3 (May 4, 1995).
4 RA 7966; Section 1.
5 See rollo, p. 11.
6 House Bill No. (HB) 4997 (16th Congress), entitled "AN ACT RENEWING THE FRANCHISE GRANTED TO ABS-CBN CORPORATION (FORMERLY ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION) UNDER REPUBLIC ACT No. 7966 OR 'AN ACT GRANTING ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION A FRANCHISE TO CONSTRUCT, INSTALL, ESTABLISH, OPERATE, AND MAINTAIN BROADCASTING STATIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES' FOR TWENTY-FIVE YEARS FROM THE EFFECTIVITY OF THIS ACT" (last visited on July 17, 2020) and HB 4349 (17th Congress), entitled "AN ACT RENEWING THE FRANCHISE GRANTED TO ABS-CBN CORPORATION (FORMERLY ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION) UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7966 OR 'AN ACT GRANTING ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION A FRANCHISE TO CONSTRUCT, INSTALL, ESTABLISH, OPERATE, AND MAINTAIN BROADCASTING STATIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES' FOR TWENTY-FIVE (25) YEARS FROM THE EFFECTIVITY OF THIS ACT" (last visited on July 17, 2020).
7 See rollo, pp. 11-12.
8 HB 676 (18th Congress), entitled "AN ACT RENEWING THE FRANCHISE GRANTED TO ABS-CBN CORPORATION (FORMERLY ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION) UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7966 OR 'AN ACT GRANTING ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION A FRANCHISE TO CONSTRUCT, INSTALL, ESTABLISH, OPERATE, AND MAINTAIN BROADCASTING STATIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES' FOR TWENTY-FIVE (25) YEARS FROM THE EFFECTIVITY OF THIS ACT" (last visited on July 17, 2020); HB 3521 (18th Congress) entitled, "AN ACT RENEWING THE FRANCHISE GRANTED TO ABS-CBN CORPORATION UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7966 OTHERWISE KNOWN AS 'AN ACT GRANTING ABSCBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION A FRANCHISE TO CONSTRUCT, INSTALL, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN TELEVISION AND RADIO BROADCASTING STATIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES' FOR TWENTY-FIVE (25) YEARS FROM THE EFFECTIVITY OF THIS ACT" (last visited on July 17, 2020); HB 3713 (18th Congress), entitled "AN ACT RENEWING THE FRANCHISE GRANTED TO ABS-CBN CORPORATION (FORMERLY ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION) UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7966 OR 'AN ACT GRANTING ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION A FRANCHISE TO CONSTRUCT, INSTALL, ESTABLISH, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN BROADCASTING STATIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES' FOR TWENTY-FIVE (25) YEARS FROM THE EFFECTIVITY OF THIS ACT" (last visited on July 17, 2020); HB 3947 (18th Congress), entitled "AN ACT RENEWING THE FRANCHISE GRANTED TO ABS-CBN CORPORATION (FORMERLY ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION) UNDER REPUBLIC ACT No. 7966 OR 'AN ACT GRANTING ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION A FRANCHISE TO CONSTRUCT, INSTALL, ESTABLISH, OPERATE, AND MAINTAIN BROADCASTING STATIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES' FOR TWENTY-FIVE (25) YEARS FROM THE EFFECTIVITY OF THIS ACT" (last visited on July 17, 2020); HB 4305 (18th Congress), entitled "AN ACT RENEWING FOR ANOTHER TWENTY-FIVE (25) YEARS THE FRANCHISE GRANTED TO ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION, PRESENTLY KNOWN AS ABS-CBN CORPORATION, UNDER REPUBLIC ACT No.17966, ENTITLED 'AN ACT GRANTING THE ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION A FRANCHISE TO CONSTRUCT, INSTALL, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN TELEVISION AND RADIO BROADCASTING STATIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES,' AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES" (last visited on July 17, 2020); HB 5608 (18th Congress), entitled "AN ACT RENEWING THE FRANCHISE GRANTED TO ABS-CBN CORPORATION (FORMERLY ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION) UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7966, OR 'AN ACT GRANTING ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION A FRANCHISE TO CONSTRUCT, INSTALL, ESTABLISH, OPERATE, AND MAINTAIN BROADCASTING STATIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES' FOR TWENTY-FIVE (25) YEARS FROM THE EFFECTIVITY OF THIS ACT" (last visited on July 17, 2020); HB 5705 (18th Congress), entitled "AN ACT RENEWING THE FRANCHISE GRANTED TO ABS-CBN CORPORATION (FORMERLY ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION) UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7966, OR 'AN ACT GRANTING ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION A FRANCHISE TO CONSTRUCT, INSTALL, ESTABLISH, OPERATE, AND MAINTAIN BROADCASTING STATIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES' FOR TWENTY-FIVE (25) YEARS FROM THE EFFECTIVITY OF THIS ACT" (last visited on July 17, 2020); HB 5753 (18th Congress), entitled "AN ACT RENEWING FOR ANOTHER TWENTY-FIVE (25) YEARS THE FRANCHISE GRANTED TO ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION, PRESENTLY KNOWN AS ABS-CBN CORPORATION, UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7966, ENTITLED 'AN ACT GRANTING THE ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION A FRANCHISE TO CONSTRUCT, INSTALL, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN TELEVISION AND RADIO BROADCASTING STATIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES'" (last visited on July 17, 2020); HB 6052 (18th Congress), entitled "AN ACT RENEWING THE FRANCHISE GRANTED TO ABS-CBN CORPORATION (FORMERLY ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION) UNDER REPUBLIC ACT No. 7966 OR 'AN ACT GRANTING THE ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION A FRANCHISE TO CONSTRUCT, INSTALL, ESTABLISH, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN TELEVISION AND RADIO BROADCASTING STATIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES' FOR TWENTY-FIVE (25) YEARS FROM THE EFFECTIVITY OF THIS ACT" (last visited on July 17, 2020); HB 6138 (18th Congress), entitled "AN ACT RENEWING FOR ANOTHER TWENTY-FIVE (25) YEARS THE FRANCHISE GRANTED TO ABS-CBN CORPORATION (FORMERLY ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION) UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7966 OR 'AN ACT GRANTING THE ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION A FRANCHISE TO CONSTRUCT, INSTALL, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN TELEVISION AND RADIO BROADCASTING STATIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES'" (last visited on July 17, 2020); and HB 6293 (18th Congress), entitled "AN ACT RENEWING THE FRANCHISE GRANTED TO ABS-CBN CORPORATION (FORMERLY ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION) UNDER REPUBLIC ACT No. 7966 OR 'AN ACT GRANTING ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION A FRANCHISE TO CONSTRUCT, INSTALL, ESTABLISH, OPERATE, AND MAINTAIN BROADCASTING STATIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES' FOR TWENTY-FIVE (25) YEARS FROM THE EFFECTIVITY OF THIS ACT" (last visited on July 17, 2020).
9 Senate Bill No. (SB) 981 (18th Congress), entitled "AN ACT RENEWING FOR ANOTHER TWENTY-FIVE (25) YEARS THE FRANCHISE GRANTED TO ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION, PRESENTLY KNOWN AS ABS-CBN CORPORATION, UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7966, ENTITLED 'AN ACT GRANTING THE ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION A FRANCHISE TO CONSTRUCT, INSTALL, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN TELEVISION AND RADIO BROADCASTING STATIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES'" (last visited on July 17, 2020); and SB 1403 (18th Congress), entitled "AN ACT RENEWING FOR ANOTHER TWENTY-FIVE (25) YEARS THE FRANCHISE GRANTED TO ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION, PRESENTLY KNOWN AS ABS-CBN CORPORATION, UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7966, ENTITLED 'AN ACT GRANTING THE ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION A FRANCHISE TO CONSTRUCT, INSTALL, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN TELEVISION AND RADIO BROADCASTING STATIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES'" (last visited on July 17, 2020).
10 See rollo, pp. 12-15.
11 SB 1374 (18th Congress), entitled "AN ACT AMENDING SECTION 1 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7966 TO EXTEND THE TERM OF THE FRANCHISE OF ABS-CBN CORPORATION UNTIL 31 DECEMBER 2020" (last visited July 17, 2020).
