Third Division (G.R. No. 144109. February 17, 2003)

[ G.R. No. 144109.
February 17, 2003 ] 2/26/23, 2:09 PM
445 Phil. 621
THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 144109. February 17, 2003 ]

ASSOCIATED COMMUNICATIONS & WIRELESS SERVICES –
UNITED BROADCASTING NETWORKS, PETITIONER, VS.
NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION,
RESPONDENT.
DECISION
PUNO, J.:
For many years now, there has been a “pervading confusion in the state of affairs of the
broadcast industry brought about by conflicting laws, decrees, executive orders and other
pronouncements promulgated during the Martial Law regime.”[1] The question that has
taken a long life is whether the operation of a radio or television station requires a
congressional franchise. The Court shall now lay to rest the issue.
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the Court of Appeals’ January 31, 2000
decision and February 21, 2000 resolution affirming the January 13, 1999 decision of the
National Telecommunications Commission (NTC for brevity).
First, the facts.
On November 11, 1931, Act No. 3846, entitled “An Act Providing for the Regulation of
Radio Stations and Radio Communications in the Philippines and for Other Purposes,” was
enacted. Sec. 1 of the law reads, viz:
“Sec. 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...”
Pursuant to the above provision, Congress enacted in 1965 R.A. No. 4551, entitled “An
Act Granting Marcos J. Villaverde, Jr. and Winfred E. Villaverde a Franchise to Construct,
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system…2&hits=4+10+&SearchForm=C%3a%5celibrev2%5csearch%5csearch%5fform Page 1 of 26
[ G.R. No. 144109. February 17, 2003 ] 2/26/23, 2:09 PM
Install, Maintain and Operate Public Radiotelephone and Radiotelegraph Coastal Stations,
and Public Fixed and Public Based and Land Mobile Stations within the Philippines for the
Reception and Transmission of Radiotelephone and Radiotelegraph for Domestic
Communications and Provincial Telephone Systems in Certain Provinces.” It gave the
grantees a 50-year franchise.[2] In 1969, the franchise was transferred to petitioner
Associated Communications & Wireless Services – United Broadcasting Network, Inc.
(ACWS for brevity) through Congress’ Concurrent Resolution No. 58.[3] Petitioner ACWS
then engaged in the installation and operation of several radio stations around the country.
In 1974, P.D. No. 576-A, “Regulating the Ownership and Operation of Radio and
Television Stations and for other Purposes” was issued, with the following pertinent
provisions on franchise of radio and television broadcasting systems:
“Sec. 1. No radio station or television channel may obtain a franchise unless it

has sufficient capital on the basis of equity for its operation for at least one year,
including purchase of equipment.
xxx xxx xxx
Sec. 6. All franchises, grants, licenses, permits, certificates or other forms of

authority to operate radio or television broadcasting systems shall terminate on
December 31, 1981. Thereafter, irrespective of any franchise, grant, license,
permit, certificate or other forms of authority to operate granted by any office,
agency or person, no radio or television station shall be authorized to operate
without the authority of the Board of Communications and the Secretary of
Public Works and Communications or their successors who have the right and
authority to assign to qualified parties frequencies, channels or other means of
identifying broadcasting system; Provided, however, that any conflict over, or
disagreement with a decision of the aforementioned authorities may be appealed
finally to the Office of the President within fifteen days from the date the
decision is received by the party in interest.”
A few years later or in 1979, E.O. No. 546[4] was issued. It integrated the Board of
Communications and the Telecommunications Control Bureau under the Integrated
Reorganization Plan of 1972 into the NTC. Among the powers vested in the NTC under
Sec. 15 of E.O. No. 546 are the following:
“a. Issue Certificate of Public Convenience for the operation of communication

utilities and services, radio communications systems, wire or wireless telephone
or telegraph system, radio and television broadcasting system and other similar
public utilities;
[ G.R. No. 144109. February 17, 2003 ] 2/26/23, 2:09 PM
xxx xxx xxx
c. Grant permits for the use of radio frequencies for wireless telephone and
telegraph systems and radio communication systems including amateur radio
stations and radio and television broadcasting systems; . . . ”
Upon termination of petitioner’s franchise on December 31, 1981 pursuant to P.D. No.
576-A, it continued operating its radio stations under permits granted by the NTC.
As these presidential issuances relating to the radio and television broadcasting industry
brought about confusion as to whether the NTC could issue permits to radio and television
broadcast stations without legislative franchise, the NTC sought the opinion of the
Department of Justice (DOJ) on the matter. On June 20, 1991, the DOJ rendered Opinion
No. 98, Series of 1991, viz:
“We believe that under P.D. No. 576-A dated November 11, 1974 and prior to
the issuance of E.O No. 546 dated July 23, 1979, the NTC, then Board of
Communications, had no authority to issue permits or authorizations to operate
radio and television broadcasting systems without a franchise first being
obtained pursuant to Section 1 of Act No. 3846, as amended. A close reading of
the provisions of Sections 1 and 6 of P.D. No. 576-A, supra, does not reveal any
indication of a legislative intent to do away with the franchising requirement
under Section 1 of Act No. 3846. In fact, a mere reading of Section 1 would
readily indicate that a franchise was necessary for the operation of radio and
television broadcasting systems as it expressly provided that no such franchise
may be obtained unless the radio station or television channel has ‘sufficient
capital on the basis of equity for its operation for at least one year, including
purchase of equipment.’
It is believed that the termination of all franchises granted for the operation of
radio and television broadcasting systems effective December 31, 1981 and the
vesting of the power to authorize the operation of any radio or television station
upon the Board of Communications and the Secretary of Public Works and
Communications and their successors under Section 6 of P.D. No. 576-A does
not necessarily imply the abrogation of the requirement of obtaining a franchise
under Section 1 of Act No. 3846, as amended, in the absence of a clear
provision in P.D. No. 576-A providing to this effect.
It should be noted that under Act No. 3846, as amended, a person, firm or entity
desiring to operate a radio broadcasting station must obtain the following: (a) a
franchise from Congress (Sec. 1); (b) a permit to construct or install a station
from the Secretary of Commerce and Industry (Sec. 2); and (c) a license to
operate the station also from the Secretary of Commerce and Industry (id.). The
[ G.R. No. 144109. February 17, 2003 ] 2/26/23, 2:09 PM
franchise is the privilege granted by the State through its legislative body and is
subject to regulation by the State itself by virtue of its police power through its
administrative agencies (RCPI vs. NTC, 150 SCRA 450). The permit and
license are the administrative authorizations issued by the administrative agency
in the exercise of regulation. It is clear that what was transferred to the Board of
Communications and the Secretary of Commerce and Industry under Section 6
of P.D. No. 576-A was merely the regulatory powers vested solely in the
Secretary of Commerce and Industry under Section 2 of Act No. 3846, as
amended. The franchising authority was retained by the then incumbent
President as repository of legislative power under Martial Law, as is clearly
indicated in the first WHEREAS clause of P.D. No. 576-A to wit:
‘WHEREAS, the President of the Philippines is empowered under

the Constitution to review and approve franchises for public
utilities.’
Of course, under the Constitution, said power (the power to review and approve
franchises), belongs to the lawmaking body (Sec. 5, Art. XIV, 1973
Constitution; Sec. 11, Art. XII, 1987 Constitution).
The corollary question to be resolved is: Has E.O. No 546 (which is a law
issued pursuant to P.D. No. 1416, as amended by P.D. No. 1771, granting the
then President continuing authority to reorganize the administrative structure of
the national government) modified the franchising and licensing arrangement
for radio and television broadcasting systems under P.D. No. 576-A?
We believe so.
E.O. No. 546 integrated the Board of Communications and the

