Republic of the Philippines

Court of Appeals
Manila

FIRST DIVISION

AMCARA BROADCASTING CA-G.R. SP No. 171719

NETWORK, INC.,
Petitioner, Members:
Castillo, Chairperson
-versus- Martin, and
Ong, JJ.
NATIONAL
TELECOMMUNICATIONS Promulgated:
COMMISSION,
Respondent. July 22, 2024
x-----------------------------------------------x
DECISION
Ong, J.J.C., J.:

This Petition for Review1 filed under Rule 43 of the Rules of

Court challenges the Decision dated November 29, 20212 and the
Resolution dated December 27, 20213 (the assailed Decision) of the
National Telecommunications Commission (NTC), in NTC Adm.
Case No. 2020-021, which: (1) made permanent the cease and desist
order (CDO) recalling Petitioner Amcara Broadcasting Network,
Inc.’s (Petitioner) radio and television station frequencies for lack
of a valid Congressional Franchise; (2) revoked and cancelled the
Petitioner’s Provisional Authorities (PA) and Certificates of Public

1 Rollo, pp. 3-19, sans Annexes.

2 Id. at 22-25
3 Id. at 26-31.
 CA-G.R. SP No. 171719
Decision
Page 2
==================

Convenience (CPC) pursuant to Republic Act No. 81354 (RA 8135);

and (3) dismissed/denied Petitioner’s applications and petitions
pending before the NTC.

The Facts

As culled from the records, the salient antecedents of this

case are as follows:

Petitioner is a corporation engaged in the business of radio

and television broadcasting. It is the grantee of a legislative
franchise to construct, install, operate, and maintain for
commercial purposes, radio and television broadcasting stations,
including digital audio broadcast, digital television, and other
forms of radio and television broadcasting in the Philippines, by
virtue of RA 8135. The franchise lapsed into law on July 16, 1995,
with a term of twenty-five (25) years, and became effective fifteen
(15) days from the date of publication on November 7, 1995.5

Over the course of twenty-four (24) years, Petitioner

expanded its broadcasting activities and secured the necessary PAs
and CPCs and/or permits from the NTC to operate two AM radio
stations, five digital TV stations, and thirty (30) analog TV stations.6

On December 12, 2018, House Bill No. 87967 (HB 8796) was
filed by Representative Gus S. Tambunting before the 17th
Congress of the Philippines, seeking the renewal of Petitioner’s
franchise. On January 14, 2019, HB 8796 was referred to the
Committee on Legislative Franchises (the Committee) but was not
set for hearing or deliberations.8

4 AN ACT GRANTING THE AMCARA BROADCASTING NETWORK, INCORPORATED,

A FRANCHISE TO ESTABLISH, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN RADIO AND TELEVISION
BROADCASTING STATIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES.
5 Rollo, p. 4. See also RA 8135, Section 1.
6 Id.
7 Id. at 32-36.
8 Id. at 5.
 CA-G.R. SP No. 171719
Decision
Page 3
==================

On July 12, 2019, the NTC issued an Order in NTC Case No.
91-2059 approving the conversion of Petitioner’s analog television
station utilizing UHF-Channel 43 in Mega Manila to Digital
Terrestrial Television Broadcast (DTTB) service.10

On July 31, 2019, then-Representative Xavier Jesus D.

Romualdo filed HB 327911 before the 18th Congress, for the same
purpose of renewing/extending Petitioner’s franchise. Similarly,
HB 3279 has been pending with the Committee since August 6,
2019.12

However, during the Congressional hearings on the renewal

of ABS-CBN’s franchise in 2020, Petitioner’s operation of its digital
UHF-Channel 43 was included in the CDO against ABS-CBN. By
virtue of the NTC’s Order dated June 30, 2020,13 in NTC Adm. Case
No. 2020-008, Petitioner was directed to stop airing programs
produced by ABS-CBN under its block-time agreement.14

In NTC Adm. Case No. 2020-021, the NTC issued an Order

dated December 17, 2020,15 directing Petitioner to immediately
cease and desist from operating its radio and television station
frequencies, and to show cause why said frequencies should not be
recalled for lack of the necessary Congressional Franchise, viz.:

