COVER COVER COVER COVER ABS-CBN to SC: TV network did not commit violations and abuses Station disputes SolGen’s quo warranto, says High court has no jurisdiction to hear case REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES 1. The Republic filed its Petition for quo warranto to revoke or SUPREME COURT forfeit the franchises of ABS-CBN and Convergence (for misuse Jurisdictional Grounds Procedural Grounds and abuse) on the basis of Section 1(a), Rule 66 of the 1997 Rules EN BANC of Civil Procedure, which provides: REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES A. A petition for quo warranto under C. The filing of the Petition directly with “SECTION 1. Action by Government against Represented by SOLICITOR individuals. An action for the usurpation of GENERAL JOSE C. CALIDA Rule 66 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure this Honorable Court violates the doctrine a public office, position or franchise may be Petitioner, may not be brought on the basis of misuse of hierarchy of courts. It also disregards the commenced by a verified petition brought in the name of the Republic of the Philippines against: - versus – or abuse of a legislative franchise. fundamental rule that this Court is not a trier of fact. (a) A person who usurps, intrudes into, or G.R. NO. 251358 unlawfully holds or exercises a public office, For: Quo Warranto B. Congress is the one empowered to position or franchise xxx” (emphasis ours) revoke the respective legislative franchises D. Assuming that Respondents ABS-CBN CORPORATION and 2. The Petition must be dismissed outright. This Honorable ABS-CBN CONVERGENCE, INC., of Respondents. Granting the Petition committed the violations alleged in the Court does not have jurisdiction to revoke or forfeit Respondents’ Respondents would violate the fundamental principle of Petition, the Republic’s remedy lies before legislative franchises under the above-mentioned rule relied upon. X-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X separation of powers. administrative tribunals. 3. Quo warranto is a “prerogative writ by which the Government can call upon any person to show by what warrant he holds a public COMMENT AD CAUTELAM office or exercises a public franchise.” It is a proceeding “to deter- mine the right to the use or exercise of a franchise or office and to Respondents ABS-CBN CORPORATION (“ABS-CBN”) and oust the holder from its enjoyment, if his claim is not well founded.” ABS-CBN CONVERGENCE, INC. (“Convergence”), by counsel, in compliance with the Honorable Court’s Resolution dated Feb. 4. Previously, under the 1964 Rules of Civil Procedure, the 11, 2020, which they received on Feb. 13, 2020, respectfully state: grounds upon which the writ may be issued were more expansive (than those under the currently effective 1997 Rules). Rule 66, Sec- I. tions 1 and 2 of the 1964 Rules provide: The Petition must be dismissed on the following grounds: “Rule 66 QUO WARRANTO Jurisdictional Grounds Section 1. Action by Government against individuals. — An action for the usurpation of office or franchise A. A petition for quo warranto under Rule 66 of the may be brought in the name of the Republic of the Philip- 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure may not be brought pines against: (a) A person who usurps, intrudes into, or on the basis of misuse or abuse of a legislative unlawfully holds or exercises a public office, or afran - franchise. chise, or an office in a corporation created by authority of law; (b) A public officer who does or suffers an act which, B. Congress is the one empowered to revoke the by the provisions of law, works a forfeiture of his office; (c) respective legislative franchises of Respondents. An association of persons who act as a corporation within Granting the Petition would violate the fundamen- the Philippines without being legally incorporated or without tal principle of separation of powers. lawful authority so to act. Procedural Grounds Sec. 2. Like actions against corporations. — A like action may be brought against a corporation: (a) When it C. The filing of the Petition directly with this Honor- has offended against a provision of an Act for its cre- able Court violates the doctrine of hierarchy of ation or renewal; (b) When it has forfeited its privileges courts. It also disregards the fundamental rule NEWS.ABS-CBN.COM and franchises by nonuser; (c) When it has committed that this Court is not a trier of fact. or omitted an act which amounts to a surrender of its corporate rights, privileges, or franchises; (d) When it D. Assuming that Respondents committed the G. The ABS-CBN Philippine Depository Receipts Rules of Civil Procedure may has misused a right, privilege, or franchise conferred (“PDRs”) do not violate the foreign ownership upon it by law, or when it has exercised a right, privilege, violations alleged in the Petition, the Republic’s not be brought on the basis remedy lies before administrative