12 See rollo, p. 15.
13 (18th Congress), entitled "RESOLUTION URGING THE COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE FRANCHISES TO REPORT OUT WITHOUT FURTHER DELAY FOR PLENARY ACTION A CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF EIGHT (8) PENDING BILLS PROPOSING FOR THE RENEWAL FOR ANOTHER TWENTY-FIVE (25) YEARS OF THE LEGISLATIVE FRANCHISE OF ABS-CBN CORPORATION" (last visited July 17, 2020).
14 (18th Congress), entitled "JOINT RESOLUTION EXTENDING THE FRANCHISE OF ABS-CBN CORPORATION UNTIL THE END OF THE 18TH CONGRESS ON JUNE 30, 2022" (last visited July 17, 2020).
15 (18th Congress), entitled "JOINT RESOLUTION EXTENDING THE FRANCHISE OF ABS-CBN CORPORATION UNTIL MAY 4, 2020" (last visited July 17, 2020).
16Rollo, pp.14-15.
17 See id. at 16-18.
18 Id. at 68-73.
19 Id. at 69. Portions of the letter discussing the circumstances which constrained the DOJ to render legal opinion on the matter are quoted below: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibraryFirst, the contentious issues to be resolved involve the substantial rights of a private person - in this case, ABS-CBN - over whom this Department's opinion does not have any binding authority. On many occasions, this Department has declined to render an opinion on issues which involve the rights of private persons for the reason that these issues often become the actual subject of litigation. x x x.20 See id. at 20-21.
Second, the questions presented to us are better addressed to Congress itself in the exercise of a power constitutionally reserved to it (i.e., the power to grant, extend, or otherwise amend franchises for the operation of public utilities). Even the Supreme Court has desisted from exercising its expanded power of judicial review over an issue that Congress has exclusive power to resolve. The same is likewise expected of us in the executive branch of government.
Lastly, the main issue involved in this request for opinion is premised on the assumption that Congress would not be able to act on the bills filed to renew the [f]ranchise before it expires. However, there are still several weeks before the expiration of the [f]ranchise, and Congress may still be able to timely act on the renewal of the [f]ranchise, thus making our opinion unnecessary.
21 See id. at 66-67.
22 See id. at 18.
23 Id.
24 Entitled "RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE SENATE THAT ABS-CBN CORPORATION, ITS SUBSIDIARIES AND/OR AFFILIATES, ABS-CBN CONVERGENCE, INC., SKY CABLE CORPORATION AND AMCARA BROADCASTING NETWORK INC., SHOULD CONTINUE TO OPERATE PENDING FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE RENEWAL OF ITS FRANCHISE BY THE 18th CONGRESS."
25Rollo, p. 19.
26 Entitled "CONCURRENT RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE CONGRESS THAT ABS-CBN CORPORATION SHOULD CONTINUE TO OPERATE PENDING FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE RENEWAL OF ITS FRANCHISE BY THE 18TH CONGRESS."
27 Entitled "CONCURRENT RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE CONGRESS TO ALLOW ABS-CBN CORPORATION TO OPERATE PENDING FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE RENEWAL OF ITS FRANCHISE BY THE 18TH CONGRESS THROUGH THE ISSUANCE OF THE APPROPRIATE PROVISIONAL AUTHORITY BY THE NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION."
28 Entitled "CONCURRENT RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE CONGRESS TO ALLOW ABS-CBN CORPORATION AND SKY CABLE CORPORATION TO OPERATE PENDING FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE RENEWAL OF THEIR RESPECTIVE FRANCHISES BY THE 18TH CONGRESS THROUGH THE ISSUANCE OF THE APPROPRIATE PROVISIONAL AUTHORITY BY THE NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION."
29 See rollo, p. 19.
30 See id. at 17-18.
31 Re: "IMPLEMENTATION OF ENHANCED COMMUNITY QUARANTINE OVER ENTIRE LUZON ISLAND INCLUDING METRO MANILA." Id. at 74-76.
32 Id. at 75. See also id. at 21-22.
33 See id. at 22-23.
34 See id. at 23.
35 See id. at 23-24.
36 Id. at 63-64. The following radio and TV stations were directed to cease and desist from operating: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary37 See id. at 43-49.
Case No. Call Sign Frequency Location AM Radio Stations 87-006 DZMM-AM 630 kHz Obando, Bulacan 81-067 DYAP-AM 765 kHz Puerto Princesa City, Palawan 90-058 DYAB-AM 1512 kHz Cebu City 90-062 DXAB-AM 1296 kHZ Davao City, Davao del Sur 95-372 DYRV-AM [1188 kHz] Catbalogan City, Western Samar FM Radio Stations 87-006 DWRR-FM [101.9 MHz] Antipolo City, Rizal 88-141 DZRR-FM 103.1 MHz Baguio City, Benguet 94-150 DWEL-FM [95.5 MHz] San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte 95-181 DWEC-FM 94.3 MHz Dagupan City, Pangasinan 2016-026 DWBA-FM [91.3 MHz] Santiago City, Isabela 81-067 DYCU-FM 99.9 MHz Puerto Princesa City, Palawan 93-089 DWRD-FM [93.9 MHz] Legaspi City, Albay 95-183 DWAC-FM 93.5 MHz Naga City, Camarines Sur 2016-025 PA 99.3 MHz Roxas City, Capiz 95-185 DYMC-FM [91.1 MHz] Iloilo City 88-140 DYOO-FM 101.5 MHz Bacolod, Negros Occidental 88-142 DYLS-FM 97.1 MHz Cebu City, Mt. Busay 95-187 DYTC-FM [94.3 MHz] Tacloban City, Leyte 95-182 DXFH-FM [98.7 MHz] Zamboanga City, Zamboanga del Sur 88-139 DXRR-FM 101.1 MHz Davao City, Davao del Sur 97-093 DXBC-FM 92.7 MHz General Santos City [(Lagao)],
South Cotabato 94-149 DXPS-FM 95.1 MHz Cotabato City, Maguindanao 95-184 DXEC-FM 91.9 MHz Cagayan de Oro City, Misamis Oriental TV Stations 87-006 DWWX-TV Ch. 2 Quezon City, Metro Manila 2000-143 DWAC-TV Ch. 23 Quezon City, Metro Manila 94-193 DZRR-TV Ch. 32 Mt. Sto. Tomas, Benguet 87-125 D-3-ZO Ch. 2 (in)
Ch. 3 (out) Mt. Sto. Tomas, Benguet 89-068 D-11-ZZ Ch. 2 (in)
Ch. 11 (out) Mt. Amuyao, Mt. Province 95-082 DWRD-TV Ch. 7 San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte 2003-089 DZCG-TV Ch. 11 Bantay (Mt. Kaniao), Ilocos Sur 2008-134 DWBK-TV Ch. 34 Bantay (Mt. Kaniao);
Ilocos Sur 97-274 DWAI-TV Ch. 2 Santiago City, Isabela 96-338 DWAF-TV Ch. 3 Tuguegarao, Cagayan 2007-138 DWAX-TV Ch. 9 Aparri, Cagayan 2009-085 DWCM-TV Ch. 11 Basco, Batanes 2004-093 DWBY-TV Ch. 34 San Miguel, Bulacan 2002-110 DWTC-TV Ch. 34 Tarlac City, Tarlac 2003-087 DWIN-TV Ch. 46 San Fernando, Pampanga 89-025 D-12-ZT Ch. 2 (in)
Ch. 12 (out) Olongapo City, Zambales 89-031 D-13-ZA Ch. 2 (in)
Ch. 13 (out) Botolan, Zambales 2007-135 DZAB-TV Ch. 11 San Jose. Occidental Mindoro 2005-022 DWAR-TV Ch. 40 Jala-Jala Rizal 2003-088
95-082 DWLY-TV Ch. 46 San Pablo City, Laguna 89-022 DZAD-TV Relay Ch. 2 (in)
Ch. 10 (out) Mt. Banoy, Batangas 2007-147 DZAC-TV Ch. 7 Virac, Catanduanes 99-252 DWAW-TV Ch. 7 Sorsogon, Sorsogon 89-030 DZNC-TV Ch. 11 Naga City, Camarines Sur 89-029 DZAE-TV Ch. 4 Legaspi City, Mt. Bariw, Albay 89-026 D-10-ZC Ch. 4 (in)
Ch. 10 (out) Tabaco, Albay 87-126 DYXL-TV Ch. 4 Murcia, Mt. Kanlandong,
Negros Occidental 97-283 DYEZ-TV Ch. 9 Kalibo, Aldan 94-189 DYAJ-TV Ch. 38 Iloilo City, Iloilo 94-188 DYAT-TV Ch. 40 Bacolod City, Negros Occidental 87-128 DYCB-TV Ch. 3 Cebu City, Mt. Busay, Cebu 89-023 D-9-YA Ch. 3 (in)
Ch. 9 (out) Jagna, Bohol 96-022 DYMA-TV Ch. 12 Valencia, Mt. Palimpinon,
Negros Oriental 93-041 DYAB-TV Ch. 2 Tacloban City, Mt. Naga-Naga, Leyte 2000-211 DXLL-TV Ch. 3 Zamboaga City, Zamboanga del Sur 2006-095 DXCS-TV Ch. 4 Cagayan de Oro City, Misamis Oriental 96-219 DXAG-TV Ch. 4 Iligan City, Lanao del Norte 89-027 D-2-XB Ch. 3 (in)
Ch. 2 (out) Mt. Kitanglad, Bukidnon 87-129 DXAS-TV Ch. 4 Davao City, Davao del Sur 95-133 DXZT-TV Ch. 3 General Santos City, South Cotabato 96-220 DXAI-TV Ch. 5 Cotabato City, Maguindanao 97-290 DXAJ-TV Ch. 11 Butuan City, Agusan del Norte DTTB Stations for Implementation 2007-142 PA Ch. 21 Apani, Cagayan 2008-094 PA Ch. 34 Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya 97-288 PA Ch. 9 Hondagua, Quezon 2007-140 PA-TV Ch. 21 Brooke's Point, Palawan 97-284 PA-TV Ch. 7 Cadiz City, Negros Occidental 97-287 PA-TV Ch. 2 Toledo City, Cebu 97-204 PA-TV Ch. 37 Cebu City, Cebu 94-190 DXAE-TV Ch. 25 Zamboanga City, Zamboanga del Sur 2008-089 PA-TV Ch. 21 Kidapawan, Cotabato 94-192 DXAF-TV Ch. 24 General Santos City, South Cotabato