AM RADIO STATION
AUTHORIZED
CN CALL-SIGN FREQUENCY
SERVICE AREA
96-447 DZPU 1386 KHz Metro Manila

96-449 DYPU 846 KHz Cebu City

9 Id. at 43-52.
10 Id. at 5.
11 Id. at 37-42.
12 Supra note 10.
13 Id. at 53-54.
14 Supra note 10.
15 Id. at 57-60.
 CA-G.R. SP No. 171719
Decision
Page 4
==================

DTTB
AUTHORIZED
CN CALL-SIGN CHANNEL
SERVICE AREA
2004-094 DWEC 30 Mt. Sto. Tomas, Benguet
DWJR 36 Mt. Banoy, Batangas
Bacolod City, Negros
90-204 DYEC 22
Occidental
DXAB 21 Matina Shrine, Davao City
Metro Manila
Cavite
91-205 DWBM 43 Laguna
Rizal
Bulacan

ANALOG TV
AUTHORIZED
CN CALL-SIGN CHANNEL
SERVICE AREA
91-205 DWBM 23 Quezon City, Metro Manila
90-204 DWEC 30 Mt. Sto. Tomas, Benguet
90-204 DWLC 23 Laoag City, Ilocos Norte
98-194 DWWA 23 Santiago City, Isabela
2000-199 PA 35 Tuguegarao, Cagayan
2000-021 DZBA 22 Baler, Aurora
Mt. Bucaw, Botolan,
98-195 DWAM 23
Zambales
98-198 DWAS 24 Olongapo City, Zambales
2000-192 DZEL 23 Puerto Princesa, Palawan
2000-197 DWEW 24 Lucena City, Quezon
90-204 DWJR 36 M[t.] Banoy, Batangas
98-197 DWAJ 38 Lipa City, Batangas
2000-193 DWRC 23 Daet, Camarines Norte
98-190 DWBR 23 Legaspi City, Albay
90-204 DWMC 24 Naga City, Camarines Sur
2000-001 DYAF 25 Jordan, Guimaras
2000-202 DYRC 21 Roxas City, Capiz
Bacolod City, Negros
90-204 DYEC 22
Occidental
2000-200 DYCG 23 Kalibo, Aklan
90-204 DYAC 23 Mt. Busay, Cebu
Mt. Palimpinon, Valencia
97-522 DYEL 24
Negros Occidental
98-192 DYAD 32 Jagna, Bohol
Zamboanga City,
90-204 DXFH 23
Zamboanga Del Sur
Dipolog City, Zamboanga
2000-297 DYMG 42
Del Norte
Cagayan de Oro City,
90-204 DXEC 23
Misamis Oriental
 CA-G.R. SP No. 171719
Decision
Page 5
==================

98-199 DXAM 26 Iligan City, Lanao Del Norte

Ozamis City, Misamis
2000-203 PA 34
Occidental
Matina Shrine, Davao City,
90-204 DXAB 21
Davao Del Sur
98-278 DXAR 24 Korondal, South Cotobato
General Santos City, South
90-204 DXAC 36
Cotobato
Cotobato City,
98-196 DXAY 23
Maguindanao
Butuan City, Agusan Del
98-193 DXBR 22
Norte16

Petitioner filed its Answer to Show Cause Order dated January

15, 2021,17 stating, among others, that prior to the expiration of its
franchise, HB 3279 had been filed and remained pending before
Congress;18 thus, the NTC should refrain from recalling the
frequencies assigned to it until and after the renewal application is
acted upon.19

The NTC’s Ruling

On November 29, 2021, the NTC rendered the assailed

Decision, the dispositive portion, as amended by the Resolution
dated December 27, 2021,20 reads:

WHEREFORE, Premises Considered, the [CDO]

issued by the [NTC] is hereby made PERMANENT and the
[Petitioner’s] radio and television stations’ frequencies as
contained in the [CDO] and as enumerated above are
hereby RECALLED for [Petitioner’s] lack of a valid
Congressional Franchise; and all PROVISIONAL
AUTHORITIES/CERTIFICATES OF PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE granted to [Petitioner] pursuant to [RA
8135] are hereby REVOKED/CANCELLED. In addition,
[Petitioner’s] pending applications/petitions before the
[NTC] are hereby DISMISSED/DENIED.