Telecommunications Bureau into a single entity known as the NTC (See Sec.
14), and vested the new body with broad powers, among them, the power to
issue Certificates of Public Convenience for the operation of communications
utilities, including radio and televisions broadcasting systems and the power to
grant permits for the use of radio frequencies (Sec. 14[a] and [c], supra).
Additionally, NTC was vested with broad rule making authority ‘to encourage a
larger and more effective use of communications, radio and television
broadcasting facilities, and to maintain effective competition among private
entities in these activities whenever the Commission finds it reasonably
feasible’ (Sec. 15[f]).
In the recent case of Albano vs. Reyes (175 SCRA 264), the Supreme Court
held that ‘franchises issued by Congress are not required before each and every
public utility may operate.’ Administrative agencies may be empowered by law
[ G.R. No. 144109. February 17, 2003 ] 2/26/23, 2:09 PM
‘to grant licenses for or to authorize the operation of certain public utilities.’ The
Supreme Court stated that the provision in the Constitution (Art. XII, Sec. 11)
‘that the issuance of a franchise, certificate or other form of authorization for the
operation of a public utility shall be subject to amendment, alteration or repeal
by Congress, does not necessarily imply . . . that only Congress has the power to
grant such authorization. Our statute books are replete with laws granting
specified agencies in the Executive Branch the power to issue such
authorization for certain classes of public utilities.’
We believe that E.O. No. 546 is one law which authorizes an administrative
agency, the NTC, to issue authorizations for the operation of radio and
television broadcasting systems without need of a prior franchise issued by
Congress.
Based on all the foregoing, we hold the view that NTC is empowered under
E.O. No. 546 to issue authorization and permits to operate radio and television
broadcasting system.”[5]
However, on May 3, 1994, the NTC, the Committee on Legislative Franchises of Congress,
and the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster sa Pilipinas of which petitioner is a member of good
standing, entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that requires a
congressional franchise to operate radio and television stations. The MOU states, viz:
“WHEREAS, under the provisions of Section 1 of Act No. 3846 (Radio Laws
of the Philippines, as amended), only radio and television broadcast stations
with legislative franchise are authorized to operate.
WHEREAS, Executive Order No. 546, which created the National

Telecommunications Commission (NTC) and abolished the Board of
Communications (BOC) and the Telecommunications Control Bureau (TCB),
and integrated the functions and prerogative of the latter two agencies into the
National Telecommunications Commission (NTC);
WHEREAS, the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) is

authorized to issue certificate of public convenience for the operation of radio
and television broadcast stations;
WHEREAS, there is a pervading confusion in the state of affairs of the

broadcast industry brought about by conflicting laws, decrees, executive orders
and other pronouncements promulgated during the Martial Law regime, the
parties in their common desire to rationalize the broadcast industry, promote the
interest of public welfare, avoid a vacuum in the delivery of broadcast services,
[ G.R. No. 144109. February 17, 2003 ] 2/26/23, 2:09 PM
and foremost to better serve the ends of press freedom, the parties hereto have
agreed as follows:
‘The NTC shall continue to issue and grant permits or authorizations

to operate radio and television broadcast stations within their
mandate under Section 15 of Executive Order No. 546, provided that
such temporary permits or authorization to operate shall be valid for
two (2) years within which the permittee shall be required to file an
application for legislative franchise with Congress not later than
December 31, 1994; provided finally, that if the permittee of the
temporary permit or authorization to operate fails to secure the
legislative franchise with Congress within this period, the NTC shall
not extend or renew its permit or authorization to operate any
further.’”[6]
Prior to the December 31, 1994 deadline set by the MOU, petitioner filed with Congress an
application for a franchise on December 20, 1994. Pending its approval, the NTC issued to
petitioner a temporary permit dated July 7, 1995 to operate a television station via Channel
25 of the UHF Band from June 29, 1995 to June 28, 1997.[7] In 1996, the NTC authorized
petitioner to increase the power output of Channel 25 from 1.0 kilowatt to 25 kilowatts
after finding it financially and technically capable;[8] it also granted petitioner a permit to
purchase radio transmitters/transceivers for use in its television Channel 25 broadcasting.[9]
Shortly before the expiration of its temporary permit, petitioner applied for its renewal on
May 14, 1997.[10]
On October 28, 1997, the House Committee on Legislative Franchises of Congress replied
to an inquiry of the NTC’s Broadcast Division Chief regarding the franchise application of
ACWS filed on December 20, 1994. The Committee certified that petitioner’s franchise
application was not deliberated on by the 9th Congress because petitioner failed to submit
the required supporting documents. In the next Congress, petitioner did not re-file its
application.[11]
The following month or on November 17, 1997, the NTC’s Broadcast Service Department
wrote to petitioner ordering it to submit a new congressional franchise for the operation of
its seven radio stations and informing it that pending compliance, its application for
temporary permits to operate these radio stations would be held in abeyance.[12] Petitioner
failed to comply with the franchise requirement; it claims that it did not receive the
November 17, 1997 letter.
Despite the absence of a congressional franchise, the NTC notified petitioner on January
[ G.R. No. 144109. February 17, 2003 ] 2/26/23, 2:09 PM
19, 1998 that its May 14, 1997 application for renewal of its temporary permit to operate
television Channel 25 was approved and would be released upon payment of the prescribed
fee of P3,600.00.[13] After paying said amount,[14] however, the NTC refused to release to
petitioner its renewed permit. Instead, the NTC commenced against petitioner
Administrative Case No. 98-009 based on the November 17, 1997 letter. On February 26,
1998, the NTC issued an Order directing petitioner to show cause why its assigned
frequency, television Channel 25, should not be recalled for lack of the required
congressional franchise. Petitioner was also directed to cease and desist from operating
Channel 25 unless subsequently authorized by the NTC.[15]
In compliance with the February 26, 1998 Order, petitioner filed its Answer on March 17,
1998.[16] In a hearing on April 22, 1998, petitioner presented evidence and asked for
continuance of the presentation to May 20, 1998.[17] On May 4, 1998, however, petitioner
filed before the Court of Appeals a Petition for Mandamus, Prohibition, and Damages to
compel the NTC to release its temporary permit to operate Channel 25 which was approved
in January 1998. The appellate court denied the petition on September 30, 1998.
Meantime, on August 17, 1998, the NTC issued Memorandum Circular No. 14-10-98
which reads, viz:
“SUBJECT: Guidelines in the Renewal/Extension of Temporary Permit of

