Saturday, June 23, 2012

Gascon vs. Arroyo (Consti1)

Jose Luis Martin C. Gascon, Faustino "Bong" L. Lapira, and Spouses Alberto and Karla Lim, petitioners,
vs.
The Hon. Joker T. Arroyo, in his official capacity as Executive Secretary to the President, Hon. Teodoro Benigno, as Press Secretary, Hon. Reneirio Reyes, as the Secretary of Transportation and Communication, Hon. Jose Alcuaz, as Chairman of the National Telecommunications Commission, Hon. Conrado A. Limcaoco, Jr., as the Officer-in-Charge of the People's Television, ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, and Messrs. Vicente Abad Santos, Pastor Del Rosario and Catalino Macaraig, Jr., in their respective capacities as Chairman and Members of the "Arbitration Committee", respondents.

En Banc

Padilla, October 16, 1989

Topic: Sovereignty - Suits not against the State - Expropriation

Facts:
  • Lopez family is the owner of 2 television stations, namely: Channels 2 and 4, which they have operated through the ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation
  • When martial law was declared on Sept 21, 1972, Ch. 4 was closed by the military and its facilities were taken over by Kanlaon Broadcasting System (KBS) which operated it as a commercial TV station
  • In 1978, KBS was taken over by the National Media Production Center (NMPC), which operated it under Maharlika Broadcasting System TV 4 (MBS-4)
  • After the February 1986 Edsa Revolution, the PCGG sequestered the TV stations and the Office of Media Affairs took over the operation of Ch. 4
  • On. April 17, 1986, the Lopez family requested Pres. Aquino to order to return to them Chs. 2 and 4
  • On October 18 1986, Ch 2 was returned to the Lopez family
  • Upon the Lopez family's request, the respondent Executive Secretary, by the authority of the President, entered into with ABS-CBN, represented by its Pres. Eugenio Lopez, Jr., an "Agreement to Arbitrate"
    • Arbitration Committee was created composed of Atty. Catalino Macaraig, Jr., for RP and Atty. Pastor del Rosario for ABS-CBN, and retired Justice Vicente Abad Santos as Chairman
Issue:
  • Note: There wasn't exactly an issue, as the court dismissed the case because the petitioners did not have locus standi. If the need arises, I would say the issue is "Whether or not the Agreement to Arbitrate, as an alternative to a lawsuit against the State, is valid"; to which, the answer is yes. Either way, I'll just enumerate below the court's statements regarding the expropriation topic.
  1. The Executive Secretary, in entering into the "Agreement to Arbitrate," was acting for and in behalf of the President when he signed it. Hence, the aforesaid agreement is valid and binding upon the Republic of the Philippines.
  2. Where the government takes property from a private landowner for public use without going through the legal process of expropriation or negotiated sale, the aggrieved party may properly maintain a suit against the government without thereby violating the doctrine of governmental immunity from suit without its consent.
  3. The government's immunity cannot serve as an instrument for perpetrating an injustice to a citizen.
  4. Note: In a separate opinion, Justice Feliciano remarks that the above comments as obiter dicta.
Petition dismissed.

No comments:

Post a Comment