16 Id. at 58-59.
17 Id. at 141-144.
18 Id. at 141-142.
19 Id. at 143.
20 Supra note 3, at 30.
 CA-G.R. SP No. 171719
Decision
Page 6
==================

SO ORDERED.21

In so ruling, the NTC cited Act No. 3846, Section 1, which

states in part that “[n]o person, firm, company, association or
corporation shall construct, install, establish, or operate a radio station
within the Philippine Islands without having first obtained a franchise
therefor from the Philippine Legislature.”22 It likewise cited the case of
ABS-CBN Corporation v. National Telecommunications Commission
(ABS-CBN),23 which explained:

“… congressional deliberations on pending bills are not

equivalent and cannot take the place of a duly enacted law.
. . Neither can it be inferred from our Constitution and our
present statutes that temporary statutory privileges may be
accorded to a franchise applicant pending deliberation of a
franchise grant or renewal… [I]t is only upon the completion
of the full law-making procedure in accordance with the
parameters prescribed by the Constitution can it be said that
Congress has granted a broadcasting entity the statutory
privilege to so broadcast its programs through its television
and radio stations. Absent a valid and subsisting legislative
franchise embodied in a duly passed law, no such statutory
privilege, even if temporary, can be enjoyed.”

Consequently, upon the expiration of RA 8135, Petitioner no

longer has a valid and subsisting congressional franchise, thereby
warranting the recall of the frequencies assigned to it.24

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated December

16, 2021,25 which was denied by the NTC in its Resolution dated
December 27, 2021.26

21 Id. at 25. Underscoring and italics on the modification made in the RESOLUTION dated
December 27, 2021.
22 Id. at 24.
23 G.R. No. 252119, August 25, 2020 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, En Banc].
24 Rollo, p. 24.
25 Id. at 146-154.
26 Supra note 3.
 CA-G.R. SP No. 171719
Decision
Page 7
==================

Hence, this Petition for Review. The Office of the Solicitor

General (OSG) interposed its Comment dated September 27, 2022,27
to which Petitioner filed a Reply dated October 25, 2022.28

Upon submission of the parties’ respective Memoranda,29 in

compliance with the Minute Resolution dated January 19, 2023,30 the
case was submitted for decision.31

Assignment of Errors

Petitioner ascribes the following errors on the part of the

NTC, to wit:

I. [The NTC] gravely abused its discretion

amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it
Does the NTC has recalled Petitioner’s assigned frequencies, thereby
jurisdiction when it
recalled Petitioner’s preempting any action that Congress may take
assigned frequencies pertaining to its franchise application and
arrogating unto itself such authority which has not
been conferred by law[;]

II. [The NTC’s] issuance of a permanent [CDO] and

the recall of the assigned frequencies is a violation
of [P]etitioner’s constitutional right to due process
and equal protection of the laws[; and]

III. [The NTC] should not be allowed to deviate from

the established practice of allowing incumbent
broadcast operators to continue operations
pending determination of their franchise
applications on the basis of equitable estoppel[.]32

27 Rollo, pp. 100-140, sans Annexes.

28 Id. at 195-210, sans Annexes.
29 Id. at 617-631 (Petitioner’s Memorandum); Id. at 633-675 (OSG’s Memorandum).
30 Id. at 609.
31 Id. at 676. See MINUTE RESOLUTION dated August 16, 2023.
32 Id. at 7.
 CA-G.R. SP No. 171719
Decision
Page 8
==================

Petitioner’s Arguments

In support of the foregoing, Petitioner argues:

First, the Constitution confers upon Congress plenary

legislative power that includes the power to grant franchises or
rights to operate a public utility. Thus, any power deemed to be
legislative by usage and tradition is necessarily possessed by
Congress and its power to determine the grant, renewal, or
revocation of a franchise may not be delegated or usurped by an
administrative body. Moreover, the power of Congress to
deliberate on franchises carries with it all incidental or ancillary
powers necessary for it to exercise its legislative functions i.e., grant
amendment, extension, and revocation of franchises.33

