G.R. No. 132922, April 21, 1998,
♦ Decision,
Mendoza, [J]
♦ Separate Opinion,
Vitug, [J]
♦ Dissenting Opinion,
Romero, [J]
♦ Dissenting Opinion,
Panganiban, [J]
EN BANC
G.R. No. 132922 April 21, 1998
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND BROADCAST ATTORNEYS OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. and GMA NETWORK, INC., petitioners,
vs.
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent.
Separate Opinions
VITUG, J., separate opinion;
I assent in most part to the well-considered opinion written by Mr. Justice Vicente V. Mendoza in his ponencia, particularly, in holding that petitioner TELEBAP lacks locus standi in filing the instant petition and in declaring that Section 92 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 is a legitimate exercise of police power of the State.
The grant of franchise to broadcast media is a privilege burdened with responsibilities.ℒαwρhi৷ While it is, primordially, a business enterprise, it nevertheless, also addresses in many ways certain imperatives of public service. In Stone vs. Mississippi (101, U.S. 814, cited in Cruz, Constitutional Law, 1995 ed., p. 40.), a case involving a franchise to sell lotteries which petitioner claims to be a contract which may not be impaired, the United States Supreme Court opined:
. . . (T)he Legislature cannot bargain away the police power of a State.ℒαwρhi৷ Irrevocable grants of property and franchises may be made if they do not impair the supreme authority to make laws for the right government of the State; but no Legislature can curtail the power of its successors to make such laws as they may deem proper in matters of police. . .
In this case, the assailed law, in my view, has not failed in meeting the standards set forth for its lawful exercise, i.e., (a) that its utilization is demanded by the interests of the public, and (b) that the means employed are reasonably necessary, and not unduly oppressive, for the accomplishment of the purposes and objectives of the law.
I cannot consider COMELEC Resolution No. 2983-A, particularly Section 2 thereof, as being in contravention of B.P. No. 881. There is nothing in the law that prohibits the COMELEC from itself procuring airtime, perhaps longer than that which can reasonably be allocated, if it believes that in so opting, it does so for the public good.
I vote to DISMISS the petition.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