38 See id. at 25.
39 Separately, ABS-CBN clarifies that the CDO also directed it to "SHOW CAUSE ... why [the] frequencies assigned to it should not be recalled for lack of the necessary Congressional Franchise as required by law" and that this portion of the said order is not being assailed (see id.).
40 Id. at 34.
41 See id. at 33-36.
42 See id. at 37-43.
43 See id. at 43-46.
44 See id. at 46-49.
45 Id. at 637-638.
46 Id. at 348.
47 Id. at 475-477.
48 See id.
49 See Urgent Reiterative Motion for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction dated May 18, 2020; id. at 573-581.
50 See id. at 574.
51 See id. at 574-579.
52 See Resolution dated May 19, 2020 signed by Clerk of Court Edgar O. Aricheta; id. at 320-AA-320-CC.
53 Id. at 338-434.
54 See id. at 423-427.
55 See Motion for Leave to File Opposition to Omnibus Motion and Opposition to Omnibus Motion dated June 1, 2020; id. at 495-511.
56 See id. at 497-508.
57 See Manifestation (In Lieu of Comment Re: Resolution dated May 19, 2020) dated May 28, 2020; id. at 596-600.
58 See id. at 597.
59 See Comment Ad Cautelam dated June 1, 2020; id. at 605-629.
60 See id. at 607 and 620-621.
61Land Transportation Office v. City of Butuan, 379 Phil. 887, 896 (2000); emphases supplied.
62Francisco, Jr. v. Toll Regulatory Board, 648 Phil. 54, 91 (2010); emphasis and underscoring supplied. See also Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation v. Bureau of Internal Revenue, 749 Phil. 1010, 1026 (2014).
63 445 Phil. 621 (2003).
64 Id. at 628; emphasis supplied.
65 Emphasis and underscoring supplied.
66 Entitled "AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE REGULATION OF RADIO STATIONS AND RADIO COMMUNICATIONS IN THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved on November 11, 1931.
67 Emphasis supplied.
68 Entitled "REGULATING THE OWNERSHIP AND OPERATION OF RADIO AND TELEVISION STATIONS AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES" (November 11, 1974).
69 See Executive Order No. 546, entitled "CREATING A MINISTRY OF PUBLIC WORKS AND A MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS (July 23, 1979). See also Divinagracia v. Consolidated Broadcasting System, Inc., 602 Phil. 625 (2009).
70Divinagracia; id.
71 Id. at 652.
72 Id. at 655-656.
73Rollo, pp. 35-36.
74 See id. at 72.
75 Per the Photo Journal released by the Congress (see [last visited July 17, 2020]).
76 The members who voted to deny ABS-CBN's franchise applications were: Representatives Raneo Abu, Cyrille Abueg-Zaldivar, Gil Acosta, Atonio Albano, Samantha Louise Alfonso, Juan Miguel Macapagal Arroyo, Cristal Bagatsing, Julienne Baronda, Elpidio Barzaga Jr., Claudine Bautista, Juan Pablo Bondoc, Antonio Calixto, Prescious Castelo, Joaquin Chipeco Jr., Ma. Theresa Collantes, Anthony Peter Crisologo, Francisco Datol, Mike Defensor, Paulo Duterte, Faustino Michael Dy, Faustino V. Dy, Ian Paul Dy, Conrado Estrella III, Ria Christina Farinas, Dan Fernandez, Bayani Fernando, Luis Ferrer IV, Pablo John Garcia, Janette Garin, Sharon Garin, Weslie Gatchalian, Sandro Gonzales, Eduardo Gullas, Bernadette Herrera-Dy, Dulce Ann Hofer, Eleandro Jesus Madrona, Dale Malapitan, Esmael Mangudadatu, Rodante Marcoleta, Eric Martinez, Francisco Matugas, Raymond Mendoza, Roger Mercado, John Marvin Nieto, Jose Fidel Nograles, Jericho Nograles, Henry Oaminal, Joseph Stephen Paduano, Wilter Palma II, Enrico Pineda, Jesus Crispin Remulla, Strike Revilla, Yedda Romualdez, Ferdinand Martin Romualdez, Xavier Jesus Romualdo, Deogracias Savellano, Frederick Siao, Jose Singson Jr., Jose Antonio Sy-Alvarado, Alyssa Sheena Tan, Sharee Ann Tan, Arnolfo Teves Jr., Abraham Tolentino, Allan Ty, Christian Unabia, Rolando Valeriano, Luis Villafuerte Jr., Camille Villar, Eric Yap, and Divina Grace Yu. See (last visited August 14, 2020).
77 From the 85 members, 11 voted to grant ABS-CBN's franchise applications, namely: Representatives Sol Aragones, Christopher De Venecia, Carlos Zarate, Gabriel Bordado, Vilma Santos, Lianda Bolilia, Jose Tejada, Bienvenido Abante, Stella Quimbo, Mujiv Hataman, and Edward Maceda; while 2 inhibited, namely: Representative Alfred Vargas (Quezon City) and Micaela Violago (Nueva Ecija). Representative Franz Alvarez, as the Speaker of the House, did not vote. See (last visited August 14, 2020).
78 SB 981 (18th Congress), entitled "AN ACT RENEWING FOR ANOTHER TWENTY-FIVE (25) YEARS THE FRANCHISE GRANTED TO ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION, PRESENTLY KNOWN AS ABSCBN CORPORATION, UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7966, ENTITLED 'AN ACT GRANTING THE ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION A FRANCHISE TO CONSTRUCT, INSTALL, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN TELEVISION AND RADIO BROADCASTING STATIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES'" (last visited on July 17, 2020); and SB 1403 (18th Congress), entitled "AN ACT RENEWING FOR ANOTHER TWENTY-FIVE (25) YEARS THE FRANCHISE GRANTED TO ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION, PRESENTLY KNOWN AS ABSCBN CORPORATION, UNDER REPUBLIC ACT No. 7966, ENTITLED 'AN ACT GRANTING THE ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION A FRANCHISE TO CONSTRUCT, INSTALL, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN TELEVISION AND RADIO BROADCASTING STATIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES'" (last visited on July 17, 2020).