Radio/TV Broadcast operators who failed to secure a legislative franchise
conformably with the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated May 3,
1994, entered into by and between the National Telecommunications and the
Committee on Legislative Franchises, House of Representatives, and the
Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster sa Pilipinas (KBP).
In compliance with the MOU and in order to clear the ambiguity surrounding
the operation of broadcast operators who were not able to have their legislative
franchise approved during the last congress, the following guidelines are hereby
issued:
1. Existing broadcast operators who were not able to secure a legislative

franchise up to this date are given up to December 31, 1999 within which
to have their application for a legislative franchise bill approved by
Congress. The franchise bill must be filed immediately but not later than
November 30th of this year to give both Houses time to deliberate upon
and recommend approval/disapproval thereof.
2. Broadcast operators affected by this circular must file their respective

applications for renewal/extension of their Temporary Permits in the
[ G.R. No. 144109. February 17, 2003 ] 2/26/23, 2:09 PM
prescribed form together with the certification from the Committee on

Legislative Franchises, House of Representatives that a franchise bill has
indeed been filed prior to 30 November 1998.
3. In the event the permittee will not be able to have its franchise bill
approved within the prescribed period, the NTC will no longer
renew/extend its Temporary Permit and the Commission shall initiate the
recall of its assigned frequency provided that due process of law is
observed.
4. Henceforth, no application/petition for Certificate of Public Convenience

(CPC) to establish, maintain and operate a broadcast station in the
broadcast service shall be accepted for filing without showing that the
applicant has an approved Legislative Franchise.
This Memorandum Circular shall be published in one (1) newspaper of general

circulation in the Philippines and shall take effect thirty (30) days from its
publication.
August 17, 1998, Quezon City, Philippines.”[18]
The Memorandum Circular was published in the Philippine Star on October 15, 1998.
Well within the November 30, 1998 deadline under the Memorandum Circular, House Bill
No. 3216, entitled “An Act Granting the ACWS-United Broadcasting Network, Inc. a
Franchise to Construct, Install, Operate and Maintain Radio and Television Broadcasting
Stations within the Philippines, and for other Purposes,” was filed with the Legislative
Calendar Section, Bills and Index Division on September 2, 1998.[19]
On January 13, 1999, the NTC rendered a decision on Administrative Case No. 98-009
against petitioner, the dispositive portion of which reads:
“WHEREFORE, for lack of a legal personality to justify the issuance of any

permit or license to the respondent (ACWS), the respondent not having a valid
legislative franchise, the Commission hereby renders judgment as follows:
1) Channel 25 assigned to herein respondent ACWS is hereby

RECALLED;
2) Respondent’s application for renewal of its temporary permit to operate

Channel 25 is hereby DENIED; and
[ G.R. No. 144109. February 17, 2003 ] 2/26/23, 2:09 PM
3) Respondent is hereby ordered to CEASE and DESIST from further

operating Channel 25.”[20]
Petitioner sought recourse at the Court of Appeals which affirmed the NTC decision.
Hence, this petition for review on certiorari on the following grounds:
“I.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE RULING OF

THE NTC THAT A CONGRESSIONAL FRANCHISE IS A CONDITION
SINE QUA NON IN THE OPERATION OF A RADIO AND TELEVISION
BROADCASTING SYSTEM.
II.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING OPINION 98

SERIES OF 1991 DATED JUNE 20, 1991 OF THE SECRETARY OF
JUSTICE HOLDING THAT THE NTC MAY ISSUE AUTHORIZATION FOR
THE OPERATION OF RADIO AND TELEVISION BROADCASTING
SYSTEMS, WITHOUT THE NEED OF A PRIOR FRANCHISE ISSUED BY
CONGRESS, AS BINDING ON THE NTC WHO REQUESTED FOR SAID
OPINION AND IS NOT MERELY ADVISORY, AS IT IS PREDICATED ON
A DECISION OF THIS HONORABLE COURT.
III.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN CONSIDERING ACT NO. 3846 AS

REQUIRING A FRANCHISE FROM CONGRESS FOR THE LAWFUL
OPERATION OF RADIO OR TELEVISION BROADCASTING STATIONS
WHEN CLEARLY ITS PROVISIONS COVER ONLY RADIO BUT IT DOES
NOT INCLUDE TELEVISION STATIONS.
IV.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE RECALL OF

THE FREQUENCY CHANNEL 25 PREVIOUSLY ASSIGNED TO THE
PETITIONER AND/OR THE CANCELLATION OF ITS PERMIT TO
OPERATE WHICH IS UNREASONABLE, UNFAIR, OPPRESSIVE,
WHIMSICAL AND CONFISCATORY WHEN IT PREVIOUSLY ISSUED
THE SAID PERMIT WITHOUT REQUIRING A LEGISLATIVE
FRANCHISE.
[ G.R. No. 144109. February 17, 2003 ] 2/26/23, 2:09 PM
V.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT NTC CASE

NO. 98-009 HAD BEEN RENDERED MOOT AND ACADEMIC WITH THE
ADOPTION AND PROMULGATION BY THE NTC OF MEMORANDUM
CIRCULAR NO. 14-10-98 DATED AUGUST 17, 1998 AS PETITIONER
FILED THE APPLICATION FOR LEGISLATIVE FRANCHISE PURSUANT
THERETO.”[21]
The petition is devoid of merit.
We shall discuss together the first three assigned errors as they are interrelated.
Petitioner stresses that Act. No. 3846 covers only the operation of radio and not television
stations as Section 1 of the said law does not mention television stations in its coverage,
viz:
“Sec. 1. No person, firm, company, association or corporation shall construct,

having first obtained a franchise therefor from the Congress of the
Philippines…”
Petitioner observes that quite understandably, television stations were not included in Act
No. 3846 because the law was enacted in 1931 when there was yet no television station in
the Philippines. Following the rule in statutory construction that what is not included in the
law is deemed excluded, petitioner avers that television stations are not covered by Act No.
3846. Petitioner notes that in fact, the NTC previously issued to it a temporary permit dated
July 7, 1995 to operate Channel 25 from June 29, 1995 to June 28, 1997 without requiring
a congressional franchise. Likewise, in 1996, the NTC issued to it a permit to increase its
television operating power and to purchase a radio transmitter/transceiver for use in its
television broadcasting, again without requiring a congressional franchise. Petitioner thus
argues that, contrary to the January 19, 1999 decision of the NTC, its application for
renewal of its temporary permit to operate television Channel 25 does not require a
congressional franchise.
In upholding the NTC decision, the Court of Appeals held that a congressional franchise is
required for the operation of radio and television broadcasting stations as this requirement
under Act No. 3846 was not expressly repealed by P.D. No. 576-A nor E.O. No. 546.
Citing Berces, Sr. v. Guingona,[22] it ruled that without an express repeal, a subsequent
law cannot be construed as repealing a prior law unless there is an irreconcilable
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_syste…2&hits=4+10+&SearchForm=C%3a%5celibrev2%5csearch%5csearch%5fform Page 10 of 26
[ G.R. No. 144109. February 17, 2003 ] 2/26/23, 2:09 PM
inconsistency and repugnancy in the language of the new and old laws, which petitioner
was not able to show.[23]
The appellate court correctly ruled that a congressional franchise is necessary for petitioner
to operate television Channel 25. Even assuming that Act No. 3846 applies only to radio
stations and not to television stations as petitioner adamantly insists, the subsequent P.D.
No. 576-A clearly shows in Section 1 that a franchise is required to operate radio as well as
television stations, viz:
“Sec. 1. No radio station or television channel may obtain a franchise unless it

