Senators assert jurisdiction, legality of Senate probe on ABS-CBN’s franchise

The senate on Monday, February 24 hears the renewal of franchise to broadcast of ABS CBN. INQUIRER/GRIG C. MONTEGRANDE

MANILA, Philippines — Several senators stood by the Senate committee on public service’s decision to push through this Monday with the hearing on ABS-CBN’s franchise renewal, saying it is constitutional and within its jurisdiction.

The Senate panel’s decision ran counter the position of Speaker Alan Peter Cayetano that the franchise bill should emanate from the House of Representatives, which should approve and transmit the same to the Senate.

However, at the start of the hearing, committee chair Senator Grace Poe asserted the power and authority of both the Senate and the House over legislative franchises as well as her committee’s oversight functions to monitor ABS-CBN’s compliance with the franchise contract.

“Bagama’t mas madalas nagmumula ang mga franchise bills sa Kongreso or sa House, hindi na rin bago na magkaroon ng sabayang pagdinig para sa mabilisang lehislasyon lalu na ang mga prayoridad ng presidente tulad ng budget at TRAIN law,” she said in her opening statement.

Poe’s opinion was shared by Senate Majority Leader Juan Miguel Zubiri, Senate Minority Leader Franklin Drilon, Senators Joel Villanueva and Sonny Angara.

“Indeed, we have the jurisdiction, we have the power to exercise our oversight functions in this regard,” Villanueva said.

Zubiri noted how the Senate holds hearings in the committee level on budget and tax measures simultaneously with the House, “provided that we don’t approve a committee report ahead of the House.”

“That’s the legality of it all and that’s by precedents and practice, and tradition of both houses,” he said.

Zubiri ended his statement by saying that the hearing is “in order.”

Drilon, meanwhile, pointed out that the Supreme Court already made a ruling on the issue of whether or not the committee can hear matters pertaining to franchises pending receipt of the franchise measures from the House.

In particular, he cited the 1995 ruling of the SC which stated that there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the filing in the Senate of a substitute bill in an anticipation of its receipt of the bill from the House “so long as the action by the Senate as a body is withheld pending  receipt of the House bills.”

“This was settled 25 years ago,” Drilon said.

While he agreed with his colleagues, Tolentino raised the principles of subjudice and separation of powers since a quo warranto petition against ABS-CBN has also been filed Solicitor General Jose Calida at the SC.

“Gusto ko lang po itong malinaw para maging valid po talaga itong ginagawa dahil sang ayon po sa Saligang Batas, pag meron pong isang kaso  na dinidinig ang Korte Suprema ay sila po talaga yung meron nang jurisdiction…” he said.

“Ang tanong ko po madam chair, out of respect to a co-equal branch of government, the Supreme Court for that mater, isn’t it correct and judicious to defer to the highest tribunal in so far as the ABS-CBN issue is concerned?”  Tolentino asked.

Responding to this, Poe said: “We should have more confidence in our Supreme Court and our justices.”

She also expressed confidence the SC would not be easily influenced by public opinion even if the Senate holds its hearing on the ABS-CBN’s franchise, pending Calida’s petition.

“Let’s also trust that they have good judgment that it doesn’t mean that when discussions are going on and they hear  it, that they will immediately forgo what is actually written in the law and replace it with popular opinion,” Poe said.

She also mentioned past SC rulings where legislative hearings were allowed despite the pendency of a petition in court.

“Ibig sabihin, kinikilala ng ating mga mahistrado ang kapangyarihan ng lehislatura bilang kapantay nila,” Poe said.

Edited by EDV