Reaction: On quo warranto petition against ABSCBN
This does not intend to influence the independence of the Supreme Court whether to provide due course or not on the quo warranto petition of the Solicitor General against ABSCBN.
Social beings have opinions and petitioner sought public attention when he issued bold statements to the media.
The petition alleged the following:
(1) That ABS-CBN has been allegedly broadcasting for a fee and operating a "pay-per-view channel in ABS-CBN TV Plus, the KBO Channel, without prior approval or permit from the National Telecommunications Commission.
(2) That ABS-CBN has allegedly issued Philippine Depositary Receipts to foreigners —apparently, a similar allegation against online news site Rappler.
(3) That ABS-CBN Convergence, Inc. allegedly resorted to an "ingenious corporate layering scheme" to transfer its franchise "without the necessary Congressional approval."
(4) That ABS-CBN allegedly failed to publicly offer any of its outstanding capital stock to any securities exchange within the Philippines within five years from the start of its operations, which is an indispensable condition in its franchise.
These allegations are questions of facts which require a trier of facts and pave for an objective weighing of evidences to determine the truthfulness of alleged facticity.
ABS-CBN has issued its counter statement yesterday denying these allegations and the pendulum of assertions require a proper venue not only for the sole purpose of law's application but also in identifying correct remedies to improve the corporate life of this media as an institution and as an entertainment industry.
I find it grievous to exact taxation on a corporation and at the same time politically malign its corporate life by exerting efforts to annul its existence pending franchise's renewal just because it opted to assert independence as a member of the fourth pillar against the political pressure of the administration or because it built a reputation of standing for democracy since Edsa Revolution-- whichever is reasonable.
Thus viewed, this is not just a "parasite dependent on taxation as government's lifeblood" but a leech of sort who sucked up the whole blood and feast on corporate death to hit two lives -- (1) the life of a free press and (2) the life of small media industry who maintain its role as independent fiscalizer for social transformation.
Moreso, the recent press statement of the OSG demonstrated ill-intention in the filing of this case as he was personalizing it while acting at the behest of the president. This behavior alone made the whole circus political while arrogating power relations.
I share the view that these allegations do not hold strong bases for litigation in the chamber of the Supreme Court because as laywer Manuel Laserna Jr. pointed, the "SC is not a "trier of facts". It can resolve with finality only "purely legal and constitutional issues", among other things (Art. VIII, Judiciary, 1987 Constitution and Rule 45, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure).
Factual issues properly belong to the "original jurisdiction" of the proper Regional Trial Court, subject to ordinary appeals up to the the SC (Rule 45, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure). By going directly to the SC, the OSG violated the traditional doctrine of "hierarchy of courts", which is a ground for the dismissal of the petition, without prejudice to the re-filing thereof with the proper Regional Trial Court.
As to the exact legal nature of the Philippine Depositary Receipts (PDR) issued to foreigners as an investment instrument in relation to the constitutional restrictions vis-a-vis foreign ownership of shares in Philippine mass media outlets and, further, in relation to the relevant provisions of the 1987 Constitution, it is a novel legal issue of first impression that has not been previously ruled upon in Philippine commercial law jurisprudence."
Below is a copy of the public statement of ABSCBN following the public disclosure of solicitor general Calida after the filing the case at the SC. As of this posting, there is no information yet if the SC will provide due course for the petition but it has sought petitioners to comment on related petition aimed at imposing a gag order to ABSCBN.
========================================================
IN a separate interview with Karen Davila, executive spokesperson Panelo assailed that OSG Calida filed the quo warranto petition without the direction of the President and that he did it in his own volition.
Like the rest of those who are interested on freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and the right of a stock company to exercise its powers to attain its goals in accordance to corporate code of this country and other instruments that gave life to its institution, I maintain the view that all allegations are questions of facts and ergo, the supreme court, where the petition for quo warranto was filed, isn't the correct venue.
On a note, this isn't just a corporation being subjected to franchise renewal's political rigidity, but this is an institution that contributes to the realization of freedom of information and entertainment basically enshrined in the constitution.
The oversimplification that (1) isolates its corporate purpose as an agent of public information from the allegations and (2) the obvious machination of reasons to imply proposition that there are other alternative media, hence in effect, does not suppress the power and freedom of the press (should its franchise not renewed), are skewed to make the public believe that the state's media apparatuses are enough to produce information.