has sufficient capital on the basis of equity for its operation for at least one year,
including purchase of equipment.” (emphasis supplied)
As pointed out in DOJ Opinion No. 98, there is nothing in P.D. No. 576-A that reveals any
intention to do away with the requirement of a franchise for the operation of radio and
television stations. Section 6 of P.D. No. 576-A merely identifies the regulatory agencies
from whom authorizations, in addition to the required congressional franchise, must be
secured after December 31, 1981, viz:
“Sec. 6. All franchises, grants, licenses, permits, certificates or other forms of

authority to operate radio or television broadcasting systems shall terminate on
December 31, 1981. Thereafter, irrespective of any franchise, grant, license,
permit, certificate or other forms of authority to operate granted by any
office, agency or person, no radio or television station shall be authorized to
operate without the authority of the Board of Communications and the
Secretary of Public Works and Communications or their successors who
have the right and authority to assign to qualified parties frequencies, channels
or other means of identifying broadcasting system . . .” (emphasis supplied)
To understand why it was necessary to identify these agencies, we turn a heedful eye on the
laws regarding authorizations for the operation of radio and television stations that
preceded P.D. No. 576-A.
Act No. 3846 of 1931 provides, viz:
“Sec. 1. No person, firm, company, association, or corporation shall construct,

having first obtained a franchise therefor from the Congress of the Philippines:
xxx xxx xxx
Sec. 1-A. No person, firm, company, association or corporation shall possess or

[ G.R. No. 144109. February 17, 2003 ] 2/26/23, 2:09 PM
own transmitters or transceivers (combination transmitter-receiver), without

registering the same with the Secretary of Public Works and Communications . .
. and no person, firm, company, association or corporation shall construct or
manufacture, or purchase radio transmitters or transceivers without a permit
issued by the Secretary of Public Works and Communications.
xxx xxx xxx
Sec. 3. The Secretary of Public Works and Communications is hereby

empowered to regulate the construction or manufacture, possession, control,
sale and transfer of radio transmitters or transceivers (combination transmitter-
receiver) and the establishment, use, the operation of all radio stations and of all
forms of radio communications and transmissions within the Philippines. In
addition to the above, he shall have the following specific powers and duties:
xxx xxx xxx
(c) He shall assign call letter and assign frequencies for each station licensed by
him and for each station established by virtue of a franchise granted by the
Congress of the Philippines and specify the stations to which each of such
frequencies may be used;. . .”
Shortly after the declaration of Martial Law, then President Marcos issued P.D. No. 1 dated
September 24, 1972, through which the Integrated Reorganization Plan for the executive
branch was adopted. Under the Plan, the Public Service Commission was abolished and its
functions transferred to special regulatory boards, among which was the Board of
Communications with the following functions:
“5a. Issue Certificates of Public Convenience for the operation of

communications utilities and services, radio communications systems . . ., radio
and television broadcasting systems and other similar public utilities;
xxx xxx xxx
c. Grant permits for the use of radio frequencies for . . . radio and television
broadcasting systems including amateur radio stations.”
With the creation of the Board of Communications under the Plan, it was no longer
sufficient to secure authorization from the Secretary of Public Works and Communications
as provided in Act No. 3846. The Board’s authorization was also necessary. Thus, P.D. No.
576-A provides in Section 6 that radio and television station operators must secure
authorization from both the Secretary of Public Works and Communications and the Board
of Communications.
[ G.R. No. 144109. February 17, 2003 ] 2/26/23, 2:09 PM
Dispensing with the requirement of a congressional franchise is not in line with the
declared purposes of P.D. No. 576-A, viz:
“WHEREAS, it has been observed that some public utilities, especially radio
and television stations, have a tendency toward monopoly in ownership and
operation to such an extent that a region or section of the country may be
covered by any number of such broadcast stations, all or most of which are
owned, operated or managed by one person or corporation;
xxx xxx xxx
WHEREAS, on account of the limited number of frequencies available for

broadcasting in the Philippines, it is necessary to regulate the ownership and
operation of radio and television stations and provide measures that would
enhance quality and viability in broadcasting and help serve the public interests;
. . .”
A textual interpretation of Section 6 of P.D. No. 576-A yields the same interpretation that
after December 31, 1981, a franchise is still necessary to operate radio and television
stations. Were it the intention of the law to do away with the requirement of a franchise
after said date, then the phrase “(t)hereafter, irrespective of any franchise, grant, license,
permit, certificate or other forms of authority to operate granted by any office, agency or
person (emphasis supplied)” would not have been necessary because the first sentence of
Section 6 already states that “(a)ll franchises, grants, licenses, permits, certificates or other
forms of authority to operate radio or television broadcasting systems shall terminate on
December 31, 1981.” It is therefore already understood that these forms of authority have
no more force and effect after December 31, 1981. If the intention were to do away with
the franchise requirement, Section 6 would have simply laid down after the first sentence
the requirements to operate radio and television stations after December 31, 1981, i.e., “no
radio or television station shall be authorized to operate without the authority of the Board
of Communications and the Secretary of Public Works and Communications.” Instead,
however, the phrase “irrespective of any franchise,…” was inserted to emphasize that a
franchise or any other form of authorization from any office, agency or person does not
suffice to operate radio and television stations because the authorizations of both the Board
of Communications and the Secretary of Public Works and Communications are required
as well. This interpretation adheres to the rule in statutory construction that words in a
statute should not be construed as surplusage if a reasonable construction which will give
them some force and meaning is possible.[24]
Contrary to the opinion of the Secretary of Justice in DOJ Opinion No. 98, Series of 1991,
the appellate court was correct in ruling that E.O. No. 546 which came after P.D. No. 576-
[ G.R. No. 144109. February 17, 2003 ] 2/26/23, 2:09 PM
A did not dispense with the requirement of a congressional franchise. It merely abolished
the Board of Communications and the Telecommunications Control Bureau under the
Reorganization Plan and transferred their functions to the NTC,[25] including the power to
issue Certificates of Public Convenience (CPC) and grant permits for the use of
frequencies, viz:
“Sec. 15. a. Issue Certificate of Public Convenience for the operation of

communication utilities and services, radio communications systems, wire or
wireless telephone or telegraph system, radio and television broadcasting
system and other similar public utilities;
xxx xxx xxx
c. Grant permits for the use of radio frequencies for wireless telephone and
telegraph systems and radio communication systems including amateur radio
stations and radio and television broadcasting systems; . . . ”
E.O. No. 546 defines the regulatory and technical aspect of the legal process preparatory to
the full exercise of the privilege to operate radio and television stations, which is different
from the grant of a franchise from Congress, viz:
“The statutory functions of NTC may then be given effect as Congress’

prerogative to grant franchises under Act No. 3846 is upheld for they are
distinct forms of authority. The former covers matters dealing mostly with the
technical side of radio or television broadcasting, while the latter involves the
exercise by the legislature of an exclusive power resulting in a franchise or a
grant under authority of government, conferring a special right to do an act or
series of acts of public concern (37 C.J.S., secs. 1, 14, pp. 144, 157).
In fine, there being no clear showing that the laws here involved cannot stand
together, the presumption is against inconsistency or repugnance, hence, against
implied repeal of the earlier law by the later statute (Agujetas v. Court of
Appeals, 261 SCRA 17, 1996).”[26]
As we held in Radio Communication of the Philippines, Inc. v. National

