ABS-CBN franchise revival move denounced
A LAWYER denounced a move to revive ABS-CBN Corporation’s franchise even without Congress actually granting it.
Atty. Ferdinand Topacio, chief legal counsel of the Volunteer Against Crime and Corruption, appealed to the leadership of both houses of Congress to defer from taking further plenary actions on the controversial Senate Bill No. 1530 authored by opposition Senator Franklin Drilon and House Bill No. 7923 filed by Rep. Joy Tambunting and instead remand the two legislative measures to the appropriate committees for further hearings with the participation of the affected stakeholders in the media industry.
Topacio made the statement as the Senate is expected to tackle next week Drilon’s SB No. 1530, which seeks to amend Section 18, Book VII, Chapter 3 of Executive Order 292, and provides that “the franchise or license that needs a congressional grant will not expire as long as the franchise or license holder makes “timely and sufficient application for the renewal of a license or franchise xxx until the application shall have been finally determined by the xxx branch of government that grants or renews such xxx franchise.”
Drilon filed SB No. 1530 on May 13, 2020.
However, Topacio noted that on the same day, May 13, 2020, of identical wording, HB 7923 was filed by Parañaque Rep. Joy Tambunting.
It was learned that Tambunting was a producer for ABS-CBN from 1988 until the late 90s, and was assigned to oversee some of the top-rated entertainment content of the network.
During the congressional hearings for the renewal of ABS-CBN’s franchise, Topacio said lawmakers who support the station repeatedly argued that the operations of ABS-CBN should be allowed to continue, while the issue of its renewal was being tackled, even if the same went past its expiration as stated in the law.
According to Topacio, what the Senate and House bills seek to achieve is a “holdover franchise” to be enjoyed by an entity as long as it applies for a renewal thereof, while the Congress is deliberating on the question of such renewal.
“This is wrong on so many levels,” he said, arguing that:“first, a franchise is granted only by Congress, and the law granting such a franchise shows definite dates as to when the privilege starts and when it ends.”
Citing Supreme Court’s jurisprudence in Associated Broadcasting case, Topacio stressed that “a franchise is a condition sine qua non for the operation of any entity which requires a franchise for a particular activity.”
“The grant of a franchise is an act of Congress, meaning that it requires a positive act, something that is done by Congress deliberately and in the exercise of its legislative powers. A grant of franchise is embodied in a law,” he said.
