IS PEOPLE’S INITIATIVE LEGALLY FIRM TO GRANT ABS-CBN A FRANCHISE?
Last Sunday, we discussed the possible remedies of ABS-CBN after losing its battle to get a franchise when the House of Representatives Committee on Franchise denied its application. Because the matter involves a political question, ABS-CBN cannot go to court to challenge the decision of the House Committee. One of the options being explored is the so-called people’s initiative. In fact, a group of lawyers already prepared a Petition or draft legislation for the people nationwide to peruse and concur by indicating their signatures.
There are those who doubt the legality of the initiative. They claim that it is unconstitutional since Section 24, Article VI of the 1987 Philippine Constitution provides that “all appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills authorizing increase of the public debt, bills of local application, and private bills shall originate exclusively in the House of Representatives.” (Italics supplied) Another argument is also anchored on Section 3 (a) of Republic Act No. 6735, otherwise known as The Initiative and Referendum Act, which provides for the three (3) systems of initiative, namely: a) initiative on the Constitution which refers to a petition proposing amendments to the Constitution; b) initiative on statutes which refers to a petition proposing to enact a national legislation; and c) initiative on local legislation which refers to a petition proposing to enact a regional, provincial, city, municipal, or barangay law, resolution or ordinance. They claim that nowhere in RA 6735 did it mention that legislative franchise or any private bill can be a subject of a people’s initiative as it only talks about national legislation.
On the contrary, arguments can be made that Section 32, Article VI of the 1987 Philippine Constitution is worded broad enough to include even private bills, such as renaming of a school, making a basketball reinforcement or “import” a naturalized citizen, and creating a new barangay. The said provision provides that “Congress shall, as early as possible, provide for a system of initiative and referendum, and the exceptions therefrom, whereby the people can directly propose and enact laws or approve or reject any or law or part thereof passed by the Congress or local legislative body after the registration of a petition thereof signed by at least ten per centum of the total number of registered voters, or which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of the registered voters thereof.”
Moreover, Section 10 of RA 6735 provides for the only limitations or prohibited measures of a national initiative or referendum, namely: a) no petition embracing more than one (1) subject shall be submitted to the electorate; and b) statutes involving emergency measures, the enactment of which are specifically vested in Congress by the Constitution, cannot be subject to referendum until ninety (90) days after its effectivity. Hence, if Congress intended to exclude private bills, including the grant of a legislative franchise, as subjects of a national initiative or referendum petition, it could have specifically enumerated in Section 10 of RA 6735.
Furthermore, Section 11, Article XII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution governs the specific constitutional limitations in granting a franchise. If the framers of the Constitution intended to reserve such power to Congress, specifically the House of Representatives, it could have specifically stated the limitation and prohibition that it cannot be a subject of a people’s initiative. Finally, even if it can be classified as a private bill, it may be argued that, being the largest network, not extending a franchise to ABS-CBN would have an overarching implication to the lives of the Filipino people, especially in providing news, information and entertainment during this time of pandemic and recession.