National Telecomunications Commission (NTC) facade (File photo from NOY MORCOSO/INQUIRER.net)
MANILA, Philippines — A Makati court has junked a petition from the News and Entertainment Network Corporation (Newsnet), which sought to stop the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) from reallocating the company’s frequencies.
In a 16-page decision, the Makati Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 133 denied Newsnet’s application for a writ of preliminary injunction against NTC.
Newsnet filed the writ against NTC on July 5, 2023, after the NTC, through a memorandum circular, moved to redistribute Newsnet’s frequency following the expiration of its legislative franchise.
The commission also denied Newsnet’s request to renew its provisional authority (PA) to operate a CATV system.
READ: SolGen insists ‘no franchise, no frequency’ policy vs multimedia firm
But Newsnet claimed it has the right to continue operating its CATV system, even if its legislative franchise under Republic Act (RA) 8197 has already expired in 2022.
However, the Makati court ruled in the negative, concluding that Newsnet can only continue to operate its CATV system with a PA and other permits—all of which are dependent on a legislative franchise.
“Considering the expiration of the 25-year legislative franchise granted under RA 8197 from which plaintiff’s authority to operate as a CATV entity emanates, and in light of the foregoing exposition, this Court is of the opinion that plaintiff was unable to establish a clear, unmistakable right that would entitle it to injunctive relief,” it added.
“At this stage, plaintiff is not the holder of an existing franchise, whether legislative or administrative, that would allow it to exercise the privilege of providing CATV services to the public within the Philippines,” it added.
According to the Makati RTC, it is undisputed that a government franchise is required to install and maintain a CATV enterprise within Philippine territory.
READ: Palace dismisses Newsnet appeal to operate, deliver services
“After due consideration of the evidence presented by both parties, this Court holds that plaintiff was unable to establish a definite and enforceable right that would entitle it to a writ of preliminary injunction,” the court said.