As a result, the NTC’s issuance of a permanent CDO recalling

Petitioner’s frequencies preempts and forecloses the favorable
grant of a legislative franchise and renders the mandatory refiling
of an unapproved bill futile.34

Second, Congress has previously exercised implied or

incidental power relative to its function of granting franchises.
Over the years, it has defined, preserved, and accorded privileges
to broadcasting entities as the need arises, exercised latitude over
the statutory prerequisite of obtaining a legislative franchise, and
allowed broadcasting activities to forego the need to secure a
franchise for certain periods of time. Essentially, Congress has
sanctioned permissive broadcasting operations even though the
operator’s application for a legislative franchise was pending
before it.35

Third, in previous years, Congress, the NTC, and the

broadcasting industry have observed the long-standing practice of

33 Id. at 7-8.
34 Id. at 9.
35 Id. at 9-10.
 CA-G.R. SP No. 171719
Decision
Page 9
==================

allowing broadcasting operators to stay on air by virtue of their

existing licenses and permits pending deliberation of their renewal
applications. Prior to ABS-CBN, established broadcast operators
had no reason to believe that their renewal applications would be
denied. Also, previous delays in the deliberations on franchise
applications due to the parliamentary process were
inconsequential since proof of sufficient public service through
continuous operations and the submission of documentary
requirements were enough bases to approve the renewal of a
franchise.36

Therefore, the NTC should be held in equitable estoppel as it

cannot abruptly abnegate on its previous practice of allowing
broadcast operators to continue operations under valid licenses
and permits while their franchises are under renewal, especially
where Congress authorizes such practice.37

Fifth, the NTC’s reliance on the ABS-CBN case is misplaced.

Petitioner posits that the Supreme Court's disquisition therein does
not have the force of stare decisis since said case was primarily
dismissed on the ground of mootness due to a supervening event;
hence, the previously quoted declaration is a mere obiter dictum.38

Sixth, the NTC’s issuance of a permanent CDO violates its

right to equal protection of laws on the basis that the NTC has
allowed other franchise holders to continue operating pending the
renewal of their legislative franchises.39

Premised thereon, Petitioner prays that: (1) the assailed

Decision be set aside; (2) the NTC be directed to refrain from
reallocating its assigned frequencies and afford it the same
opportunity to re-apply and pursue its franchise application before

36 Id. at 11-12.
37 Id. at 12-13.
38 Id. at 13-14.
39 Id. at 15-17.
 CA-G.R. SP No. 171719
Decision
Page 10
==================

the Congress; and (3) in the meantime, this Court issue a Status Quo
Ante Order (SQA order) enjoining the NTC from implementing
said Decision.40

The OSG’s Counter-Arguments

On the other hand, the OSG counters that supervening

events have rendered the Petition moot. The inaction of the 18th
Congress on Petitioner’s application for franchise renewal left it
without any colorable right upon which to anchor the instant
Petition. As of date, there is no longer any pending bill seeking to
renew Petitioner’s legislative franchise.41

Even assuming that the case has not been rendered moot, the
OSG posits that the NTC acted within its authority since it is the
administrative agency primarily tasked with regulating and
supervising radio and television broadcast stations pursuant to
Executive Order No. 546.42 Thus, when the franchise granted to the
franchisee expires and the broadcast media station is unable to
secure another legislative franchise or other necessary permits, the
NTC has no recourse but to implement the law and order the
franchisee to cease its operations. The NTC can neither prevent the
exercise of a legislative franchise, nor extend it without a proper
grant from the legislature, as it is empowered only to faithfully
execute the legislative will.43

Sans a legislative franchise, Petitioner, therefore, can no

longer operate its broadcasting stations, and neither can it possess
a PA that is dependent on the existence of a valid franchise.44

40 Id. at 17-18.
41 Id. at 107-108.
42 CREATING A MINISTRY OF PUBLIC WORKS AND A MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS.
43 Id. at 112-113.
44 Id. at 120.
 CA-G.R. SP No. 171719
Decision
Page 11
==================

On this matter, the OSG maintains that the alleged

established practice of allowing broadcasting entities to operate
pending renewal of their franchise application cannot repeal the
law, and neither can it be the source of any demandable right. Any
practice, even if regularly done, is void if it violates the
Constitution.45