This is critical in times when militarism and authoritarianism pervade in our system; where media workers critical of the administration are victims of extra judicial killings and threats; and, where small media workers are reliant on bureaucrats for a living. It is in fact prejudicial to public interest that state-owned media are privy to alleged influx of disinformation.
Silencing an established media corporation has a tremendous implication to small media companies.
Its will be of serious interest to follow how Senator Poe will manage the legislative hearing on its franchise renewal.
Below is a table of issues hurled against ABSCBN as collated from the office of Comelec commissioner Rowena Guanzon and was shared in facebook.
I'm also noting Rule 66 below for those who are interested to scavenge the policy regulating quo warranto petition.
--------------------------------------------------------
RULE 66 QUO WARRANTO, Civil Procedure
Section 1. Action by Government against individuals.
An action for the usurpation of a public office, position or franchise may be commenced by a verified petition brought in the name of the Republic of the Philippines against:
(a) A person who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises a public office, position or franchise;
(b) A public officer who does or suffers an act which, by the provision of law, constitutes a ground for the forfeiture of his office; or
(c) An association which acts as a corporation within the Philippines without being legally incorporated or without lawful authority so to act.
Sec. 2. When Solicitor General or public prosecutor must commence action.-
The Solicitor General or a public prosecutor, when directed by the President of the Philippines, or when upon complaint or otherwise he has good reason to believe that any case specified in the preceding section can be established by proof, must commence such action.
Sec. 3. When Solicitor General or public prosecutor may commence action with permission of court.
The Solicitor General or a public prosecutor may, with the permission of the court in which the action is to be commenced, bring such an action at the request and upon the relation of another person; but in such case the officer bringing it may first require an indemnity for the expenses and costs of the action in an amount approved by and to be deposited in the court by the person at whose request and upon whose relation the same is brought.
Sec. 4. When hearing had on application for permission to commence action.
Upon application for permission to commence such action in accordance with the next preceding section, the court shall direct that notice be given to the respondent so that he may be heard in opposition thereto; and if permission is granted, the court shall issue an order to that effect, copies of which shall be served on all interested parties, and the petition shall then be filed within the period ordered by the court.
Sec. 5. When an individual may commence such an action.
A person claiming to be entitled to a public office or position usurped or unlawfully held or exercised by another may bring an action therefor in his own name.
Social beings have opinions and petitioner sought public attention when he issued bold statements to the media.
The petition alleged the following:
(1) That ABS-CBN has been allegedly broadcasting for a fee and operating a "pay-per-view channel in ABS-CBN TV Plus, the KBO Channel, without prior approval or permit from the National Telecommunications Commission.
(2) That ABS-CBN has allegedly issued Philippine Depositary Receipts to foreigners —apparently, a similar allegation against online news site Rappler.
(3) That ABS-CBN Convergence, Inc. allegedly resorted to an "ingenious corporate layering scheme" to transfer its franchise "without the necessary Congressional approval."
(4) That ABS-CBN allegedly failed to publicly offer any of its outstanding capital stock to any securities exchange within the Philippines within five years from the start of its operations, which is an indispensable condition in its franchise.
These allegations are questions of facts which require a trier of facts and pave for an objective weighing of evidences to determine the truthfulness of alleged facticity.
ABS-CBN has issued its counter statement yesterday denying these allegations and the pendulum of assertions require a proper venue not only for the sole purpose of law's application but also in identifying correct remedies to improve the corporate life of this media as an institution and as an entertainment industry.
I find it grievous to exact taxation on a corporation and at the same time politically malign its corporate life by exerting efforts to annul its existence pending franchise's renewal just because it opted to assert independence as a member of the fourth pillar against the political pressure of the administration or because it built a reputation of standing for democracy since Edsa Revolution-- whichever is reasonable.
Thus viewed, this is not just a "parasite dependent on taxation as government's lifeblood" but a leech of sort who sucked up the whole blood and feast on corporate death to hit two lives -- (1) the life of a free press and (2) the life of small media industry who maintain its role as independent fiscalizer for social transformation.
Moreso, the recent press statement of the OSG demonstrated ill-intention in the filing of this case as he was personalizing it while acting at the behest of the president. This behavior alone made the whole circus political while arrogating power relations.
I share the view that these allegations do not hold strong bases for litigation in the chamber of the Supreme Court because as laywer Manuel Laserna Jr. pointed, the "SC is not a "trier of facts". It can resolve with finality only "purely legal and constitutional issues", among other things (Art. VIII, Judiciary, 1987 Constitution and Rule 45, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure).