Telecommunications Commission,[27] a franchise is distinguished from a CPC in that the
former is a grant or privilege from the sovereign power, while the latter is a form of
regulation through the administrative agencies, viz:
“A franchise started out as a “royal privilege or (a) branch of the King’s

prerogative, subsisting in the hands of a subject.” This definition was given by
Finch, adopted by Blackstone, and accepted by every authority since (State v.
[ G.R. No. 144109. February 17, 2003 ] 2/26/23, 2:09 PM
Twin Village Water Co., 98 Me 214, 56 A 763 [1903]). Today, a franchise, being
merely a privilege emanating from the sovereign power of the state and owing
its existence to a grant, is subject to regulation by the state itself by virtue of its
police power through its administrative agencies.”[28]
Even prior to E.O. No. 546, the NTC’s precursor, i.e., the Board of Communications,
already had the function of issuing CPC under the Integrated Reorganization Plan. The
CPC was required by the Board at the same time that P.D. No. 576-A required a franchise
to operate radio and television stations. The function of the NTC to issue CPC under E.O.
No. 546 is thus nothing new and exists alongside the requirement of a congressional
franchise under P.D. No. 576-A. There is no conflict between E.O. No. 546 and P.D. No
576-A; Section 15 of the former does not dispense with the franchise requirement in the
latter. We adhere to the cardinal rule in statutory construction that statutes in pare materia,
although in apparent conflict, or containing apparent inconsistencies, should, as far as
reasonably possible, be construed in harmony with each other, so as to give force and effect
to each.[29] The ruling of this Court in Crusaders Broadcasting System, Inc. v. National
Telecommunications Commission,[30] buttresses the interpretation that the requirement of
a congressional franchise for the operation of radio and television stations exists alongside
the requirement of a CPC. In that case, we held that under E.O. No. 546, the regulation of
radio communications is a function assigned to and performed by the NTC and at the same
time recognized the requirement of a congressional franchise for the operation of a radio
station under Act No. 3846. We did not interpret E.O. No. 546 to have repealed the
congressional franchise requirement under Act No. 3846 as these two laws are not
inconsistent and can both be given effect. Likewise, in Radio Communication of the
Philippines, Inc. v. National Telecommunications Commission,[31] we recognized the
necessity of both a congressional franchise under Act No. 3846 and a CPC under E.O. No.
546 to operate a radio communications system.
In buttressing its position that a congressional franchise is not required to operate its
television station, petitioner banks on DOJ Opinion No. 98, Series of 1991 which states
that under E.O. No. 546, the NTC may issue a permit or authorization for the operation of
radio and television broadcasting systems without a prior franchise issued by Congress.
Petitioner argues that the opinion is binding and conclusive upon the NTC as the NTC
itself requested the advisory from the Secretary of Justice who is the legal adviser of
government. Petitioner claims that it was precisely because of the above DOJ Opinion No.
98 that the NTC did not previously require a congressional franchise in all of its
applications for permits with the NTC.
Petitioner, however, cannot rely on DOJ Opinion No. 98 as this opinion is merely
persuasive and not necessarily controlling.[32] As shown above, the opinion is erroneous
insofar as it holds that E.O. No. 546 dispenses with the requirement of a congressional
[ G.R. No. 144109. February 17, 2003 ] 2/26/23, 2:09 PM
franchise to operate radio and television stations. The case of Albano v. Reyes[33] cited in
the DOJ opinion, which allegedly makes it binding upon the NTC, does not lend support to
petitioner’s cause. In that case, we held, viz:
“Franchises issued by Congress are not required before each and every public
utility may operate. Thus, the law has granted certain administrative agencies
the power to grant licenses for or to authorize the operation of certain public
utilities. (See E.O. Nos. 172 and 202)
That the Constitution provides in Art. XII, Sec. 11 that the issuance of a
franchise, certificate or other form of authorization for the operation of a public
utility shall be subject to amendment, alteration or repeal by Congress does not
necessarily imply, as petitioner posits, that only Congress has the power to grant
such authorization. Our statute books are replete with laws granting specified
agencies in the Executive Branch the power to issue such authorization for
certain classes of public utilities. (footnote omitted)”[34]
Our ruling in Albano that a congressional franchise is not required before “each and every
public utility may operate” should be viewed in its proper light. Where there is a law such
as P.D. No. 576-A which requires a franchise for the operation of radio and television
stations, that law must be followed until subsequently repealed. As we have earlier shown,
however, there is nothing in the subsequent E.O. No. 546 which evinces an intent to
dispense with the franchise requirement. In contradistinction with the case at bar, the law
applicable in Albano, i.e., E.O. No. 30, did not require a franchise for the Philippine Ports
Authority to take over, manage and operate the Manila International Port Complex and
undertake the providing of cargo handling and port related services thereat. Similarly, in
Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, et al.,[35] we ruled that a legislative
franchise is not necessary for the operation of domestic air transport because “there is
nothing in the law nor in the Constitution which indicates that a legislative franchise is an
indispensable requirement for an entity to operate as a domestic air transport operator.”[36]
Thus, while it is correct to say that specified agencies in the Executive Branch have the
power to issue authorization for certain classes of public utilities, this does not mean that
the authorization or CPC issued by the NTC dispenses with the requirement of a franchise
as this is clearly required under P.D. No. 576-A.
Petitioner contends that the NTC erroneously denied its application for renewal of its
temporary permit to operate Channel 25 and recalled its Channel 25 frequency based on the
May 3, 1994 MOU that requires a congressional franchise for the operation of television
broadcast stations. The MOU is not an act of Congress and thus cannot amend Act No.
3846 which requires a congressional franchise for the operation of radio stations alone, and
not television stations.
[ G.R. No. 144109. February 17, 2003 ] 2/26/23, 2:09 PM
We find no merit in petitioner’s contention. As we have shown, even assuming that Act
No. 3846 requires only radio stations to secure a congressional franchise for its operation,
P.D. No. 576-A was subsequently issued in 1974, which clearly requires a franchise for
both radio and television stations. Thus, the 1994 MOU did not amend any law, but merely
clarified the existing law that requires a franchise.
That the legislative intent is to continue requiring a franchise for the operation of radio and
television broadcasting stations is clear from the franchises granted by Congress after the
effectivity of E.O. No. 546 in 1979 for the operation of radio and television stations.
Among these are: (1) R.A. No. 9131 dated April 24, 2001, entitled “An Act Granting the
Iddes Broadcast Group, Inc., a Franchise to Construct, Install, Establish, Operate and
Maintain Radio and Television Broadcasting Stations in the Philippines;” (2) R.A. No.
9148 dated July 31, 2001, entitled “An Act Granting the Hypersonic Broadcasting Center,
Inc., a Franchise to Construct, Install, Establish, Operate and Maintain Radio Broadcasting
Stations in the Philippines;” and (3) R.A. No. 7678 dated February 17, 1994, entitled “An
Act Granting the Digital Telecommunication Philippines, Incorporated, a Franchise to
Install, Operate and Maintain Telecommunications Systems Throughout the Philippines.”
All three franchises require the grantees to secure a CPCN/license/permit to construct and
operate their stations/systems. Likewise, the Tax Reform Act of 1997 provides in Section
119 for tax on franchise of radio and/or television broadcasting companies, viz:
“Sec. 119. Tax on Franchises. – Any provision of general or special law to the
contrary notwithstanding, there shall be levied, assessed and collected in respect
to all franchises on radio and/or television broadcasting companies whose
annual gross receipts of the preceding year does not exceed Ten million pesos
(P10,000,000), subject to Section 236 of this Code, a tax of three percent (3%)
and on electric, gas and water utilities, a tax of two percent (2%) on the gross
receipts derived from the business covered by the law granting the franchise. .
. “ (emphasis supplied)
Undeniably, petitioner is aware that a congressional franchise is necessary to operate its

