Obviously, I don’t agree with the DOJ. I agree, on the other hand, with many others, including a good number of congressmen who are lawyers themselves. Some of them, brilliant like Barzaga.
Do you agree with everything the DOJ does or say?
In this instance, I do. But whether or not we agree with the DOJ is irrelevant. Their testimony is that Lopez is a Filipino, but the committee still voted for no renewal. That is the issue.
1 Like
Nope, it’s not. You wish it was. You cannot take the 100% American part of Gabby’s person.
I can’t, but the DOJ said we should.
1 Like
You said it yourself, NOT every decision or statement of DOJ, you agree with. 70+ congressmen disagree with the DOJ. I disagree with the DOJ.
Only the SC can determine in the DOJ is 100% correct in its interpretation or not. Unfortunately for you, that’s not available. The buck stops with the lower house.
Not so fast. They cited various ostensible reasons for the denial of franchise. Citizenship was only one of them. Really, what you’re so staunchly defending is indefensible. Let’s not sit here and pretend that this decision was 100% grounded on legalities.
If indeed, the 70 took it as their prerogative to give or deny credit to the DOJ’s legal opinion about the citizenship issue, then this is what you’re saying happened: faced with overwhelming evidence pointing to a renewal of the franchise, with, at the very least some conditions, the 70 lawmakers chose to ignore all and deny ABS-CBN a franchise. They, like you in this forum, keep polishing up the same sketchy looking apple every now and again to make a show of a measured and valid deliberation. There wasn’t. How can one trust a government so arbitrary and so inconsistent?
6 Likes
Afaik laws must be explicit. Hindi pwede yung implied. Gabby Lopez by virtue of the dual citizenship law is 100% Filipino despite Markolekta’s opinion.
It’s quite the opposite. There’s overwhelming evidence that ABS-CBN has been breaking the law for decades.
I only cited 2 - citizenship + PDRs - because to me, those are most critical as they concern our constitutions. The others, I can forgive them, but not those two.
We can argue on the full findings of the TWG, but it is obvious, you won’t accept any other legal opinion outside of the DOJ. For this case, you are anchoring your entire argument that the DOJ is the final arbiter of truth. It is not. The SC is.
It is explicit. Mass media is ONLY for Filipinos. NOT for Filipinos AND Americans, which Gabby is one.
Your words. Unless there is a provision there that says something like “does not apply to dual citizens”.
I do have to give props to Markolekta though for having a face thick enough to question someone7s citizenship after writing something like this:
Shouldn’t you be happy he did that?
Grace Poe gave up his American citizenship to run for President. Gabby told the Senate he will do so in an instant if that’s what it takes. Maybe he should put his money where his mouth is…
Oh wait… He withdrew/sold all his shares of ABS-CBN a couple of months ago, when they’re about to be shut down…
“does not apply to dual citizens” is just paraphrasing ONLY Filipinos.
Sorry but when it comes to laws, it has to be explicit, hindi pwede implicit. Hindi pwede “paraphrasing”.
Ikaw yung nag paraphrase. Malinaw ang batas. Pinoy lang. Hindi yung Pinoy at Kano.
Again, the spirit of the law is that mass media should be free from outside influence. An owner of mass media has allegiance to an outside power.
Nasaan nga sa pinakita mo na explicitly sinasabi na bawal ang dual citizens? Lets again go back to the principle *what is not forbidden is allowed". Unless Congress amends the law, Lopez violated nothing.
Ganito na lang…
- Parehas lang ba ang 100% Pinoy sa 100% Pinoy + 100% Kano?
- Bawal ba sa mass media ang 100% Kano?
If you’re referring to the labor issues (and please identify more if you have more information of decades-old law breaking by the company), why punish the entire organization–and along with it its rank and file, in the middle of a pandemic that’s wreaking economic havoc globally–when you can give them a franchise and order its management and employment policies to shape up? Why the harshest possible remedy agad?
You’re the one who refuses to accept credible legal authority on this issue.
The DOJ and SEC were the witnesses for the citizenship issue with respect to the franchise application in THIS hearing. The Supreme Court did not weigh in, and may not have a chance to. The votes were based on this information, among others: as far as the Constitutional bar to non-Filipinos owning public utilities like mass media broadcast, a dual citizen is a Filipino, as determined by SEC and DOJ during the hearing. Why is this not sufficient for you? It seems that you refuse to accept legal authority outside one that echoes your own opinion. But as a bystander (unless, isa ka sa mga congressmen and women), you are entitled to your preferred constitutional interpretation as your determination will probably not affect tens of thousands. But it’s not so with the committee hearing. why should this legal opinion by DOJ and SEC not be sufficient for the 70? They went against legal opinion and “voted their conscience” daw, presumably not only about the citizenship issue but in ALL other issues raised. Ergo, legal issues be d*mned, we just neet to get rid of the oligarch that is not fawning all over duterte.
This is your interpretation. That is not determinative of the issue. Further, as far as DOJ and SEC are concerned, your opinion is wrong.
8 Likes
Ugh. You actually subscribe to this paawa tactics, 11k workers amidst the pandemic BS from ABS-CBN. If they cared about these workers, they should have ensured compliance.
And no, I’m not just talking about labor issues. Read the TWG here: TWG Report on ABS-CBN
The Citizenship thing is at the bottom of page 2. Check out paragraph 6 of page 3.
Also, I already mentioned the 2nd most important thing for me: PDRs.
False. I recognize the DOJ. I just don’t agree with it. Same with the 70+ congressmen who has the constitutional mandate to grant the privilege that is a broadcast franchise.
Question for you: you think the DOJ is the final arbiter on any legal issue?