79 A private bill is defined as a "[l]egislation that benefits an individual or a locality" (See [last visited August 18, 2020]). "Every bill for the particular benefit of a person or company, or a locality in which the whole community is not interested, is, in a parliamentary sense, a private bill." (People v. Supervisors of Chautauqua, 43 NY 10 1870).
80 Section 24, Article VI of the CONSTITUTION reads: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrarySection 24. All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills authorizing increase of the public debt, bills of local application, and private bills shall originate exclusively in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments.81 See Section 16 of the RULES OF THE SENATE which reads: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrarySection 16. All appropriations, revenue or tariff bills, bills authorizing increase of public debt, bills of local application, and private bills authored and filed by Members of the Senate shall be initially referred to the Committee on Rules.82 See and (last visited August 18, 2020).
83 "Indeed, what the Constitution simply means is that the initiative for filing revenue, tariff, or tax bills, bills authorizing an increase of the public debt, private bills and bills of local application must come from the House of Representatives on the theory that, elected as they are from the districts, the members of the House can be expected to be more sensitive to the local needs and problems. On the other hand, the senators, who are elected at large, are expected to approach the same problems from the national perspective. Both views are thereby made to bear on the enactment of such laws.
Nor does the Constitution prohibit the filing in the Senate of a substitute bill in anticipation of its receipt of the bill from the House, so long as action by the Senate as a body is withheld pending receipt of the House bill." (Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, G.R. No. 115455, August 25, 1994, 235 SCRA 630, 663).
"The filing in the Senate of a substitute bill in anticipation of its receipt of the bill from the House, does not contravene the constitutional requirement that [appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills authorizing increase of the public debt, bills of local application, and private bills] should originate in the House of Representatives, for as long as the Senate does not act thereupon until it receives the House bill." (Alvarez v. Guingona, Jr., 322 Phil. 774, 787 [1996]).
84 Section 49 of the RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES states: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrarySection 49. Bills Unfavorably Acted Upon. - When a committee action on a bill or resolution is unfavorable, the bill or resolution shall be laid on the table. The author(s) shall be notified in writing and, as far as practicable, through electronic mail of the action within five (5) days after the bill or resolution has been laid on the table, stating the reason(s) therefor.85Peñafrancia Sugar Mill, Inc. v. Sugar Regulatory Administration, 728 Phil. 535, 540 (2014), also cited in Sze v. Bureau of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 210238, January 6, 2020; emphases and underscoring supplied.
86 See Court's Resolution dated May 19, 2020 (see rollo, pp. 320-AA-320-CC).
87 RULES OF COURT, Section 11, Rule 3.
88 See rollo, pp. 46-49.
LEONEN, J.:
I concur in the result of the ponencia written by the esteemed Senior Associate Justice Estela Perlas-Bernabe. This Petition became moot the moment the House Committee on Legislative Franchises denied petitioner ABS-CBN Corporation's application for franchise renewal.
The non-renewal was not made an issue in this case, and petitioner filed no supplemental pleading either. Thus, any resolution here would have been limited to issues originally raised, namely: (1) whether a status quo ante order should have been issued; and (2) under the special circumstances of this case, whether respondent National Telecommunications Commission gravely abused its discretion in issuing the Cease and Desist Order while the House was deliberating on the renewal.
However, even with the issues that constrain us, I find that this case is capable of repetition yet evading review. For one, this could happen again to any other media network. Its consequences affect the shaping of public opinion, since we deal here with the media and journalists, those who assist the electorate and the people, as sovereign, in exercising their right to freely express well-considered opinions.
Therefore, I deem it my duty to state my opinion on some of the fundamental issues raised in the Petition as guidance for the Bench and Bar. I would have voted to issue a status quo ante order and eventually declare that respondent gravely abused its discretion in its unprecedented issuance of the Cease and Desist Order-more so when viewed in the context of this case and the regulatory agency's policy.
Freedom of expression is a primordial right. Amid the ever complex digital means of communication now within the public's grasp, the media plays a large role to provide not only information, but information that is factual and true-that which is governed by the code of journalistic ethics, and which belies the irresponsible posts and rumors on social media.
Just the same, broadcast media remains one of the major channels of information today. Hence, to silence a network of such huge scale, one that has provided vital news to the country-now, more than ever, amid the pandemic-is not only prima facie censorship, but is an outright denial of information from the Filipino people who need it most.
Given that other media giants with expired franchises had been allowed to operate pending the renewal of their applications, and considering the House's documented delay in acting on petitioner's franchise, respondent's extraordinary action not only took the House by surprise, but also affected the sovereign discussion on matters related to the governance of the arts.
Moral damages are emphatically not intended to enrich a complainant at the expense of a defendant; they are awarded only to enable the injured party to obtain means, diversions or amusements that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering he has undergone, by reason of the defendant's culpable action. . . . In other words, the award of moral damages is aimed at a restoration, within the limits of the possible, of the spiritual status quo ante: and, therefore, it must be proportionate to the suffering inflicted. The intensity of the pain experienced by the relatives of the victim is proportionate to the intensity of the affection for him and bears no relation whatever with the wealth or means of the offender. The death caused by a beggar is felt by the parents of the victim as intensely as that caused by the scion of a wealthy family.20 (Citation omitted)This doctrine has been cited as early as 1979 in Grand Union Supermarket, Inc. v. Espino, Jr.21 It was subsequently affirmed in Filinvest Credit Corporation v. The Intermediate Appellate Court,22Makabali v. Court of Appeals,23Spouses de la Serna v. Court of Appeals,24Samson v. Bank of the Philippine Islands,25City Government of Tagaytay v. Judge Guerrero,26Jarcia, Jr. v. People,27 and in the recent case of Guy v. Tulfo.28
More significantly, a preliminary injunction is merely a provisional remedy, an adjunct to the main case subject to the latter's outcome, the sole objective of which is to preserve the status quo until the trial court hears fully the merits of the case. The status quo should be that existing at the time of the filing of the case. The status quo usually preserved by a preliminary injunction is the last actual, peaceable and uncontested status which preceded the actual controversy. The status quo ante litem is, ineluctably, the state of affairs which is existing at the time of the filing of the case. Indubitably, the trial court must not make use of its injunctive power to alter such status.64 (Emphasis supplied)However, in Garcia v. Mojica65 and Megaworld Properties and Holdings, Inc. v. Majestic Finance and Investment Company, Inc.,66 this Court categorically differentiated a status quo ante order from a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. Quoting Justice Florenz D. Regalado, this Court explained in both cases: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
There have been instances when the Supreme Court has issued a status quo order which, as the very term connotes, is merely intended to maintain the last, actual, peaceable and uncontested state of things which preceded the controversy. This was resorted to when the projected proceedings in the case made the conservation of the status quo desirable or essential, but the affected party neither sought such relief or the allegations in his pleading did not sufficiently make out a case for a temporary restraining order. The status quo order was thus issued motu proprio on equitable considerations. Also, unlike a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction, a status quo order is more in the nature of a cease and desist order, since it neither directs the doing or undoing of acts as in the case of prohibitory or mandatory injunctive relief. The further distinction is provided by the present amendment in the sense that, unlike the amended rule on restraining orders, a status quo order does not require the posting of a bond.67 (Emphasis supplied)Thus, in Repol v. Commission on Elections,68 and likewise in Dojillo v. Commission on Elections,69 this Court annulled the status quo ante orders issued by the Commission on Elections for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion. In both cases, this Court noted that the orders were actually temporary restraining orders that had automatically ceased effect.
SECTION 3. Grounds for issuance of preliminary injunction. - A preliminary injunction may be granted when it is established:Before a writ of preliminary injunction, whether mandatory or prohibitory, may be issued, the following requisites must first be proven: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
a) That the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded, and the whole or part of such relief consists in restraining the commission or continuance of the act or acts complained of, or in requiring performance of an act or acts, either for a limited period or perpetually; b) That the commission, continuance or non-performance of the act or acts complained of during the litigation would probably work injustice to the applicant; or c) That a party, court, agency or a person is doing, threatening, or is attempting to do, or is procuring or suffering to be done, some act or acts probably in violation of the rights of the applicant respecting the subject of the action or proceeding, and tending to render the judgment ineffectual.