television station Channel 25 as shown by its actuations. Shortly before the December 31,
1994 deadline set in the MOU, petitioner filed an application for a franchise with Congress.
It was not, however, acted upon in the 9th Congress for petitioner’s failure to submit the
necessary supporting documents; petitioner failed to re-file the application in the following
Congress. Petitioner also filed an application for a franchise with Congress on September
2, 1998, before the November 30, 1998 deadline under Memorandum Circular No. 14-10-
98.[37]
We now come to the fourth assigned error. Petitioner avers that the Court of Appeals erred
in upholding the recall of frequency Channel 25 previously assigned to it and the
[ G.R. No. 144109. February 17, 2003 ] 2/26/23, 2:09 PM
cancellation of its permit to operate which was already approved in January 1998. It claims
that these acts of the NTC were unreasonable, unfair, oppressive, whimsical and
confiscatory considering that the NTC previously issued petitioner a temporary permit
without requiring a congressional franchise.
On February 26, 1998, the NTC issued a show cause order to petitioner with the following
decretal portion:
“IN VIEW THEREOF, respondents are hereby directed to show cause in

writing within ten (10) days from receipt of this order why their assigned
frequency, more specifically Channel 25 in the UHF Band, should not be
recalled for lack of the necessary Congressional Franchise as required by
Section 1, Act No. 3846, as amended.
Moreover, respondent is hereby directed to cease and desist from operating

DWQH-TV, unless subsequently authorized by the Commission.”[38]
The order was supposedly based on a letter of the NTC dated November 17, 1997
informing petitioner that its application for renewal of temporary permits of its seven radio
stations were being held in abeyance pending submission of its new congressional
franchise. Petitioner was directed to submit the franchise within thirty days from expiration
of its temporary permits to be renewed and informed that its failure to do so might
constitute denial of its application.
Petitioner is correct that the November 17, 1997 letter referred only to its radio stations and
not to its television Channel 25. Thus, it could not serve as basis for the February 26, 1998
show cause order which referred solely to its television Channel 25. Besides, petitioner
claims that it did not receive the letter. Be that as it may, the NTC’s February 26, 1998
order for petitioner to cease and desist from operating Channel 25 was not unreasonable,
unfair, oppressive, whimsical and confiscatory. The 1994 MOU states in unmistakable
terms that petitioner’s temporary permit to operate Channel 25 would be valid for only two
years, i.e., from June 29, 1995 to June 28, 1997. During these two years, petitioner was
supposed to have secured a congressional franchise, otherwise “the NTC shall not extend
or renew its permit or authorization to operate any further.”[39] Apparently, petitioner did
not submit a congressional franchise to the NTC in applying for renewal of this temporary
permit on May 14, 1997. The NTC’s approval of petitioner’s application to renew its
temporary permit in January 1998 was thus erroneous because under the 1994 MOU, the
NTC could not renew petitioner’s temporary permit to operate Channel 25 without a
congressional franchise. In the absence of a renewed temporary permit, the NTC was
correct in ordering petitioner to cease and desist from operating Channel 25, regardless of
whether or not petitioner received the November 17, 1997 letter. The NTC’s erroneous
approval of petitioner’s application in January 1998 did not estop the NTC from ordering
[ G.R. No. 144109. February 17, 2003 ] 2/26/23, 2:09 PM
petitioner on February 26, 1998 to cease and desist from operating Channel 25 for failure
to comply with the franchise requirement as estoppel does not work against the
government.[40]
Likewise, the NTC’s denial of petitioner’s application for renewal of its temporary permit
to operate Channel 25 and recall of its Channel 25 frequency in its January 13, 1999
decision were not unreasonable, unfair, oppressive, whimsical and confiscatory so as to
offend petitioner’s right to due process. In Crusaders Broadcasting System, Inc. v.
National Telecommunications Commission,[41] the Court ruled that although a particular
ground for suspending operations of the broadcasting company was not reflected in the
show cause order, the NTC could nevertheless raise said ground if any basis therefore was
gleaned during the administrative proceedings. In the instant case, the lack of congressional
franchise as ground for denial of petitioner’s application for renewal of temporary permit
and recall of its Channel 25 frequency was raised not only during the administrative
proceedings against it, but was even stated in the February 26, 1998 show cause order, viz:
“IN VIEW THEREOF, respondents are hereby directed to show cause in

writing within ten (10) days from receipt of this order why their assigned
frequency, more specifically Channel 25 in the UHF Band, should not be
recalled for lack of the necessary Congressional Franchise as required by
Section 1, Act No. 3846, as amended.
Moreover, respondent is hereby directed to cease and desist from operating

DWQH-TV, unless subsequently authorized by the Commission.” [42]
(emphasis supplied)
In Eastern Broadcasting Corporation v. Dans, Jr., et al.,[43] we held that the

requirements of due process in administrative proceedings laid down by this Court in Ang
Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations[44] should be satisfied before a broadcast station
may be closed or its operations curtailed. We enumerated these requirements, viz:
“. . . (1) the right to a hearing which includes the right to present one’s case and
submit evidence in support thereof; (2) the tribunal must consider the evidence
presented; (3) the decision must have something to support itself; (4) the
evidence must be substantial. Substantial evidence means such reasonable
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion; (5) the decision must be based on the evidence presented at the
hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected;
(6) the tribunal or body or any of its judges must act on its own independent
consideration of the law and facts of the controversy and not simply accept the
views of a subordinate; (7) the board or body should, in all controversial
[ G.R. No. 144109. February 17, 2003 ] 2/26/23, 2:09 PM
questions, render its decisions in such a manner that the parties to the
proceeding can know the various issues involved, and the reasons for the
decision rendered.”[45]
Petitioner had the opportunity to present its case and submit evidence on why its assigned
frequency Channel 25 should not be recalled and its application for renewal denied.
Petitioner filed its Answer to the show cause order on March 17, 1998.[46] A hearing was
held on April 22, 1998 wherein petitioner presented its evidence in compliance with the
show cause order. Based on the NTC’s findings that petitioner failed to comply with the
requirement of a congressional franchise, the NTC denied its application for renewal of its
temporary permit to operate Channel 25 and recalled its assigned Channel 25 frequency.
The requirements of due process in Ang Tibay were satisfied, thus petitioner cannot say
that the NTC’s actions were unreasonable, unfair, oppressive, whimsical and confiscatory.
Finally, petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals erred in not holding that
Administrative Case No. 98-009, the administrative proceeding against it for failure to
secure a congressional franchise to operate its television Channel 25, has been rendered
moot and academic by the adoption and promulgation of NTC Memorandum Circular No.
14-10-98 dated August 17, 1998 which took effect on November 15, 1998. The
Memorandum Circular states, viz:
“In compliance with the MOU and in order to clear the ambiguity surrounding
the operation of broadcast operators who were not able to have their legislative
franchise approved during the last Congress, the following guidelines are
hereby issued:
1. Existing broadcast operators who were not able to secure a legislative