Lastly, the OSG contends that an SQA Order and a writ of

preliminary injunction are preservative remedies for the protection
of substantive rights and interests to which the Petitioner is not
entitled. Akin to the nature of a temporary restraining order, the
expiration of its legislative franchise simply means that Petitioner
has no right in esse to be protected, and neither can it be said that it
will suffer irreparable damages. The OSG further stressed that a
“franchise” is a special privilege that cannot be exercised at will
and pleasure. Unfortunately for Petitioner, its right to operate was
derived from RA 8531, which granted it twenty-five (25) years to
operate, or until November 7, 2020. By the time the NTC rendered
the assailed Decision on December 17, 2020, Petitioner no longer
had any legal authority to operate and maintain its broadcasting
stations in the Philippines.46

Our Ruling

We deny the Petition.

Absent a valid and existing legislative

franchise, the NTC acted well within
its regulatory authority to issue the
CDO against Petitioner.

As an operative fact, any person or enterprise that intends to

operate a broadcast radio or television station in the Philippines

45 Id. at 123-124.
46 Id. at 129-137.
 CA-G.R. SP No. 171719
Decision
Page 12
==================

has to secure a legislative franchise in the form of a law passed by

Congress and, thereafter, a license to operate from the NTC.47

The basis for this is two-fold.

Foremost, Article XII, Section 11 of the 1987 Constitution

provides:

Section 11. No franchise, certificate, or any other form of

authorization for the operation of a public utility shall be
granted except to citizens of the Philippines or to
corporations or associations organized under the laws of the
Philippines, at least sixty per centum of whose capital is
owned by such citizens; nor shall such franchise, certificate,
or authorization be exclusive in character or for a longer
period than fifty years. Neither shall any such franchise or
right be granted except under the condition that it shall be
subject to amendment, alteration, or repeal by the Congress
when the common good so requires. The State shall
encourage equity participation in public utilities by the
general public. The participation of foreign investors in the
governing body of any public utility enterprise shall be
limited to their proportionate share in its capital, and all the
executive and managing officers of such corporation or
association must be citizens of the Philippines.

On the other hand, Section 1 of Act No. 3846, otherwise

known as the Radio Control Act, as amended, states:

Section 1. No person, firm, company, association or

corporation shall construct, install, establish, or operate a
radio station within the Philippine Islands without having
first obtained a franchise therefor from the Philippine
Legislature . . . (Citations omitted)

The complexities of this dual franchise/license regime for

broadcast media should be understood within the context of
separation of powers. The right of a particular entity to broadcast
over the airwaves is established by law— i.e., the legislative

47 Divinagracia v. Consolidated Broadcasting System, Inc., G.R. No. 162272, April 7, 2009 [Per J.
Tinga, Second Division].
 CA-G.R. SP No. 171719
Decision
Page 13
==================

franchise—and determined by Congress, the branch of

government tasked with the creation of rights and obligations. As
with all other laws passed by Congress, the function of the
executive branch of government, to which the NTC belongs, is
the implementation of the law. In broad theory, the legal
obligation of the NTC once Congress has established a
legislative franchise for a broadcast media station is to facilitate
the operation by the franchisee of its broadcast stations.
However, since the public administration of the airwaves is a
requisite for the operation of a franchise and is, moreover, a highly
technical function, Congress has delegated to the NTC the task of
administration over the broadcast spectrum, including the
determination of available bandwidths and the allocation thereof
among the various legislative franchisees. The licensing power of
the NTC, thus, arises from the necessary delegation by Congress of
legislative power geared towards the orderly exercise by
franchisees of the rights granted them by Congress.48

In relation thereto, Section 6 of Presidential Decree No. 576-

A49 further requires a radio or television station to secure from the
NTC a prior authorization to operate, viz.:

Section 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, grants,
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 systems; Provided, however, that
any conflict over, or disagreement with a decision of the
aforementioned authorities may be appealed finally to the

48 Id.
49 REGULATING THE OWNERSHIP AND OPERATION OF RADIO AND TELEVISION
STATIONS AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
 CA-G.R. SP No. 171719
Decision
Page 14
==================