In Los Baños Rural Bank, Inc. v. Africa,71 this Court expounded on these requisites: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
(1) The applicant must have a clear and unmistakable right to be protected, that is a right in esse; (2) There is a material and substantial invasion of such right; (3) There is an urgent need for the writ to prevent irreparable injury to the applicant; and (4) No other ordinary, speedy, and adequate remedy exists to prevent the infliction of irreparable injury.70
[I]njunction, like other equitable remedies, should be issued only at the instance of a suitor who has sufficient interest in or title to the right or the property sought to be protected. It is proper only when the plaintiff appears to be entitled to the relief demanded in the complaint. In particular, the existence of the right and the violation thereof must appear in the allegations of the complaint and must constitute at least a prima facie showing of a right to the final relief. Thus, there are two requisite conditions for the issuance of a preliminary injunction; namely, (1) the right to be protected exists prima facie, and (2) the acts sought to be enjoined are violative of that right. It must be proven that the violation sought to be prevented would cause an irreparable injustice.To entitle the applicant to an injunctive writ, a clear legal right-a right "clearly founded in or granted by law"-must exist.73 No injunction can be granted in the absence of a clear legal right,74 as in this case.
Further, while a clear showing of the right is necessary, its existence need not be conclusively established. In fact, the evidence required to justify the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction in the hearing thereon need not be conclusive or complete. The evidence need only be a "sampling" intended merely to give the court an idea of the justification for the preliminary injunction, pending the decision of the case on the merits. Thus, to be entitled to the writ, respondents are only required to show that they have the ostensible right to the final relief prayed for in their Complaint.72 (Citations omitted)
Previous notice and hearing, as elements of due process, are constitutionally required for the protection of life or vested property rights, as well as of liberty, when its limitation or loss takes place in consequence of a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding, generally depend[e]nt upon a past act or event which has to be established or ascertained ...Moreover, in Montoya v. Varilla,80 this Court ruled: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary... [T]he necessity of notice and hearing in an administrative proceeding depends on the character of the proceeding and the circumstances involved. In so far as generalization is possible in view of the great variety of administrative proceedings, it may be stated as a general rule that notice and hearing are not essential to the validity of administrative action where the administrative body acts in the exercise of executive, administrative, or legislative functions; but where a public administrative body acts in a judicial or quasi-judicial matter, and its acts are particular and immediate rather than general and prospective, the person whose rights or property may be affected by the action is entitled to notice and hearing.79 (Emphasis supplied)
Well-settled is the rule that the essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard or, as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's side or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. Unarguably, this rule, as it is stated, strips down administrative due process to its most fundamental nature and sufficiently justifies freeing administrative proceedings from the rigidity of procedural requirements. In particular, however, due process in administrative proceedings has also been recognized to include the following: (1) the right to actual or constructive notice of the institution of proceedings which may affect a respondent's legal rights; (2) a real opportunity to be heard personally or with the assistance of counsel, to present witnesses and evidence in one's favor, and to defend one's rights; (3) a tribunal vested with competent jurisdiction and so constituted as to afford a person charged administratively a reasonable guarantee of honesty as well as impartiality; and (4) a finding by said tribunal which is supported by substantial evidence submitted for consideration during the hearing or contained in the records or made known to the parties affected.In line with due process, Commonwealth Act No. 146 or the Public Service Act, as amended, requires proper notice and hearing before a certificate of public convenience/permit/license may be suspended or revoked.82
Hence, even if administrative tribunals exercising quasi-judicial powers are not strictly bound by procedural requirements, they are still bound by law and equity to observe the fundamental requirements of due process. Notice to enable the other party to be heard and to present evidence is not a mere technicality or a trivial matter in any administrative or judicial proceedings. In the application of the principle of due process, what is sought to be safeguarded is not lack of previous notice but the denial of the opportunity to be heard.81 (Citations omitted)
SECTION 1. No person, firm, company, association, or corporation shall construct, install, establish, or operate a radio transmitting station, or a radio receiving station used for commercial purposes, or a radio broadcasting station, without having first obtained a franchise therefor from the Congress of the Philippines.90cralawlawlibraryRespondent knew very well that petitioner's franchise was about to expire and bills for its renewal were pending in Congress. In fact, Commissioner Gamaliel Cordoba (Cordoba) himself, who co-penned the Cease and Desist Order, had participated in the February 24, 2020 hearing of the Senate Committee on Public Services, where issues on the franchise renewal were discussed.91 Respondent had every opportunity to abide by its own rules of procedure to ascertain what action is appropriate to take-including whether a cease and desist order should be issued. But, for whatever reason, it chose not to do so. Instead, it blatantly violated petitioner's right to due process and openly defied Congress' prerogative.
(1) there exists a clear and unmistakable right to be protected; (2) this right is directly threatened by an act sought to be enjoined; (3) the invasion of the right is material and substantial; and (4) there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious and irreparable damage.94 (Citation omitted)None of these essential requisites were met in this case. At any rate, it is hard to conceive how it would be for the public's best interests to enjoin petitioner from going on air, or how the public would be seriously and irreparably injured by allowing petitioner to continue its broadcast operations. Neither has any urgent and paramount need been shown for the Cease and Desist Order to be issued.
C. ON THE MANAGEMENT OF PERMITSIn the same Memorandum Order, respondent expressly acknowledged that "broadcast and pay TV networks and [their] supporting infrastructures will continue to play a critical role in [the] government's efforts to provide timely and accurate information to the public during this critical period."
All subsisting permits, permits necessary to operate and maintain broadcast and pay TV facilities nationwide expiring within the quarantine period shall automatically be renewed and shall continue to be valid sixty (60) days after the end of the government-imposed quarantine period. Thereafter, these stations shall be given sixty (60) days to file for the renewal of their permits/licenses without penalties or surcharges. (Emphasis supplied)
[W]e think it essential, for the sake of clarity and intellectual honesty, that if an administrative agency decides inconsistently with previous action, that it explain thoroughly why a different result is warranted, or if need be, why the previous standards should no longer apply or should be overturned. Such explanation is warranted in order to sufficiently establish a decision as having rational basis. Any inconsistent decision lacking thorough, ratiocination in support may be struck down as being arbitrary. And any decision with absolutely nothing to support it is a nullity.100cralawlawlibraryUnfortunately, the Cease and Desist Order fails to explain why respondent accorded petitioner a different regulatory treatment from other broadcasting stations.