franchise up to this date (August 17, 1998) are given up to December 31,
1999 within which to have their application for a legislative franchise bill
approved by Congress. The franchise bill must be filed immediately but
not later than November 30th of this year . . .”
Petitioner avers that the NTC erroneously held that this Memorandum Circular is not
applicable to it because the words of the circular are clear that it covers “existing
broadcasting operators” including petitioner. In compliance with the Memorandum
Circular, petitioner filed House Bill No. 32 on September 2, 1998, well within the
November 30, 1998 deadline. Thus, petitioner argues that the NTC erred in denying its
application for renewal of permit to operate Channel 25 and recalling its assigned Channel
25 frequency on January 13, 1999, long before the Memorandum Circular’s December 31,
1999 deadline to secure a congressional franchise. Petitioner posits that the NTC’s
premature and arbitrary promulgation of its January 13, 1999 decision “slammed the door
for the petitioner to secure its legislative franchise. The pending application for legislative
[ G.R. No. 144109. February 17, 2003 ] 2/26/23, 2:09 PM
franchise of petitioner was effectively struck out by said NTC decision.”[47]
Whether or not the benefits of the Memorandum Circular extend to petitioner, the fact is, as
correctly pointed out by the appellate court, petitioner failed to secure a legislative
franchise by December 31, 1999. Consequently, the NTC’s recall of petitioner’s assigned
frequency Channel 25 and denial of its application for renewal of its permit to operate the
said television channel were proper as the Memorandum Circular provides, viz:
“1. Existing broadcast operators who are not able to secure a legislative
franchise up to this date (August 17, 1998) are given up to December
31, 1999 within which to have their application for a legislative
franchise approved by Congress. The franchise bill must be filed
immediately but not later than November 30th of this year . . .
xxx xxx xxx
3. In the event the permittee will not be able to have its franchise bill
approved within the prescribed period, the NTC will no longer
renew/extend its temporary permit and the Commission shall
initiate the recall of its assigned frequency provided that due
process of law is observed.
4. Henceforth, no application/petition for Certificate of Public

Convenience (CPC) to establish, maintain and operate a broadcast
station in the broadcast service shall be accepted for filing without
showing that the applicant has an approved legislative franchise.”
(emphasis supplied)
Petitioner’s argument is flawed when it states that the January 13, 1999 decision of the
NTC “slammed the door” on its application for a congressional franchise as the process of
securing a congressional franchise is separate and distinct from the process of applying for
renewal of a temporary permit with the NTC. The latter is not a prerequisite to the former.
In fact, in the normal course of securing authorizations to operate a television and radio
station, the application for a CPC with the NTC comes after securing a franchise from
Congress.[48] The CPC is not a condition for the grant of a congressional franchise.[49]
The Court is not unmindful that there is a trend towards delegating the legislative power to
authorize the operation of certain public utilities to administrative agencies and dispensing
with the requirement of a congressional franchise as in the Albano case which involved the
provision of cargo handling and port related services at the Manila International Port
Complex and the PAL case involving the operation of domestic air transport. The rationale
for this trend was explained in the PAL case, viz:
[ G.R. No. 144109. February 17, 2003 ] 2/26/23, 2:09 PM
“. . . With the growing complexity of modern life, the multiplication of the

subjects of governmental regulation, and the increased difficulty of
administering the laws, there is a constantly growing tendency towards the
delegation of greater powers by the legislature, and towards the approval of the
practice by the courts. (Pangasinan Transportation Co., Inc. vs. The Public
Service Commission, G.R. No. 47065, June 26, 1940, 70 Phil 221.) It is
generally recognized that a franchise may be derived indirectly from the state
through a duly designated agency, and to this extent, the power to grant
franchises has frequently been delegated, even to agencies other than those of a
legislative nature. (Dyer vs. Tuskaloosa Bridge Co., 2 Port. 296, 27 Am. D. 655;
Christian-Todd Tel. Co. vs. Commonwealth, 161 S.W. 543, 156 Ky. 557, 37
C.J.S. 158) In pursuance of this, it has been held that privileges conferred by
grant by local authorities as agents for the state constitute as much a legislative
franchise as though the grant had been made by an act of the Legislature.
(Superior Water, Light and Power Co. vs. City of Superior, 181 N.W. 113, 174
Wis. 257, affirmed 183 N.W. 254, 37 C.J.S. 158.)
The trend of modern legislation is to vest the Public Service Commissioner with
the power to regulate and control the operation of public services under
reasonable rules and regulations, and as a general rule, courts will not interfere
with the exercise of that discretion when it is just and reasonable and founded
upon a legal right.”[50]
The criticism against the requirement of a congressional franchise is incisively expressed

by a public utilities lawyer, viz:
“As will be noted, a legislative franchise is required to install and operate a

radio station before an applicant can apply for a Certificate of Public
Convenience to operate a radio station based in any part of the country. Under
Act No. 3846 of 1929, Sec. 1, it was provided that no one may install and
operate a radio station ‘without having first obtained a franchise therefore from
the Congress of the Philippines.’ Since then, this has been strictly followed. And
this holds true with respect to application for electric, telephone and many other
telecommunications services. Before, even mere application for authority to
operate an ice plant must have prior congressional franchise. But this was not
strictly followed until ice plant operations were eventually deregulated. Right
now, the both houses of the legislature are saddled with House Bill Nos. etc. for
the grant of legislative franchise to operate this and that public utility services in
various places in the Philippines. We hear during sessions in both houses the
time wasted on reports and considerations of these house bills for grant of
franchises. The legislature is empowered and has created respective regulatory
bodies with requisite expertise to handle franchising and regulation of such
[ G.R. No. 144109. February 17, 2003 ] 2/26/23, 2:09 PM
types of public utility services, why not just entrust all these functions to them?
What exactly is the reason or rationale for imposing a prior congressional

franchise? There seems to be no valid reason for it except to impose added
burden and expenses on the part of the applicant. The justification appears to be
simply because this was required in the past so it is now. We are reminded of the
forceful denunciation of Justice Holmes of a stubborn adherence to an
anachronistic rule of law:
‘It is revolting to have no better reason for a rule of law that so it was
laid down in the time of Henry IV. It is still more revolting if the
grounds upon which it was laid down have vanished long since, and
the rule simply persists from blind imitation of the past. (The Path of
the Law, Collected Legal Papers [1920] 210, 212 quoted from The
Justice Holmes Reader, Julius N. Marke, 1955 ed., p. 278.)’”[51]
The call to dispense with the requisite legislative franchise must, however, be addressed to
Congress as the lawmaker of the land for the Court’s function is to interpret and not to
rewrite the law. As long as the law remains unchanged, the requirement of a franchise to
operate a television station must be upheld.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the Court of Appeals’ January 13, 2000
decision and February 21, 2000 resolution are AFFIRMED. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Panganiban, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Corona, and Carpio-Morales, JJ., concur.
[1] Memorandum of Understanding among the National Telecommunications Commission,