tribunals. restriction under the Constitution or the conditions or franchise in contravention of law.” (emphasis ours) of ABS-CBN’s franchise. of misuse or abuse of a 5. Section 1, Rule 66 of the 1997 Rules is thus almost a repro- II. legislative franchise. H. The Petition, if granted, will have a chilling effect duction of Section 1, Rule 66 of the 1964 Rules—both contemplate Ad cautelam, Respondents submit that the Petition lacks merit. on the press. “[a]n action for the usurpation” of an office or franchise against “[a] Section 2, Rule 66 of the 1964 person who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises” E. ABS-CBN did not violate its legislative franchise Arguments and Discussion an office or franchise. (Subsections 1(b) and (c) are almost identical in offering Kapamilya Box Office (“KBO”) on its Rules was not carried over to but not relevant here.) If any of the foregoing grounds exists, both digital terrestrial television service, “TVPlus”. A. A petition for quo warranto the 1997 Rules of Civil Section 10, Rule 66 of the 1964 Rules and Section 9, Rule 66 of the 1997 Rules provide that the defendant shall be excluded or ousted F. Convergence did not violate its franchise. under Rule 66 of the 1997 Procedure. from the office or franchise. 20 BizNews Asia / March 2 - 9, 2020 BizNews Asia / March 2 - 9, 2020 21 COVER COVER 6. In contrast, Section 2 of the 1964 Rules was not carried Granting the Petition means shutting public’s opinion on a variety of issues, over to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Consequently, a petition B. Congress is the one for quo warranto may no longer be filed on any of the following down what the Republic concedes to be the apart from providing entertainment.” empowered to revoke the grounds: (a) violation of the law creating the defendant-corporation; country’s “largest media conglomerate… This case, therefore, cannot be (b) non-use of its corporate franchise; (c) surrender of a right, privi- respective legislative lege or franchise; or (d) its misuse or its exercise in contravention of reaching millions of viewers in all resolved without “compromising” the franchises of Respondents. law. Section 12, Rule 66 of the 1964 Rules then provided that the corners of the country” and the “biggest “fundamental guarantees of freedom of Granting the Petition would defendant-corporation found to have committed any of the foregoing shall be “ousted and excluded therefrom and… dissolved.” broadcasting entity… able to shape the speech and of the press.” violate the fundamental principle of separation of 7. Rule 66 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is now limited to quo warranto actions for usurpation of public office, position powers. or franchise. Accordingly, nothing in Rule 66 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure pertains to misuse or abuse of such public office, position or franchise. Sections 5, 6, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of Rule 66 refer Congress has power over particularly to actions for usurpation, with no corresponding provision franchises. for the previous grounds of misuse or abuse. 8. It is a cardinal rule of statutory construction that, to ascertain 19. Congress has the power to grant, amend, alter and repeal the intent behind a provision, one must consider the provision as a franchise, as provided in Section 11, Article XII of the Constitution: a whole and not its isolated part. “For taken in the abstract, a word or phrase might easily convey a meaning quite different from the “SECTION 11. No franchise, certificate, or any other one actually intended and evident when the word or phrase is con- form of authorization for the operation of a public utility sidered with those with which it is associated. Thus, an apparently shall be granted except to citizens of the Philippines or to general provision may have a limited application if viewed together corporations or associations organized under the laws of with other provisions.” Aboitiz Shipping Corp. v. City of Cebu, G.R. the Philippines at least sixty per centum of whose capital No. L-14526. March 31, 1965. is owned by such citizens, nor shall such franchise, cer- tificate, or authorization be exclusive in character or for 9. Thus, the verified petition referred to in Section 1, Rule 66, a longer period than fifty years. Neither shall any such that is filed against “[a] person who usurps, intrudes into, or unlaw- franchise or right be granted except under the condi- fully holds or exercises a public office, position or franchise” is one tion that it shall be subject to amendment, alteration, that “commence[s]” “[a]n action for the usurpation of a public office, or repeal by the Congress when the common good so position or franchise”. (emphasis ours) The phrase “unlawfully holds requires…” (emphasis ours) or exercises” an office or franchise must be read within the context of “usurpation” as used in the first clause of Section 1, as well as in 20.