Not appropriate to answer a question with another question, but…
Gabby is 100% Filipino, but also 100% American. He voted in the 2016 US elections and uses his US passport more than his Filipino passport. Our constitution requires 100% Filipino ownership of mass media because it is so powerful that you do NOT want any outside influence in our so-called 4th estate. Gabby’s allegiance to the US is outside influence. He is at least just as loyal to the US as the Philippines. And based on his behavior, you can actually intelligently say that his loyalty to the US is much greater.
The oath of allegiance of all US citizens implicitly states:
“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty… "
As far as the US is concerned, we are a foreign state. And so for US citizens, we are foreigners and they have ZERO allegiance to us.
Grace Poe was forced to renounce his US citizenship to run for President. Gabby can do the same, or he can sell all his shares. Both things, we know, he will never do. He will never give up his US citizenship.
As long as I am not breaking any actual forum rules, I don’t think I’d be taking cues from anyone about ‘propriety’.
At the same time, the Philippines also consider him 100% Filipino and possesses all rights and privileges of one. Enrile himself opines that Gabby Lopez can head or own a media company. As a reason for sounding the death knell of a media behemoth that has served the Filipino media consumers long, it is looking very flimsy. Pilit.
Especially when you view the closure in light of all the circumstances and personalities surrounding it… An actual threat from the President who, according to his personal aide Bong Go, was “hurt” with how ABS-CBN chose to allocate its airtime, and how ABS-CBN hasn’t always been flattering and sycopanthic to the current admniistration, with the overwhelming amount of evidence and testimony by government agencies concluding that there is no valid nor compelling reason to deny the renewal. Now THAT, I would definitely call inappropriate.
Like I said, the spirit of that provision of the 1987 constitution is to free mass media from outside influence. Gabby, having allegiance to the USA despite being Filipino, is contrary to that.
Again, the DOJ’s reasoned opinion is that Gabby Lopez’s dual citizenship DOES NOT disqualify him from owning and managing a mass media broadcast business. His position does not violate the Philippine constitution. He is 100% Filipino as far the law is concerned, and as such, is not impeded by any constitutional proscription against owning and managing businesses limited to Filipino citizens only, like a media company.
hence, the idiotic reasoning. Decisions like these should be based on the law, not “feelings”. Yan ang purpose kung bakit kailangan may participation ng mga agencies who have expertise in each of the major issues related to the franchise renewal.
Sino ba kasi gumawa niyang “dual-citizenship law”? Oh wait Congress nga pala! Its a pissing contest between idiots.
I wonder what was the use of asking DOJ, BIR, SEC and DOLE to give expert advice during the hearings when at the end of the day Congress could have just asked the SC to interpret the law. Oh well, madami naman pera Pilipinas eh.
The congressmen’s decision was based law, specifically the constitution. There’s NO single interpretation of the law, at least not in this case.
Gabby’s allegiance to the USA is against the spirit of the constitution, which requires that the powerful mass media must be free from outside influence.
Dual citizenship works for most things. Just not mass media.
Asking the different departments on their opinions is for the congressmen to make a better, more intelligent decision. Just because the DOJ said something that doesn’t mean you have to agree with it. That’s the spirit of democracy. Besides, the DOJ isn’t always right about everything. In fact, even the SC sometimes reverses its own rulings.
There should be. Otherwise, what’s the purpose of having a legal body tasked to “aid in legislating” doing there? pro forma lang ang presence ng DOJ then, since the congressmen and women–not all of whom are lawyers, nor were they even supposed to make a legal determination regarding someone’s citizenship–will make their own decisions based on what, their own gut feel? They were supposed to use the expert opinions of the government bodies present there who has far more expertise and knowledge on each major issue concerning renewal. And the committee was supposed to vote based on those findings and legal opinions. They were not supposed to vote on whether or not Gabby Lopez is a citizen. They were supposed to vote, based on the evidence and testimony presented whether it warrants a denial of the franchise.
The spirit of the Constitution has been satisfied, according to the lawyers who know better than either of us, let that issue rest. If you mean to say that dual citizenship should bar one from owning media franchises as an ethical rule, then an amendment to the Constitution should first be made. There is a place and time for that, and a hearing on a franchise renewal is not it.
The 1 interpretation is only for the SC, NOT the DOJ, not for congressman-lawyers, or anybody else.
That is YOUR opinion. Gabby has allegiance to the USA. He admitted to that. Papanig sya sa USA kung kelangan nya. This is why it is against the spirit of the law. Dapat ang mass media, buong Pinoy, hindi yung papabor sa banyaga.
Like I said, around 70+ congressmen disagrees with the DOJ.
Mass media should be free from outside influence. Gabby is, outside influence. Mass media must be owned ONLY by Filipinos. Gabby is NOT only a Filipino, but ALSO an American.
The DOJ’s opinion is only valid if concurred by the SC because franchises are the job of congressmen, who, unfortunately for you, does NOT agree with the DOJ.
Are you saying that the citizenship issue was what decided their vote?
Now that is definitely a weak and forced justification for outright denial of a franchise.
There isn’t any. What the DOJ interpreted is Section 11 of Art. 12:
EDIT: are there any Phil lawyers out there who can do some legal research on whether or not the SC has made a determination that’s on all fours with Gabby Lopez’s? i.e., the issue being whether a dual citizen may be allowed to own or manage a business reserved only for Filipino citizens, or stated differently, whether a dual citizen may be considered a Filipino citizen for purposes of Section 11, Art. XII?
SECTION 11. (1) The ownership and management of mass media shall be limited to citizens of the Philippines, or to corporations, cooperatives or associations, wholly-owned and managed by such citizens.
This implies ONLY Filipino citizens can own. Gabby is NOT only Filipino, but ALSO an American.
Yes. That was what Bigote Zarate’s argument. Wala naman daw nagsasabi bawal pag dual citizen.
But again, you look at the spirit of the law. The prohibition of foreign control and owner is there to ensure mass media is free from outside influence, because of the power it has in shaping opinions and such. Proud Kingmakers mga Lopezes.
No, there are many others. I also mentioned PDRs. But you only need to violate 1, and you’re already in breach of contract with the state.
You’re asking the wrong question. It’s not just any business, but the mass media business.
Dual citizens can own companies and buy pieces of land. There’s no argument there. Mass media is an entirely different beast.
nope. the “wholly” refers to the company, or percentage of membership, not the percentage of Filipino citizenship.
Says who? Legal practitioners deciding the case determine the issues. Not you or me. Maybe my question is insufficient or not as specific , but it is definitely not the wrong question to ask.
I highlighted “wholly” to drive the point that mass media must be free from outside influence.
Kaya nga walang argument sa 100% pinoy si Gabby. ZERO issue dun. Ang argument ko was his allegiance to the USA kasi 100% American din sya.
It is wrong because other types of businesses are irrelevant. Di naman issue dito kung pwede ka mag mayari ng restaurant. Ang issue is kung pwede ka mag mayari ng mass media.
You interpreted the provision you quoted with your own emphasis as an implication that ownership is limited to Filipino citizens only, and not to dual citizens. The DOJ has ruled that dual citizens ARE Filipino citizens. So where are you getting your inference from? Spirit of the constitution? Are you not satisfied with the DOJ’s interpretation of the constitution’s letter, spirit, blood and tissues with respect to that section?