SMNI asks CA to stop NTC broadcast suspension order

ANCHORS and reporters of Sonshine Media Network International (SMNI) filed a petition before the Supreme Court (SC) Tuesday seeking to immediately enjoin the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) from implementing its orders suspending the operations of the television network.

In a 45-page petition, the petitioners, led by former presidential spokesperson and one of SMNI anchors Harry Roque, specifically questioned the constitutionality of NTC’S December 19, 2023 order imposing a 30-day suspension on the network’s operations and directing it to explain in writing why it should not be sanctioned based on the findings of the House of Representatives Committee on Legislative Franchise with regard to alleged violations of SMNI’S franchise.

Based on House Resolution No. 18, SMNI violated the terms and conditions of its franchise, specifically the provision that prohibits the network from using its stations or facilities to propagate false information.

It can be recalled that SMNI filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) questioning the NTC’S December 19 order but the appellate court dismissed the petition due to technicality as the TV network failed to file a motion for reconsideration first with the NTC.

Likewise, the petitioners are assailing the constitutionality of NTC’S January 18, 2024 order directing SMNI to explain why it failed to comply with the 30-day suspension order and extending the period of suspension of its operations to an indefinite period.

The petitioners said the two orders infringe on their fundamental constitutional rights to freedom of expression and of the press.

They also questioned NTC’S jurisdiction to order SMNI’S suspension and to investigate alleged violations of its legislative franchise.

“The alleged government interest sought to be protected or enforced by the issuanceoftheassaileddecisions—namely, the ‘adoption of the findings by the House of Representatives’ arising from alleged violations of SMNI’S legislative franchise— is very much related to the suppression of freedom of expression because those alleged ‘violations’ consist of statements and opinions that were expressed in TV programs that were previously broadcast over SMNI’S network,” the petitioners pointed out.

The petitioners claimed that SMNI’S suspension serves as both subsequent punishment for statements that were previously made in its programs, such as “Laban Kasama Ang Bayan” hosted by Lorraine Badoy and Jeffrey Celiz, who were both detained at the Batasan Complex for more than one week for their statements against the House; and prior restraint for programs, such as Pulso ng Bayan hosted by Roque and the other news and current affairs programs hosted by the other petitioners.

“Regardless of any purported objective, if the effect is to shut down the broadcast operations of Smni—thereby also shutting down the petitioners’ news and current affairs programs—the assailed orders must be scrutinized with a heavy presumption of unconstitutionality,” the petitioners said.

“This presumption of unconstitutionality could only be overcome if the respondents are able to demonstrate that there is a clear and present danger sought to be prevented,” they added.

However, the petitioners said there is no clear and present danger that would justify the curtailment of the petitioners’ right to freedom of expression and of the press.

The petitioners added that the NTC has no jurisdiction to scrutinize the comments aired in SMNI’S TV programs as these are considered privileged.

They cited Article III, Section 4 of the Constitution which states: “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.”

Taking into consideration the said provision as well as the Court’s previous ruling in Chavez vs. Gonzales case, the petitioners argued that “the only acceptable forms of subsequent punishment are those found in laws punishing scandalous or obscene matter, seditious or disloyal writings, and libelous or insulting words.”

“The comments made in TV programs aired over SMNI’S network are none of these. And even assuming that those comments may be considered as scandalous or obscene, seditious or disloyal, or libelous or insulting, due process of law in the form of a court trial must still be observed in order that the persons who uttered them may be held liable for their crimes,” they stressed.

“The respondent NTC, not being a court, has no authority to pass judgment and to mete any penalty on SMNI or the petitioners for the things that they said,” they added.

The petitioners added that the NTC does not have the power to revoke the right to operation of any holder of a legislative franchise based on the SC ruling in the Santiago Divinagracia case.

A reading of Section 15 of Executive Order No. 546, which outlines the powers and functions of the NTC, according to the petitioners, would show no provision granting any authority to inquire into or scrutinize alleged violation by any broadcast operator of its legislative franchise.

“It is clear from Section 15 that the respondent NTC’S authority is confined to the regulation, supervision, and inspection of the technical aspects of the operations of communications utilities and services, radio and television broadcasting systems, and other similar public utilities,” the petitioners argued.

They noted that NTC’S power to regulate,inspect,andsupervisebroadcast entities should relate only to its issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience (CPC), Provisional Authority (PA), or Certificate of Authority (CA), and other permits or licenses.

“The respondent NTC cannot expand its power into the realm of legislative franchises, which is already beyond its jurisdiction,” the petition read.

The petitioners further stressed that aside from Executive Order No. 546, under Republic Act No. 7925 or the Public Telecommunications Policy Act, NTC has no authority to investigate, inquire into, or impose penalties for alleged violations of a telecommunications entity’s legislative franchise.

While the case is pending, SMNI asked SC to issue a temporary restraining order against the implementation of the assailed NTC orders.