"Equal protection of the laws" requires that "all persons ... be treated alike, under like circumstances and conditions both as to privileges conferred and liabilities enforced." The purpose of the equal protection clause is to secure every person within a state's jurisdiction against intentional and arbitrary discrimination, whether occasioned by the express terms of a statute or by its improper execution through the state's duly constituted authorities.101 (Citations omitted)III
SECTION 1. No person, firm, company, association, or corporation shall construct, install, establish, or operate a radio transmitting station, or a radio receiving station used for commercial purposes, or a radio broadcasting station, without having first obtained a franchise therefor from the Congress of the Philippines. (Emphasis supplied)A perusal of Section 1, as amended, would readily show that it does not include television broadcast stations in the enumeration. This Court had previously observed that despite the advent of commercial television in the 1950s, there was no corresponding amendment to Act No. 3846 to reflect the new technology.102
. . . [is] not a mere instance of official indolence, but a subtle attempt to impose absolute radio [and television] censorship, and to silence at will radio [and television] stations which allow airing of views critical of the powers that be. We should be ever alert to such indirect subversion of the constitutional liberties of speech and of the press.135cralawlawlibraryIndeed, such exercise of censorship is an assault on the right to free speech that is engraved in our fundamental law. In Newsounds Broadcasting Network v. Dy,136 this Court elaborated: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
[I]t cannot be denied that our Constitution has a systemic bias towards free speech. The absolutist tenor of Section 4, Article III testifies to that fact. The individual discomforts to particular people or enterprises engendered by the exercise of the right, for which at times remedies may be due, do not diminish the indispensable nature of free expression to the democratic way of life.Furthermore, under Article XII, Section 11 of the Constitution, Congress has the sole prerogative of granting or denying franchises of broadcast networks: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
The following undisputed facts bring the issue of free expression to fore. Petitioners are authorized by law to operate radio stations in Cauayan City, and had been doing so for some years undisturbed by local authorities. Beginning in 2002, respondents in their official capacities have taken actions, whatever may be the motive, that have impeded the ability of petitioners to freely broadcast, if not broadcast at all. These actions have ranged from withholding permits to operate to the physical closure of those stations under color of legal authority. While once petitioners were able to broadcast freely, the weight of government has since bore down upon them to silence their voices on the airwaves. An elementary school child with a basic understanding of civics lessons will recognize that free speech animates these cases.137cralawlawlibrary
SECTION 11. No franchise, certificate, or any other form of authorization for the operation of a public utility shall be granted except to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or associations organized under the laws of the Philippines at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens, nor shall such franchise, certificate, or authorization be exclusive in character or for a longer period than fifty years. Neither shall any such franchise or right be granted except under the condition that it shall be subject to amendment, alteration, or repeal by the Congress when the common good so requires. The State shall encourage equity participation in public utilities by the general public. The participation of foreign investors in the governing body of any public utility enterprise shall be limited to their proportionate share in its capital, and all the executive and managing officers of such corporation or association must be citizens of the Philippines.In issuing the questioned Cease and Desist Order, respondent undermined this congressional prerogative. In Divinagracia,138 this Court explained the dichotomy between the grant of legislative franchises by Congress and the issuance of regulatory licenses by the National Telecommunications Commission: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
The complexities of our dual franchise/license regime for broadcast media should be understood within the context of separation of powers. The right of a particular entity to broadcast over the airwaves is established by law - i.e., the legislative franchise - and determined by Congress, the branch of government tasked with the creation of rights and obligations. As with all other laws passed by Congress, the function of the executive branch of government, to which the NTC belongs, is the implementation of the law. In broad theory, the legal obligation of the NTC once Congress has established a legislative franchise for a broadcast media station is to facilitate the operation by the franchisee of its broadcast stations. However, since the public administration of the airwaves is a requisite for the operation of a franchise and is moreover a highly technical function, Congress has delegated to the NTC the task of administration over the broadcast spectrum, including the determination of available bandwidths and the allocation of such available bandwidths among the various legislative franchisees. The licensing power of the NTC thus arises from the necessary delegation by Congress of legislative power geared towards the orderly exercise by franchisees of the rights granted them by Congress.Moreover, respondent utterly disregarded the official communication from the House of Representatives,140 which called for it to issue petitioner a provisional authority pending the franchise renewal deliberations; as well as Senate Resolution No. 344, adopted on March 4, 2020, which also called for the same provisional authority.141 This baseless act of defiance should have no place in our system of government.
Congress may very well in its wisdom impose additional obligations on the various franchisees and accordingly delegate to the NTC the power to ensure that the broadcast stations comply with their obligations under the law. Because broadcast media enjoys a lesser degree of free expression protection as compared to their counterparts in print, these legislative restrictions are generally permissible under the Constitution. Yet no enactment of Congress may contravene the Constitution and its Bill of Rights; hence, whatever restrictions are imposed by Congress on broadcast media franchisees remain susceptible to judicial review and analysis under the jurisprudential framework for scrutiny of free expression cases involving the broadcast media.
The restrictions enacted by Congress on broadcast media franchisees have to pass the mettle of constitutionality. On the other hand, the restrictions imposed by an administrative agency such as the NTC on broadcast media franchisees will have to pass not only the test of constitutionality, but also the test of authority and legitimacy, i.e., whether such restrictions have been imposed in the exercise of duly delegated legislative powers from Congress. If the restriction or sanction imposed by the administrative agency cannot trace its origin from legislative delegation, whether it is by virtue of a specific grant or from valid delegation of rule-making power to the administrative agency, then the action of such administrative agency cannot be sustained. The life and authority of an administrative agency emanates solely from an Act of Congress, and its faculties confined within the parameters set by the legislative branch of government.139cralawlawlibrary
The licensing authority of the NTC is not on equal footing with the franchising authority of the State through Congress. The issuance of licenses by the NTC implements the legislative franchises established by Congress, in the same manner that the executive branch implements the laws of Congress rather than creates its own laws. And similar to the inability of the executive branch to prevent the implementation of laws by Congress, the NTC cannot, without clear and proper delegation by Congress, prevent the exercise of a legislative franchise by withholding or canceling the licenses of the franchisee.142cralawlawlibraryAs mentioned, petitioner is one of the largest broadcast networks in the country, delivering news and information to a majority of the population. Even if the Cease and Desist Order were to be withdrawn, it is unclear whether petitioner would be able to operate immediately. It would need days for the network to get back on the air. Every day that it is off the air, information is being denied to the people.
An informed citizenry with access to the diverse currents in political, moral and artistic thought and data relative to them, and the free exchange of ideas and discussion of issues thereon, is vital to the democratic government envisioned under our Constitution. The cornerstone of this republican system of government is delegation of power by the people to the State. In this system, governmental agencies and institutions operate within the limits of the authority conferred by the people. Denied access to information on the inner workings of government, the citizenry can become prey to the whims and caprices of those to whom the power had been delegated. The postulate of public office as a public trust, institutionalized in the Constitution (in Art. XI, Sec. 1) to protect the people from abuse of governmental power, would certainly be mere empty words if access to such information of public concern is denied, except under limitations prescribed by implementing legislation adopted pursuant to the Constitution.
Petitioners are practitioners in media. As such, they have both the right to gather and the obligation to check the accuracy of information they disseminate. For them, the freedom of the press and of speech is not only critical, but vital to the exercise of their professions. The right of access to information ensures that these freedoms are not rendered nugatory by the government's monopolizing pe1iinent information. For an essential element of these freedoms is to keep open a continuing dialogue or process of communication between the government and the people. It is in the interest of the State that the channels for free political discussion be maintained to the end that the government may perceive and be responsive to the people's will. Yet, this open dialogue can be effective only to the extent that the citizenry is informed and thus able to formulate its will intelligently. Only when the participants in the discussion are aware of the issues and have access to information relating thereto can such bear fruit.143cralawlawlibrary
Endnotes:
1Los Baños Rural Bank, Inc., v. Africa, 433 Phil. 930, 945 (2002) [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division] citing Verzosa v. Court of Appeals, 359 Phil. 425 (1998) [Per J. Panganiban, First Division]. See also Rodulfa v. Alfonso, 76 Phil. 225, 231-232 (1946) [Per J. De Joya, En Banc] citing Fredericks v. Huber, 180 Pa., 572; 37 Atl., 90.
2Dynamic Builders & Construction Co. (Phil.), Inc. v. Presbitero, Jr., 757 Phil. 454, 481 (2015) [Per J. Leonen, En Banc].
3Remo v. Bueno, 784 Phil. 344, 385 (2016) [Per J. Leonardo-de Castro, En Banc].
4Dimayuga v. Commission on Elections, 550 Phil. 387, 394 (2007) [Per J. Azcuna, En Banc].
5Ralla v. Ralla, 132 Phil. 517 (1968) [Per J. Sanchez, En Banc].
6 24 Phil. 49 (1913) [Per J. Moreland, First Division].
7 Id. at 55.
8 Id. at 63.
9 77 Phil. 484 (1946) [Per J. Sanchez, En Banc].
10 Id. at 491.
11 80 Phil. 220 (1948) [Per J. Bengzon, En Banc] citing Molina vs. Somes, 24 Phil. 49, 55 [Per J. Moreland, First Division]; Moran op. cit. Vol. I, p. 648.
12 Id. at 224.
13 110 Phil. 602 (1960) [Per J. Bengzon, En Banc].
14 Id. at 605.
15 87 Phil. 302 (1950) [Per J. Tuason, En Banc].
16 107 Phil. 226 (1960) [Per J. Reyes, J.B.L., En Banc].
17 Id. at 230.
18Los Baños Rural Bank, Inc., v. Africa, 433 Phil. 930, 945-946 (2002) [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division]. See also Remonte v. Bonto, 123 Phil. 63 (1966) [Per J. Sanchez, En Banc].
19 120 Phil. 1379 (1964) [Per J. Regala, First Division].
20 Id. at 1385.
21 183 Phil. 507 (1979) [Per J. Guerrero, First Division].
22 248 Phil. 394 (1988) [Per J. Sarmiento, Second Division].
23 241 Phil. 260 (1988) [Per J. Fernan, Third Division].
24 303 Phil. 333 (1994) [Per J. Kapunan, First Division].
25 453 Phil. 577 (2003) [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division].
26 616 Phil. 28 (2009) [Per J. Nachura, Third Division].