Office of the President within fifteen days from the date the
decision is received by the party in interest. (Emphasis
supplied)

It must be emphasized that based on the Constitution and

existing laws, a legislative franchise is both a pre-requisite and a
continuing requirement for broadcasting entities to broadcast their
programs through television and radio stations in the country.50

A franchise is a 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.
Alternatively, permits and licenses are administrative
authorizations issued by the administrative agency in the exercise
of regulation.51

In light of the above legal framework, We, therefore, cannot

ascribe any error on the part of the NTC when it issued a CDO
against the Petitioner and rendered the same permanent. Absent a
valid and existing legislative franchise, Petitioner cannot legally
operate its broadcasting stations. It also bears accentuating that a
franchisee’s authority to engage in broadcast operations is derived
from the legislative mandate.52 Unfortunately, the legislative
franchise that brought life to Petitioner’s lawful operations had
already expired on November 7, 2020; hence, the NTC, as the
primary administrative agency tasked with implementing
legislative franchises conferred by Congress, had no other recourse
but to order the cessation of Petitioner’s television and radio
stations.

50 ABS-CBN Corporation v. National Telecommunications Commission, supra note 23.

51 Associated Communications & Wireless Services – United Broadcasting Network v. National
Telecommunications Commission, G.R. No. 144109, February 17, 2003 [Per J. Puno, Third
Division].
52 Divinagracia v. Consolidated Broadcasting System, Inc., supra note 47.
 CA-G.R. SP No. 171719
Decision
Page 15
==================

The alleged established practice of

allowing broadcasting entities to
operate during the pendency of their
application for renewal of legislative
franchise has no basis in law.

Prescinding therefrom, Petitioner further contends that the

doctrine of equitable estoppel should apply in this case on the basis
that both Congress and the NTC have previously “observed the long-
standing practice of allowing broadcasting operators to stay on the air by
virtue of their existing licenses and permits pending deliberation of their
renewal applications.”53

The argument fails.

Jurisprudence has held that any practice, even if regularly

done, is void if it violates the Constitution. An act of Congress or
the Executive, even if repeated over time, cannot operate to amend
or repeal any provision of the Constitution.54

Equally significant is the doctrine that the State cannot be put

in estoppel by the mistakes or errors of its officials or agents,55
especially absent any showing that it had dealt capriciously or
dishonorably with its citizens.56 On this score, Republic v. Court of
Appeals57 expounds:

The general rule is that the State cannot be put in estoppel

by the mistakes or errors of its officials or agents. However,
like all general rules, this is also subject to exception, viz.:

Estoppels against the public are little favored.

They should not be invoked except in a rare and
unusual circumstances, and may not be invoked
where they would operate to defeat the effective

53 Rollo, p. 11.
54 Ang Nars Party-List v. The Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 215746, October 8, 2019 [Per J. Carpio,
En Banc].
55 GMA Network, Inc. v. National Telecommunications Commission, G.R. No. 196112, February 26,

2014 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, Second Division].

56 Republic v. Verzosa, G.R. No. 173525, March 28, 2008 [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
57 G.R. No. 116111, January 21, 1999 [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division].
 CA-G.R. SP No. 171719
Decision
Page 16
==================

operation of a policy adopted to protect the public.

They must be applied with circumspection and
should be applied only in those special cases where
the interests of justice clearly require it.
Nevertheless, the government must not be allowed to
deal dishonorably or capriciously with its citizens
and must not play an ignoble part or do a shabby
thing; and subject to limitations. . . (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied; citations omitted)

Based thereon, this Court finds no compelling reason to

waive the State’s immunity from estoppel. To do otherwise, in this
case, would be to condone a practice that has no basis in law and
would effectively contravene and circumvent the mandate of the
Constitution and existing laws. To reiterate, the law requires
broadcast operators to first secure a legislative franchise from
Congress and, thereafter, authorization to operate from the NTC.

