“Panelo asserts SMNI was denied due process of law because the order was issued and took effect immediately without first giving SMNI a chance to explain itself”
Weeks ago, the House of Representatives conducted an inquiry into whether Sonshine Media Network International (SMNI), the controversial television network identified with the equally controversial Pastor Apollo Quiboloy, violated the terms and conditions of its legislative franchise, namely, Republic Act 11422.
Quiboloy is a staunch ally of former President Rodrigo Duterte.
This inquiry was triggered by several complaints regarding the alleged misuse by SMNI of its broadcast facilities. The bulk of the complaints came from individuals who claim that SMNI has been labeling them as communists.
The straw that broke the camel’s back, so to speak, was the allegation on a political commentary program aired on SMNI to the effect that House Speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez and his colleagues spent a whopping P1.8-billion pesos in travel expenses for a year.
The House decried the allegation and called it “unfounded and categorically false.”
Soon thereafter, the House committee on legislative franchises summoned key SMNI anchors Jeffrey Celiz and Lorraine Badoy to its hearings to make them explain the false allegations.
As expected, opposition lawmakers, anti-establishment groups, communists and red sympathizers exploited the adverse publicity generated by the controversy for administration solons.
The situation also gave them the chance to get back at SMNI, known for identifying communists and red sympathizers in its programming.
Because Celiz adamantly refused to answer some very important questions asked by the congressmen, particularly regarding his sources, he was declared in contempt and ordered detained in the House premises.
Badoy was also cited in contempt and likewise detained because of what the congressmen viewed as her contradictory and inconsistent replies to their questions.
Even the lawyers of SMNI, one of whom is an ex-congressman himself, were given a dressing down for their equivocal answers to questions that can easily be answered by either a “yes” or a “no.”
One of SMNI’s lawyers also tried to question if there is a quorum present in the committee hearing.
He was sternly but politely informed that only members of the House can question if a quorum is present in a committee hearing.
Under its legislative franchise, SMNI is required to abide by the terms and conditions recited therein. The reportorial clause of its franchise requires SMNI to report to Congress substantial changes in the ownership profile of the network, and other similarly important matters of concern, every year.
Pursuant to the constitutional ban against monopolies in commercial mass media, SMNI’s legislative franchise also requires SMNI to sell to the general public at least 30 percent of its capital stock.
From the questions and answers elucidated from the congressional hearings on the SMNI franchise, and as explained to the press by one of the congressmen present, it appears that SMNI violated the foregoing provisions of its legislative franchise.
That violation may be enough ground for Congress to invoke Section 15 of the SMNI franchise, which provides the franchise shall be subject to amendment, alteration or repeal by Congress when the public interest so requires it.
In other words, all indications have it that the revocation of the legislative franchise of SMNI is in the horizon.
That measure, however, will take some time to realize because the Senate will have to concur in the conclusions the House arrives at.
Taking its cue from what happened in the House, the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board issued an order suspending the broadcast operations of SMNI for 30 days, beginning December 18.
As expected, SMNI and its lawyers and allies criticized the MTRCB’s order.
Salvador Panelo, the presidential legal counsel during the administration of President Duterte, told the news media the suspension order issued by the MTRCB against SMNI is patently unconstitutional.
He asserts SMNI was denied due process of law because the order was issued and took effect immediately without first giving SMNI a chance to explain itself.
From the available indications, SMNI may take the issue to the Supreme Court.
Under the law, the Office of the Solicitor General will have to defend the action taken by the MTRCB.
A case involving the same issue was resolved by a divided Supreme Court back in 2009 and, on motion for reconsideration, in 2010.