27 682 Phil. 317 (2012) [Per J. Mendoza, Third Division].
28 G.R. No. 213023, April 10, 2019 [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
29 130 Phil. 545 (1968) [Per J. Sanchez, En Banc].
30 Id. at 566.
31Arrieta v. Malayan Sawmill Co., 133 Phil. 481, 485-486 (1968) [Per C.J. Concepcion, En Banc].
32 150 Phil. 495 (1972) [Per J. Reyes, J.B.L., First Division].
33 150-A Phil. 865 (1972) [Per J. Teehankee, En Banc].
34 150 Phil. 114 (1972) [Per J. Reyes, J.B.L., First Division].
35 Id. at 130.
36 319 Phil. 473 (1995) [Per J. Feliciano, Third Division].
37 456 Phil. 1, 12 (2003) [Per J. Carpio, First Division].
38 497 Phil. 490 (2005) [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division].
39 203 Phil. 23 (1982) [Per J. Teehankee, First Division].
40 213 Phil. 398 (1984) [Per J. Makasiar, Second Division].
41 Id. at 407-408.
42 238 Phil. 161 (1987) [Per J. Feliciano, Third Division].
43 274 Phil. 758 (1991) [Per C.J. Fernan, Third Division].
44 Id. at 766.
45 622 Phil. 201 (2009) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division].
46 633 Phil. 523 (2010) [Per J. Nachura, En Banc].
47 636 Phil. 753 (2010) [Per J. Brion, En Banc].
48 655 Phil. 467 (2011) [Per J. Nachura, En Banc].
49 686 Phil. 649 (2012) [Per J. Sereno, En Banc].
50 686 Phil. 563 (2012) [Per J. Abad, En Banc].
51 707 Phil. 454 (2013) [Per J. Carpio, En Banc].
52 346 Phil. 321 (1997) [Per J. Puno, En Banc].
53Tatad v. Secretary of Energy, 347 Phil. 1 (1997) [Per J. Puno, En Banc].
54 572 Phil. 554 (2008) [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, En Banc].
55 622 Phil. 431 (2009) [Per J. Carpio, En Banc].
56 658 Phil. 322 (2011) [Per J. Carpio Morales, En Banc].
57 Bankers Association of the Philippines v. Commission on Elections, 722 Phil. 92 (2013) [Per J. Brion, En Banc].
58 732 Phil. 1 (2014) [Per J. Mendoza, En Banc].
59 804 Phil. 638 (2017) [Per J. Sereno, En Banc].
60 Id. at 650.
61Banzon v. Cruz, 150-A Phil. 865, 898 (1972) [Per J. Teehankee, En Banc] citing Comm. of Public Highways v. San Diego, 142 Phil. 553 (1970) [Per J. Teehankee, First Division].
62See Philippine National Bank v. Castalloy, 684 Phil. 438 (2012) [Per J. Reyes, Second Division]; Los Baños Rural Bank, Inc., v. Africa, 433 Phil. 930 (2002) [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division]; Ramos v. Court of Appeals, 246 Phil. 591 (1988) [Per J. Sarmiento, Second Division]; Rodulfa v. Alfonso, 76 Phil. 225 (1946) [Per J. De Joya, En Banc].
63 551 Phil. 890 (2007) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division].
64 Id. at 911-912.
65 372 Phil. 892 (1999) [Per J. Quisumbing, Second Division].
66 775 Phil. 34 (2015) [Per J. Bersamin, First Division].
67 Id. at 52 and Garcia v. Mojica, 372 Phil. 892, 900 (1999) [Per J. Quisumbing, Second Division] citing FLORENZ D. REGALADO, I REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM 651 (6th Revised Ed., 1997).
68 472 Phil. 335 (2004) [Per J. Carpio, En Banc].
69 528 Phil. 890 (2006) [Per J. Carpio, En Banc].
70Bicol Medical Center v. Botor, 819 Phil. 447, 458 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division] citing St. James College of Parañaque v. Equitable PCI Bank, 641 Phil. 452, 466 (2010) [Per J. Velasco, Jr., First Division].
71 433 Phil. 930 (2002) [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division].
72 Id. at 941.
73Bicol Medical Center v. Bator, 819 Phil. 447, 461 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division] citing Executive Secretary v. Forerunner Multi Resources, Inc., 701 Phil. 64 (2013) [Per J. Carpio, Second Division].
74Dynamic Builders & Construction Co. (Phil.), Inc. v. Presbitero, Jr., 757 Phil. 454, 470 (2015) [Per J. Leonen, En Banc].
75 CONST., art. III, sec. 1 states:
SECTION 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
76See Montoya v. Varilla, 595 Phil. 507 (2008) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, En Banc]; Globe Telecom, Inc. v. National Telecommunications Commission, 479 Phil. 1 (2004) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
77Montoya v. Varilla, 595 Phil. 507, 519 (2008) [Per J. Chico Nazario, En Banc].
78 150-A Phil. 86 (1972) [Per J. Concepcion, Second Division].
79 Id. at 101-102.
80 595 Phil. 507 (2008) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, En Banc].
81 Id. at 519-520.
82 Commonwealth Act No. 146 (1936), as amended, sec. 16(m) and (n).
83 NTC RULES (2006), Rule 10, sec. 4.
84 NTC RULES (2006), Rule 10, sec. 5.
85 NTC RULES (2006), Rule 10, sec. 5.
86 NTC RULES (2006), Rule 10, sec. 5.
87 The Order was signed by Commissioners Gamaliel A. Cordoba and Deputy Commissioners Edgardo V. Cabarios and Delilah F. Deles.
88 Id. at 2.
89 An Act Providing for the Regulation of Radio Stations and Radio Communications in the Philippine Islands, and for Other Purposes (1931) was amended by Commonwealth Act No. 365 (1938), Commonwealth Act No. 571 (1940), and Republic Act No. 584 (1950).
90 Act No. 3846, as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 571 (1940).
91 Transcript of the February 24, 2020 Senate Hearing, attached to the Petition as Annex "E."
92 780 Phil. 244 (2016) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
93 Id. at 253.
94 Id. at 254.
95Lemi v. Valencia, 135 Phil. 185, 199 (1968) [Per J. Castro, En Banc].
96 Implementation of Enhanced Community Quarantine over Entire Luzon Island Including Metro Manila. The Memorandum Order was signed by NTC Commissioner Gamaliel A. Cordoba and noted by Secretary Gregorio B. Honasan II of the Department of Information and Communications Technology. Available at (last accessed on August 24, 2020).
97 Transcript of the February 24, 2020 Senate Hearing, attached to the Petition as Annex "E", p. 47.
98 Id. at 48.
99 479 Phil. 1 (2004) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
100 Id. at 33-34.
101Provincial Bus Operators Association of the Philippines v. Department of Labor and Employment, G.R. No. 202275, July 17, 2018, 872 SCRA 50, 134 [Per J. Leonen, En Banc].
102See Divinagracia v. Consolidated Broadcasting System, Inc., 602 Phil. 625 (2009) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
103 At this point, I take exception to this Court's ruling in Divinagracia v. Consolidated Broadcasting System, Inc. that radio broadcasting stations were expressly excluded from the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission under Section 14 of the Act. I submit that the term "radio companies," which were expressly excluded from the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission "except as to the fixing of rates" under Section 14 of the Public Service Act, is different from "radio broadcasting stations." These radio companies pertained to telegraphic companies as can be gleaned from the cases cited in Divinagracia, namely: RCPI v. Santiago, 157 Phil. 484 (1974) [Per J. Fernando, Second Division] and RCPI v. NTC, 289 Phil. 935 (1992) [Per J. Padilla, First Division]. The cited cases involved the same petitioner-Radio Communications Philippines, Inc.-a radio or telegraph company that transmits telegraphic messages of its customers, not a radio broadcasting station.
104 Presidential Decree No. 1 (1972), Integrated Reorganization Plan of the executive branch.
105 445 Phil. 621 (2003) [Per J. Puno, Third Division].
106 Regulating the Ownership and Operation of Radio and Television Stations and for Other Purposes (1974).
107Associated Communications & Wireless Services - United Broadcasting Networks v. National Telecommunications Commission, 445 Phil. 621, 645 (2003) [Per J. Puno, Third Division].