Equally unavailing is the argument that the NTC’s issuance

of a CDO against Petitioner “preempted” and “foreclosed” the
favorable grant of a legislative franchise. Petitioner’s supposition
is misleading. At the risk of stating the obvious, an application for
a legislative franchise is separate and distinct from the process of
obtaining authorization from the NTC. An authorization to
operate from the NTC is not a prerequisite in securing a
legislative franchise. This was already explained in Associated
Communications & Wireless Services – United Broadcasting Networks
v. National Telecommunications Commission,58 viz.:

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. The CPC is not a condition for the

58 Supra note 51.

 CA-G.R. SP No. 171719
Decision
Page 17
==================

grant of a congressional franchise. (Emphasis and

underscoring supplied)

In this regard, the Supreme Court’s disquisition in ABS-CBN,

obiter dictum or not, as Petitioner claims, is highly instructive
nonetheless:

At any rate, the Court finds that ABS-CBN failed to

provide sufficient legal basis to support its theory on
Congress' so-called "corollary/auxiliary" powers pending
determination of the renewal of its expired franchise. On the
contrary, what is sufficiently clear to the Court is that, under
our present legal framework, a legislative franchise
granting broadcasting entities the privilege to broadcast
their programs through television and radio stations in the
country must be in the form of a duly enacted law. The
congressional deliberations on pending bills are not
equivalent and cannot take the place of a duly enacted law,
which requires the entire constitutional process for
legislation to take its full course. Neither can it be inferred
from our Constitution and our present statutes that
temporary statutory privileges may be accorded to a
franchise applicant pending deliberation of a franchise
grant or renewal. Indeed, it is only upon the completion of
the full law-making procedure in accordance with the
parameters prescribed by the Constitution can it be said that
Congress has granted a broadcasting entity the statutory
privilege to so broadcast its programs through its television
and radio stations. Absent a valid and subsisting legislative
franchise embodied in a duly passed law, no such statutory
privilege, even if temporary, can be enjoyed. (Emphasis
supplied)

Verily, neither the Constitution nor our present statutes

accord temporary statutory privileges to a franchise applicant
pending deliberations of its application for renewal before
Congress. A cardinal rule in statutory construction is that when the
law is clear and free from any doubt or ambiguity, there is no room
for construction or interpretation. There is only room for
application. As the provisions of the cited laws herein are clear,
plain, and free from ambiguity, they must, therefore, be given their
 CA-G.R. SP No. 171719
Decision
Page 18
==================

literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation,

verba legis non est recedendum.59

Further, even if We were to concede to Petitioner’s tenuous

supposition, it is worth noting that the instant Petition is essentially
anchored on the uncertainty of whether Petitioner’s then-pending
application for franchise renewal would be granted by Congress.
However, since both the 17th and 18th Congress had already
adjourned without any action on Petitioner’s application for
franchise renewal, coupled with the fact that there is currently no
pending bill therefor before Congress, then the NTC’s issuance of
the CDO becomes all the more necessitated under these
circumstances. As aptly pointed out by the OSG:

. . . The inaction of the 18th Congress on [Petitioner’s] request

for the renewal of franchise until its adjournment left
[Petitioner] without any colorable right upon which to anchor
this [P]etition.60

No basis for the issuance

of an SQA Order.

A status quo order is "in the nature of a cease-and-desist

order," and is "intended to maintain the last, actual, peaceable and
uncontested state of things which preceded the controversy."61
When an order of this nature is imposed, it is to maintain the state
of things existing before the controversy.62

In Megaworld Properties and Holdings, Inc. v. Majestic Finance

and Investment Company, Inc.,63 the Supreme Court, quoting
Associate Justice Florenz D. Regalado, distinguished an SQA order

59 Dubongco v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 237813, March 5, 2019 [Per J. J.C. Reyes, Jr., En
Banc].
60 Rollo, p. 108.
61 Landbank of the Philippines v. Spouses De Jesus, G.R. No. 221133, June 28, 2021 [Per J.

Hernando, Third Division].