Factual issues properly belong to the "original jurisdiction" of the proper Regional Trial Court, subject to ordinary appeals up to the the SC (Rule 45, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure). By going directly to the SC, the OSG violated the traditional doctrine of "hierarchy of courts", which is a ground for the dismissal of the petition, without prejudice to the re-filing thereof with the proper Regional Trial Court.
As to the exact legal nature of the Philippine Depositary Receipts (PDR) issued to foreigners as an investment instrument in relation to the constitutional restrictions vis-a-vis foreign ownership of shares in Philippine mass media outlets and, further, in relation to the relevant provisions of the 1987 Constitution, it is a novel legal issue of first impression that has not been previously ruled upon in Philippine commercial law jurisprudence."
Below is a copy of the public statement of ABSCBN following the public disclosure of solicitor general Calida after the filing the case at the SC. As of this posting, there is no information yet if the SC will provide due course for the petition but it has sought petitioners to comment on related petition aimed at imposing a gag order to ABSCBN.
========================================================
IN a separate interview with Karen Davila, executive spokesperson Panelo assailed that OSG Calida filed the quo warranto petition without the direction of the President and that he did it in his own volition.
Like the rest of those who are interested on freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and the right of a stock company to exercise its powers to attain its goals in accordance to corporate code of this country and other instruments that gave life to its institution, I maintain the view that all allegations are questions of facts and ergo, the supreme court, where the petition for quo warranto was filed, isn't the correct venue.
On a note, this isn't just a corporation being subjected to franchise renewal's political rigidity, but this is an institution that contributes to the realization of freedom of information and entertainment basically enshrined in the constitution.
The oversimplification that (1) isolates its corporate purpose as an agent of public information from the allegations and (2) the obvious machination of reasons to imply proposition that there are other alternative media, hence in effect, does not suppress the power and freedom of the press (should its franchise not renewed), are skewed to make the public believe that the state's media apparatuses are enough to produce information.
This is critical in times when militarism and authoritarianism pervade in our system; where media workers critical of the administration are victims of extra judicial killings and threats; and, where small media workers are reliant on bureaucrats for a living. It is in fact prejudicial to public interest that state-owned media are privy to alleged influx of disinformation.
Silencing an established media corporation has a tremendous implication to small media companies.
Its will be of serious interest to follow how Senator Poe will manage the legislative hearing on its franchise renewal.
Below is a table of issues hurled against ABSCBN as collated from the office of Comelec commissioner Rowena Guanzon and was shared in facebook.
I'm also noting Rule 66 below for those who are interested to scavenge the policy regulating quo warranto petition.
--------------------------------------------------------
RULE 66 QUO WARRANTO, Civil Procedure
Section 1. Action by Government against individuals.
An action for the usurpation of a public office, position or franchise may be commenced by a verified petition brought in the name of the Republic of the Philippines against:
(a) A person who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises a public office, position or franchise;
(b) A public officer who does or suffers an act which, by the provision of law, constitutes a ground for the forfeiture of his office; or
(c) An association which acts as a corporation within the Philippines without being legally incorporated or without lawful authority so to act.
Sec. 2. When Solicitor General or public prosecutor must commence action.-
The Solicitor General or a public prosecutor, when directed by the President of the Philippines, or when upon complaint or otherwise he has good reason to believe that any case specified in the preceding section can be established by proof, must commence such action.
Sec. 3. When Solicitor General or public prosecutor may commence action with permission of court.
The Solicitor General or a public prosecutor may, with the permission of the court in which the action is to be commenced, bring such an action at the request and upon the relation of another person; but in such case the officer bringing it may first require an indemnity for the expenses and costs of the action in an amount approved by and to be deposited in the court by the person at whose request and upon whose relation the same is brought.
Sec. 4. When hearing had on application for permission to commence action.
Upon application for permission to commence such action in accordance with the next preceding section, the court shall direct that notice be given to the respondent so that he may be heard in opposition thereto; and if permission is granted, the court shall issue an order to that effect, copies of which shall be served on all interested parties, and the petition shall then be filed within the period ordered by the court.
Sec. 5. When an individual may commence such an action.
A person claiming to be entitled to a public office or position usurped or unlawfully held or exercised by another may bring an action therefor in his own name.