108 602 Phil. 625 (2009) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
109 Id. at 655-656.
110 An Act Granting the ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation a Franchise to Construct, Install, Operate and Maintain Television and Radio Broadcasting Stations in the Philippines, and for Other Purposes (1995).
111 An Act Renewing the Franchise Granted to ABS-CBN Corporation (formerly ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation) under Republic Act No. 7966 or "An Act Granting ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation a Franchise to Construct, Install, Establish, Operate, and Maintain Broadcasting Stations in the Philippines, and for Other Purposes" for Twenty-Five (25) Years from the Effectivity of this Act, available at (last accessed on August 24, 2020).
112 An Act Renewing the Franchise Granted to ABS-CBN Corporation (formerly ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation) under Republic Act No. 7966 or "An Act Granting ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation a Franchise to Construct, Install, Establish, Operate, and Maintain Broadcasting Stations in the Philippines, and for Other Purposes" for Twenty-Five (25) Years from the Effectivity of this Act, available at (last accessed on August 24, 2020).
113 An Act Renewing the Franchise Granted to ABS-CBN Corporation (formerly ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation) under Republic Act No. 7966 or "An Act Granting ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation a Franchise to Construct[,] Install, Establish, Operate, and Maintain Broadcasting Stations in the Philippines, and for Other Purposes" for Twenty-Five (25) Years from the Effectivity of this Act, available at (last accessed on August 24, 2020).
114 An Act Renewing the Franchise Granted to ABS-CBN Corporation under Republic Act No. 7966 Otherwise Known as "An Act Granting ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation a Franchise to Construct, Install, Operate, and Maintain Television and Radio Broadcasting Stations in the Philippines, and for Other Purposes for Twenty-Five (25) Years from the Effectivity of this Act," available at (last accessed on August 24, 2020).
115 An Act Renewing the Franchise Granted to ABS-CBN Corporation (formerly ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation) under Republic Act No. 7966 or "An Act Granting ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation a Franchise to Construct, Install, Establish, Operate, and Maintain Broadcasting Stations in the Philippines, and for Other Purposes" for Twenty-Five (25) Years from the Effectivity of this Act, available at (last accessed on August 24, 2020).
116 An Act Renewing for Another Twenty-Five (25) Years the Franchise Granted to ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, presently known as ABS-CBN Corporation, under Republic Act No. 7966, Entitled "An Act Granting the ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation a Franchise to Construct, Install, Operate and Maintain Television and Radio Broadcasting Stations in the Philippines, and for Other Purposes", available at (last accessed on August 24, 2020).
117 An Act Renewing the Franchise Granted to ABS-CBN Corporation (formerly ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation) under Republic Act No. 7966 or "An Act Granting ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation a Franchise to Construct[,] Install, Establish, Operate, and Maintain Broadcasting Stations in the Philippines, and for Other Purposes" for Twenty[-]Five (25) Years from the Effectivity of this Act, available at (last accessed on August 24, 2020).
118 An Act Renewing the Franchise Granted to ABS-CBN Corporation (formerly ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation) under Republic Act No. 7966 or "An Act Granting ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation a Franchise to Construct, Install, Establish, Operate, and Maintain Broadcasting Stations in the Philippines, and for Other Purposes" for Twenty-Five (25) Years from the Effectivity of this Act, available at (last accessed on August 24, 2020).
119 An Act Renewing for Another Twenty-Five (25) Years the Franchise Granted to ABS-CBN Corporation, Presently Known as ABS-CBN Corporation, under Republic Act No. 7966, entitled "An Act Granting ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation a Franchise to Construct, Install, Establish, Operate and Maintain Television and Radio Broadcasting Stations in the Philippines, and for Other Purposes", available at (last accessed on August 24, 2020).
120 An Act Renewing the Franchise Granted to ABS-CBN Corporation (formerly ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation) under Republic Act No. 7966 or "An Act Granting ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation a Franchise to Construct[,] Install, Establish, Operate, and Maintain Broadcasting Stations in the Philippines, and for Other Purposes" for Twenty-Five (25) Years from the Effectivity of this Act, available at (last accessed on August 24, 2020).
121 Renewing for Another Twenty-Five (25) Years the Franchise Granted to ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation (formerly ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation) under Republic Act No. 7966 or "An Act Granting the ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation a Franchise to Construct, Install, Operate and Maintain Television and Radio Broadcasting Stations in the Philippines, and for Other Purposes", available at (last accessed on August 24, 2020).
122 Renewing the Franchise Granted to ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation (formerly ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation) under Republic Act No. 7966 or "An Act Granting the ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation a Franchise to Construct, Install, Operate and Maintain Television and Radio Broadcasting Stations in the Philippines, and for Other Purposes" for Twenty-Five (25) Years from the Effectivity of this Act, available at (last accessed on August 24, 2020).
123 Resolution Urging the Committee on Legislative Franchises to Report Out Without Further Delay for Plenary Action a Consolidated Version of Eight (8) Pending Bills Proposing the Renewal for Another Twenty-Five (25) Years of the Legislative Franchise of ABS-CBN Corporation, available at (last accessed on August 24, 2020). Filed by Representatives Edcel Lagman, Micaela Violago, Joy Myra Tambunting, Johnny Pimentel, Doy Leachon, Jocelyn Limkaichong, Emmanuel Billones, Christopher Belmonte, France Castro, Carlos Zarate, Eufemia Cullamat, Ferdinand Gaite, and Arlene Brosas.
124 Renewing for Another Twenty-Five (25) Years the Franchise Granted to ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, Presently Known as ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, Under Republic Act No. 7966, Entitled "An Act Granting the ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation a Franchise to Construct, Install, Operate and Maintain Television and Radio Broadcasting Stations in the Philippines, and for Other Purposes", available at (last accessed on August 24, 2020).
125 Renewing for Another Twenty-Five (25) Years the Franchise Granted to ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, Presently Known as ABS-CBN Corporation, Under Republic Act No. 7966, Entitled "An Act Granting the ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation a Franchise to Construct, Install, Operate and Maintain Television and Radio Broadcasting Stations in the Philippines, and for Other Purposes", available at (last accessed on August 24, 2020).
126 Joint Resolution Extending the Franchise of ABS-CBN Corporation Until the End of this 18th Congress on June 30, 2020, available at (last accessed on August 24, 2020).
127 Joint Resolution Extending the Franchise of ABS-CBN Corporation Until May 4, 2020, available at (last accessed on August 24, 2020).
128 An Act Amending Section 1 of Republic Act No. 7966 to Extend the Term of the Franchise of ABSCBN Corporation Until 31 December 2020, available at (last accessed on August 24, 2020).
129 Petition, p. 8.
130House suspends work from March 16 to April 12 due to COVID-19 concerns, ABS-CBN NEWS ONLINE, March 13, 2020, (last accessed on August 24, 2020).
131 H. No. 4631, 7th Cong. (2017), available at (last accessed on August 24, 2020).
132 An Act Renewing for Another Twenty-Five (25) Years the Franchise Granted to Republic Broadcasting System, Inc., Presently Known as GMA Network, Inc., Amending for the Purpose Republic Act No. 7252, Entitled "An Act Granting the Republic Broadcasting System, Inc. a Franchise to Construct, Install, Operate and Maintain Radio and Television Broadcasting Stations in the Philippines (2017). See also the law's legislative history, available at.
133 H. Res. 639, 18th Cong. (2020), available at (last accessed on August 24, 2020).
134 Petition, p. 37.
135 J. J.B.L. Reyes, Separate Concurring Opinion in Lemi v. Valencia, 135 Phil. 185, 200 (1968) [Per. J. Castro, En Banc].
136 602 Phil. 255 (2009) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division]
137 Id. at 269.
138 602 Phil. 625 (2009) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
139 Id. at 656-657.
140 The February 26, 2020 Letter was signed by Franz E. Alvarez, Chairperson of the Committee on Legislative Franchises, and concured in by House Speaker Alan Peter Cayetano. Attached as Annex "B" of the Petition.
141 S. Res. 344, 18th Cong., 1st Session (2020), available at (last accessed on August 24, 2020).
142Divinagracia v. National Telecommunications Commission, 602 Phil. 625, 668 (2009) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
143Valmonte v. Belmonte, 252 Phil. 264, 270-271 (1989) [Per J. Cortes, En Banc].chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary