Solons ask: Why not just tackle ABS-CBN’s 25-year franchise?
The plenary hall of the House of Representatives. (File photo from the Philippine Daily Inquirer)
MANILA, Philippines — After the House of Representatives recalled the second reading approval of the bill granting ABS-CBN a provisional franchise to operate until October 31, 2020, some lawmakers asked: Why not just hear bills seeking the network’s 25-year franchise?
The first one to ask the question during Monday’s session—as one by one lawmakers interpellate Deputy Speaker Luis Raymund Villafuerte, the sponsor of House Bill No. 6723 that grants ABS-CBN provisional authority—was House committee on appropriations chair ACT-CIS Rep. Eric Yap.
“Gusto ko lang sana mag-manifest, bakit hindi na lang natin diretso i-hear yung 25 year franchise ng ABS-CBN? Kasi ito rin naman ang gusto ng lahat ng tao e,” Yap said.
(I just want to manifest why not go hearing directly ABS-CBN’s 25-year franchise, since this is what everyone wants?)
“Mapakinggan natin ang lahat ng panig—panig ng ABS-CBN, panig ng mga nagrereklamo—para sa ganun, once and for all, matuldukan na natin ang franchise issue na ito,” he added.
(Let’s hear the sides of every one–from ABS-CBN, those complaining–so that we put an end to this franchise issue once and for all.)
According to Yap, all sides have to be heard once the issue is tackled, including those who have labor complaints against the network.
To recall, Yap, together with Deputy Speaker Paolo Duterte and Cavite 8th District Rep. Abraham Tolentino, filed a resolution seeking an inquiry into “probable violations” of media giant ABS-CBN of its legislative franchise.
“Kung tayo ay magde-decide na ating ibibigay, ibigay na po. Kung made-decide nating hindi ibibigay, huwag pong ibigay. Ang punto ko lang po dito, once and for all, para matapos na, diretsuhin na natin sa punto,” Yap said.
(If we would decide that we will give this [franchise], let’s give it. If we decide not to give it, let’s not give it. My point here is that, once and for all, let’s go direct to the point.)
This manifestation was backed by Pampanga 2nd District Rep. Juan Miguel Arroyo.
“The majority concurs with the view of the honourable chairman of the committee on appropriations,” Arroyo said.
“As a matter of fact, we the majority, in discussions with our distinguished majority leader and the senior deputy majority leader, we are espousing a series of caucuses so that at least we can really get the consensus of the members of the House,” he added.
House Minority Leader Bienvenido Abante Jr., meanwhile, underscored the need to tackle ABS-CBN’s 25-year franchise bid, citing the 11,000 workers of the network.
“In the middle of a contracting economy, we need to do everything in our power to prevent job losses. Extending the franchise of ABS-CBN ensures employment for 11,000 of our countrymen,” Abante said.
“We cannot be deaf to their cries, we must do what we can to secure their livelihoods,” he added.
Should the lower chamber approve ABS-CBN’s provisional franchise, Abante said that they should “deliberate on the network’s franchise so that we can avoid being in the same situation in October.”
Villafuerte said that while that it is the body that shall decide if the lower chamber will instead push through with discussing the 25-year franchise bid of ABS-CBN.
The lawmaker also said that sponsors of the bill are open to such proposal.
“We are willing to consider the proposal or manifestation that in due time, pwede na ring ituloy, dinggin ang 25 year franchise para talaga magkaroon na ng malawakang pagdinig [so that we can have a wide-range hearing],” Villafuerte said.
“Mapakinggan ng lahat at ako po ay open diyan sa tamang panahon. Sa period of amendments siguro ay tatalakayin natin yan,” he added.
(Everyone will be heard and I am open to this at the right time. In the period of amendments maybe we can tackle that.)
During the first minutes of the session, Zamboanga Sibugay 1st District Rep. Wilter Palma moved to recall the second reading approval of the ABS-CBN provisional franchise bill as several lawmakers expressed their intent to interpellate and amend the measure.
Due to the number of lawmakers who wanted to interpellate the measure, the session was suspended just before the period of amendments, meaning it has yet to be re-approved on second reading.