Committee on Legislative Franchises of Congress and the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster sa
Pilipinas dated May 3, 1994; Rollo, p. 136.
[2] Original Records, Folder 1, p. 13-B.
[3] Id., p. 13-A.
[4] Dated July 23, 1979.
[5] Rollo, pp. 112-114.
[ G.R. No. 144109. February 17, 2003 ] 2/26/23, 2:09 PM
[6] Rollo, pp. 135-136.
[7] Original Records, Folder 1, p. 14; Exhibit 3.
[8] Id., pp. 134-139.
[9] Id., p. 140; Exhibit 8.
[10] Id., p. 15.
[11] Id., p. 3.
[12] Id., p. 4.
[13] Id., p. 16; Exhibit 5.
[14] Id., p. 17; Exhibit 6.
[15] Id., pp. 1-2.
[16] Id., pp. 9-13.
[17] Id., pp. 66-67; TSN, April 27, 1998, pp. 35-36.
[18] Id., p. 106; Exhibit 2.
[19] Id., p. 118; Exhibit 3.
[20] Rollo, p. 92.
[21] Id., pp. 18-19.
[22] 241 SCRA 539 (1995).
[23] Court of Appeals Rollo, pp. 118-119; Court of Appeals Decision, pp. 6-7.
[ G.R. No. 144109. February 17, 2003 ] 2/26/23, 2:09 PM
[24] Rodriguez, R. Statutory Construction (1999), p. 163, citing 82 C.J.S. Statutes § 343.
[25]
Republic of the Philippines v. Express Telecommunications Co., Inc., et al., G.R. No.
147046 and Bayan Telecommunications, Inc. v. Express Telecommunications Co., Inc.,
G.R. No. 147210, January 15, 2002.
[26] Rollo, p. 39.
[27] 150 SCRA 450 (1987).
[28]
Radio Communication of the Philippines, Inc. v. National Telecommunications
Commission, supra, p. 457.
[29] Rodriguez, R. supra, p. 250.
[30] 332 SCRA 819 (2000).
[31] 150 SCRA 450 (1987).
[32]Philippine National Construction Corporation v. Pabion, et al., 320 SCRA 188 (1999);
see also Civil Liberties Union v. The Executive Secretary, 194 SCRA 317 (1991).
[33] 175 SCRA 264 (1989).
[34] Id., pp. 271-272.
[35] 270 SCRA 538 (1997).
[36] Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, et al., supra, p. 551.
[37] Rollo, p. 16.
[38] Rollo, p. 49.
[39] MOU dated May 3, 1994.
[40] Manila Lodge No. 761, Benevolent and Protective Order of the Elks, Inc. v. The
[ G.R. No. 144109. February 17, 2003 ] 2/26/23, 2:09 PM
Honorable Court of Appeals, et al., 73 SCRA 162 (1976).
[41] 332 SCRA 819 (2000).
[42] Rollo, p. 49.
[43] 137 SCRA 628 (1985).
[44] 69 Phil. 635 (1940).
[45] Eastern Broadcasting Corporation v. Dans, Jr., et al., supra, p. 634.
[46] Rollo, pp. 50-54.
[47] Rollo, p. 27; Petition, p. 17.
[48] Subong, R. supra, pp. 846-847; see also Subong, R., CPC and CPCN: Now a
Distinction Without a Difference?, 270 SCRA 557 (1997), pp. 567-577.
[49] Payumo, P.R. Philippine and International Radio Laws and Regulations (1990), pp. 26-
28.
[50] Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, et al., supra, pp. 550-551.
[51] Subong, R.E. The Radio and the Temporary Permit to Operate, supra, pp. 859-860.
Source: Supreme Court E-Library | Date created: February 24, 2015

This page was dynamically generated by the E-Library Content Management System

Third Division (G.R. No. 144109. February 17, 2003)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Third Division (G.R. No. 144109. February 17, 2003)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

[ G.R. No. 144109.

February 17, 2003 ] 2/26/23, 2:09 PM

445 Phil. 621

[ G.R. No. 144109. February 17, 2003 ]

First, the facts.

“Sec. 1. No person, firm, company, association, or corporation shall construct,

“Sec. 1. No radio station or television channel may obtain a franchise unless it

xxx xxx xxx

Sec. 6. All franchises, grants, licenses, permits, certificates or other forms of

“a. Issue Certificate of Public Convenience for the operation of communication

xxx xxx xxx

‘WHEREAS, the President of the Philippines is empowered under

E.O. No. 546 integrated the Board of Communications and the

WHEREAS, Executive Order No. 546, which created the National

WHEREAS, the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) is

WHEREAS, there is a pervading confusion in the state of affairs of the

‘The NTC shall continue to issue and grant permits or authorizations

“SUBJECT: Guidelines in the Renewal/Extension of Temporary Permit of

1. Existing broadcast operators who were not able to secure a legislative

2. Broadcast operators affected by this circular must file their respective

prescribed form together with the certification from the Committee on

4. Henceforth, no application/petition for Certificate of Public Convenience

This Memorandum Circular shall be published in one (1) newspaper of general

August 17, 1998, Quezon City, Philippines.”[18]

“WHEREFORE, for lack of a legal personality to justify the issuance of any

1) Channel 25 assigned to herein respondent ACWS is hereby

2) Respondent’s application for renewal of its temporary permit to operate

3) Respondent is hereby ordered to CEASE and DESIST from further

Hence, this petition for review on certiorari on the following grounds:

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE RULING OF

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING OPINION 98

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN CONSIDERING ACT NO. 3846 AS

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE RECALL OF

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT NTC CASE

The petition is devoid of merit.

“Sec. 1. No person, firm, company, association or corporation shall construct,

“Sec. 1. No radio station or television channel may obtain a franchise unless it

“Sec. 6. All franchises, grants, licenses, permits, certificates or other forms of

Act No. 3846 of 1931 provides, viz:

“Sec. 1. No person, firm, company, association, or corporation shall construct,

xxx xxx xxx

Sec. 1-A. No person, firm, company, association or corporation shall possess or

own transmitters or transceivers (combination transmitter-receiver), without

xxx xxx xxx

Sec. 3. The Secretary of Public Works and Communications is hereby

xxx xxx xxx

“5a. Issue Certificates of Public Convenience for the operation of

xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx

WHEREAS, on account of the limited number of frequencies available for

“Sec. 15. a. Issue Certificate of Public Convenience for the operation of

xxx xxx xxx

“The statutory functions of NTC may then be given effect as Congress’

As we held in Radio Communication of the Philippines, Inc. v. National

“A franchise started out as a “royal privilege or (a) branch of the King’s

Undeniably, petitioner is aware that a congressional franchise is necessary to operate its

“IN VIEW THEREOF, respondents are hereby directed to show cause in

Moreover, respondent is hereby directed to cease and desist from operating

“IN VIEW THEREOF, respondents are hereby directed to show cause in

Moreover, respondent is hereby directed to cease and desist from operating

In Eastern Broadcasting Corporation v. Dans, Jr., et al.,[43] we held that the

1. Existing broadcast operators who were not able to secure a legislative