62 Remo v. Bueno, G.R. Nos. 175736 & 175898, April 12, 2016 [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, En

Banc].
63 G.R. No. 169694, December 9, 2015 [Per J. Bersamin, First Division].
 CA-G.R. SP No. 171719
Decision
Page 19
==================

from a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction,

viz.:

There have been instances when the Supreme Court has

issued a status quo order which, as the very term connotes, is
merely intended to maintain the last, actual, peaceable and
uncontested state of things which preceded the controversy.
This was resorted to when the projected proceedings in the
case made the conservation of the status quo desirable or
essential, but the affected party neither sought such relief
or the allegations in his pleading did not sufficiently make
out a case for a temporary restraining order. The status quo
order was thus issued motu proprio on equitable
considerations. Also, unlike a temporary restraining order
or a preliminary injunction, a status quo order is more in
the nature of a cease and desist order, since it neither directs
the doing or undoing of acts as in the case of prohibitory or
mandatory injunctive relief. The further distinction is
provided by the present amendment in the sense that, unlike
the amended rule on restraining orders, a status quo order
does not require the posting of a bond. (Emphasis supplied)

In his separate concurring opinion in ABS-CBN, Associate

Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen discussed at length the legal
parameters of an SQA order and that courts, when issuing an SQA
order are guided by the following factors: (1) justice and equity
considerations; (2) when conservation of the status quo is desirable
or essential; (3) the prevention of any serious damage; and (4)
where constitutional issues are raised.

In this case, however, none of the above-cited considerations

are present to warrant the issuance of an SQA order. To do so at
this juncture would essentially circumvent the statutory mandate
of first obtaining a legislative franchise to operate a broadcasting
station. To reiterate, our Constitution, present statutes, and
relevant jurisprudence are clear on this matter:

Any person or enterprise that intends to operate a broadcast

radio or television station in the Philippines has to secure a
legislative franchise in the form of a law passed by Congress and,
 CA-G.R. SP No. 171719
Decision
Page 20
==================

thereafter, a license to operate from the NTC.64 A legislative

franchise is both a pre-requisite and a continuing requirement for
broadcasting entities to broadcast their programs through
television and radio stations in the country.65

A franchisee’s authority to engage in broadcast operations is

derived from the legislative mandate.66 Thus, absent a valid and
existing legislative franchise, a person or entity cannot legally
operate its broadcasting stations in the Philippines. Neither can it
be inferred from the Constitution and present statutes that
temporary statutory privileges may be accorded to a franchise
applicant pending deliberation of a franchise grant or renewal.67

With the expiration of Petitioner’s legislative franchise on

November 7, 2020, and the inaction on Petitioner’s application for
franchise renewal during the 17th and 18th Congress, the NTC, as
the primary administrative agency tasked with implementing
legislative franchises conferred by Congress, correctly ordered the
cessation of the operations of Petitioner’s television and radio
stations.

Time and again, it has been held that where the statutory
norm speaks unequivocally, there is nothing for the courts to do
except apply it. The law, leaving no doubt as to the scope of its
operation, must be obeyed.68 Moreover, since Congress has yet to
grant or renew Petitioner’s legislative franchise, this Court is
ineludibly bound to respect the legislative will, lest We violate the
fundamental principle of separation of powers.

64 Divinagracia v. Consolidated Broadcasting System, Inc., supra note 47. See also Section 1 of Act
No. 3846.
65 ABS-CBN Corporation v. National Telecommunications Commission, supra note 23.
66 Divinagracia v. Consolidated Broadcasting System, Inc., supra note 47.
67 ABS-CBN Corporation v. National Telecommunications Commission, supra note 23.
68 Radio Communications of the Philippines, Inc., v. National Telecommunications Commission, G.R.

No. L-68729, May 29, 1987 [Per J. Gutierrez, Jr., Second Division].
 CA-G.R. SP No. 171719
Decision
Page 21
==================

ACCORDINGLY, the Petition for Review is DENIED. The

Decision dated November 29, 2021 and the Resolution dated
December 27, 2021 of the National Telecommunications
Commission, in NTC Adm. Case No. 2020-021, are AFFIRMED in
toto.

SO ORDERED.
ORIGINAL SIGNED
JENNIFER JOY C. ONG
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ORIGINAL SIGNED
MARIFLOR P. PUNZALAN CASTILLO
Presiding Justice

ORIGINAL SIGNED
RONALDO ROBERTO B. MARTIN
Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I

certify that the conclusions in the above decision had been reached
in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.

ORIGINAL SIGNED
MARIFLOR P. PUNZALAN CASTILLO
Presiding Justice
Chairperson, First Division