"This is an eye-opening legal issue."
"This is an eye-opening legal issue."
The shutdown of the Lopez-owned ABS-CBN radio-television network, after its 25-year franchise expired last May 4, has brought up many questions, legal and otherwise. Many should find these questions interesting.
As far as I know, the core problem of the network rose from a Supreme Court decision in 2014 in a case involving the National Telecommunications Commission. If a public utility like ABS-CBN does not have a franchise, the NTC cannot and should not grant it a provisional authority to operate.
And, my gulay, that is exactly what happened!
Retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonio Carpio told the network to file a temporary restraining order to have the ruling reversed. If the Supreme Court does not reverse its decision, that would put finality to the case.
Tuesday’s shutdown of ABS-CBN has given rise to debates and discussions. The comments range from the sublime to the ridiculous!
Some bleeding hearts in Congress and media have gone to the extent of claiming that press freedom is in peril. But as a journalist myself – passionate when it comes to the issue of press freedom – the shutdown and press freedom are not related at all. In fact, I find the link ridiculous. The shutdown involves only the network, not the freedom of its individual journalists to exercise the right of free expression.
There are also some legislators who claim that in the midst of so many rendered jobless and who had lost their livelihood as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, government should consider the fact that some 11,000 workers are now jobless. This claim, to me, becomes irrelevant in the face of what happened to ABS-CBN which involves the rule of law. I admit that the rights of the 11,000 workers should also be considered, but these should be subordinated to the rule of law. Without the rule of law, there would be anarchy and tyranny.
The ABS-CBN network could still function as a profitable company, and all the workers can still have their jobs. The network can be sold, or as suggested by tycoon Manny Pangilinan, his network, TV5, is open to blocktimers.
What I find material in this controversy was the role of the House of Representatives which failed to grant ABS-CBN its new franchise. It procrastinated when it had all the time to do it. There are those who claim that it was the fault of the House leadership – Speaker Alan Peter Cayetano in particular.
The article attributed to former Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile says that way back in 1999, the Lopezes issued what is called PDRs or Philippine Depositary Receipts to foreigners having interests in their network. I don’t know whether this is fake news, since it first appeared on social media. But f it is true, it is what they call “piercing the veil of corporate ownership” in the light of the constitutional mandate that mass media must be 100-percent owned and managed by Filipino citizens.
The quo warranto case filed by Solicitor General Jose Calida against ABS-CBN, that alleges it violated the constitutional mandate, relative to the Enrile findings. Since all the records of this issue, if true, should be at the Securities and Exchange Commission, perhaps it is better if the SEC ruled on it.
Be that as it may, if there is any silver lining in the controversy, it is the fact that many legal and business questions should be answered to lay to rest may questions about mass media.
As a journalist and a lawyer, I find the ABS-CBN shutdown an eye-opening legal issue. Only the Supreme Court can act on this cease and desist order. Otherwise, it is the end of ABS-CBN, period.
**
In the light of NTC’s action on ABS-CBN, I cannot but recall how the Lopez-owned network started, in fact, how Philippine television started.
An American named Jimmy Linderberg partnered with Tony Quirino, brother of the President Elpidio Quirino, to form Alto Broadcasting System, to become the first television network in the Philippines. However, they lacked funds because a network was capital intensive.
And so they convinced Eugenio Lopez Sr. to partner with them. At that time Lopez was building his business empire; the sugar bloc of Negros and Iloilo were the wealthiest. Lopez, by then, had The Manila Chronicle, one of the three biggest newspapers. CBN stood for Chronicle Broadcasting Network.
So, the new network was called ABS-CBN.
Other radio-television networks followed suit, A radio network called RPN, or Radio Philippines Network, formed RPN Channel 9. When Andres Soriano bought the Herald, he partnered with Radio Mindanao Network of Henry Canoy, and it became IBC-13 or the International Broadcasting Corporation.
Then came Channel 5 of the Prieto and Roces families. Santa Banana, the Philippines at that time had the highest number of radio-television networks in Asia!
When Martial Law was proclaimed by the strongman Ferdinand Marcos, all media outlets were closed except Channel 9, which was then bought by Bobby S. Benedicto, a crony of Marcos. Soon enough, Marcos gave Benedicto the license to operate ABS-CBN’s Channel 2, the government station GTV 4, Channel 9, and IBC Channel 13. Channel 7, then owned by an American, Bob Stewart, was also closed.
After Martial Law, the Lopezes were able to get ABS-CBN back. Channels 9 and 13 were sequestered, while Manny Pangilinan bought Channel 5.
During Marial Law, Stewart and his Filipino wife wanted to sell heir interests to their lawyer, Felipe “Henry” Gozon. Gozon then formed the triumvirate of Nards Jimenez, his brother-in-law, and Gilberto Duavit, a Marcos ally.
Jimenez, an accountant, became GMA-7’s first president. Later on, Gozon took his place and soon the network began to perform really well. Now, GMA-7 is at the top in terms of ratings ad profits.
That’s the saga of Philippine television, and I saw it all.