See above. Is the DOJ the final arbiter? Is the DOJ never wrong themselves?
Your entire angle hinges on an opinion of a department who, you yourself admitted, is not always right. That’s weak.
ABS-CBN complied. And no matter what we say here, you will not listen. Just like the 70 congressmen.
ABS-CBN cares about its employees. I can confidently say that.
Nang-gigigil ako sayo. At alam ko marami ka pa isasagot dito. Dami mong time eh. Ayaw mo rin tumigil. Alam mo…pasalamat ka na lang hindi ka affected. Hindi ka kasama doon sa mga mawawalan ng trabaho.
3 Likes
Am sure that by 2022, there will be a comeback, when the pikon-talo is gone
Ugh, you actually subscribe to the dismissive “paawa” response to these very real consequences. Much as others like you have dismissed thousands of killed in the senseless drug war as “collateral damage” to assuage their conscience and keep defending their favorite president.
How about the economic ripple effects na hindi lang laid off employees ang makakaramdam in the months to come? Are you able to foresee and dismiss those too? I get that you might not empathize nor care for those whose jobs and sources of income will be lost by this baseless denial of a franchise, after all, empathy isn’t something you can be talked into (for that matter, I doubt you can be talked into anything while posting anonymously on a forum site) but you don’t have the right to invalidate these people’s sufferings. How dare you and others like you.
You say ginagamit ng executives ang mga empleyado para magpaawa. I say ginagamit mo ang mga executives to justify a move that affects the employees greater than they will ever affect the owners or the executive team of the network. And if the 11k shouldn’t be part of the analysis, what to you is the most compelling reason to summarily shut down a media entity amidst a global pandemic?? Paki-sagot at wag yung cherry-picking ka lang ng portions na gusto mo sagutin.
Let’s talk about that. I am no expert in financial or negotiable instruments, but as far as my limited research goes, PDRs allow foreigners to liquidate income from investing on a Philippine business, but they don’t confer ownership rights at all.
I see you’re a fan of the Supreme Court, pwes Supreme Court na ang nagsabi niyan through Gamboa vs. Teves, (G.R. No. 176579, October 9, 2012). In that case the SC had the occasion to state that the constitutional bar against foreign ownership is a bar from assumption of “effective control” of the prohibited businesses. Effective control is a grant of power to elect the Board of Directors or right to full beneficial ownership of the shares–this is ABS-CBN’s argument, but this should satisfy the spirit behind the bar to foreign ownership of media companies.
Further, in ABS-CBN’s brief, they pointed out that Condition 4 of the PDRs states that the shares payable on the PDRs “shall be owned by and registered in the name of ABS-CBN Holdings until they are validly transferred to a Filipino citizen.” Conditions also explicitly stated that neither security agent nor any holder of the PDR shall have voting rights through those shares.
Another Supreme Court case, Roy vs. Herbosa (2017) stated that the fact that PDR holders receive cash dividends does not, standing alone, “determine full beneficial ownership of the shares.” The foreigners likewise do not participate in the disposition of the shares represented by (PDRs), another hallmark of ownership.
So, re PDRS: voting powers remains with Philippine stockholders. Dividends accrue to the investors (foreigners). Lastly, the SEC itself, which regulates these very transactions, have categorically approved PDRs in 1999 and 2014 and they never back-pedalled on that issue even during the hearing.
I couldn’t care less whether you agree with the DOJ or not. Your approval of their legal opinion is not relevant to the issue. But the 70’s choice to ignore every authority they invited to enlighten them about every major issue–this is what matters and this IS the issue. They received competent testimony from credible government agencies tasked to know these issues deeply, and they voted against testimony. Please stop touting your disagreement with the DOJ, it literally does not matter-- in this forum site or the real world.
The DOJ never arbitrated the issue. You seem to be conflating your arguments now. Their testimony in the hearing to which they were invited, was that the a dual citizen (american + Filipino) = a Filipino for the purposes of satisfying the constitutional requirement for public utilities. Stop with this tiresome silliness.
Also, when did I say that the DOJ is not always right? Don’t put words in people’s mouths. Make your own conclusions, but don’t attribute them to me.
2 Likes
Right. Tuloy mo yang paawa mo. Malayo mararating mo dyan.
Fact is, they would not have been in this situation if they managed the company correctly. Their franchise expired. They could have renewed it in 2014. But they didn’t. And they never cared about 11k. Not all of them for sure.
Mas naawa ako sa 80k OFWs na nawalan ng trabaho. At expected pa na may 200k OFWs pa mawawalan before the year ends.
Mas naawa ako sa mga nasa tourism and hospitality industries.
Di porke’t may pandemic e pwedeng i-ignore ang kabulastugan ng ABS-CBN. Kung ok lang sana gaguhin ang consti kasi may pandemic, e hindi dapat kayo nagalit kay Debold Sinas or kay Koko or sa pag swimming ni Harry Roque with the Dolphins.
You should watch the youtube clip with Barzaga questioning the former Law Dean who created ABS-CBN’s PDRs.
The PDRs of ABS-CBN are tied to its common shares. ABS-CBN admitted many of those PDRs were purchased by foreigners. Furthermore, if the foreigners who bought the PDRs don’t want to sell it to anybody, ABS-CBN cannot sell shares tied to those PDRs. This is control. This is ownership.
You can NOT sell what you do NOT own.
Except that they did NOT ignore DOJ’s opinion. They took them into account and made a determination of their own.
Exactly. So their opinion won’t count as much as the individual congressman’s opinion.
It’s obvious that you didn’t read page 3 of the TWG report. Please check the link I gave you. It’s only 1 page. It won’t take you 5mins to read it.