CONSISTENTLY INCONSISTENT: CONSTITUTIONAL CIRCUMVENTION

IS the publicly known problem about ABS-CBN Corp. the real score behind the shutdown? Did the Congress move because of the material condition of the media or is there an unmoved mover and/or unseen overseer? Reports on May 8 quoted House Speaker Alan Peter Cayetano as saying that the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) “succumbed to pressure,” noting how the NTC had committed to granting a provisional permit. Why is the NTC inconsistent with its prior conviction? “We were all ambushed by the NTC,” Cayetano said.

Legality, it is. Is the opinion of the Department of Justice not legal? Does the Senate resolution not imply legality? What about the written and spoken words at the Congress? Does this infer that the solicitor general outsmarts these legal entities? The validity, expiry and/ or extension of the franchise do not monopolize the discourse. It implies political pressure to lawmakers in surviving the game of politics, hostage to the tides of time. Politicians are puzzled escaping the wrath of the people to survive the nearing end of the administration’s six- year term. Such is evident in their plight as their predicaments may cause them political suicide since what has been a plain political problem between political parties has become a personal problem of the

people as the personal of one becomes the political problem of the many.

Former senator Juan Ponce Enrile, in his Manila Times commentary (May 8, 2020), gave weight to the constitutional circumvention concerning Filipino ownership requirement. How serious is this argument when this administration wants to grant foreign ownership to public utilities? House Bill (HB) 78 had 136 votes, as reported by The Manila Times’ Divina Nova Joy dela Cruz on March 11, 2020. “It seeks to limit the definition of public utility…distinguishes the term public service from public utility making other entities such as telecommunications and transportation businesses open for foreign ownership,” the report noted.

Enrile may pin down ABS- CBN with his wit in legal matters. “Is it just and beneficial to the common good?” the ordinary Filipino asks. “The solicitor general is correct,” Enrile concluded. “Is it right?” the citizens clamor. It is timely that Enrile pointed out Article XVI, Section 11(1): “The ownership and management of mass media shall be limited to citizens of the Philippines, or to corporations, cooperatives or association, wholly- owned and managed by such citizens.” The Filipinos would like to see him opposing HB 78 and the administration’s subservient “independent” foreign policy. Banking on the Filipino ownership requirement, Enrile reminds us to look back on how the Partido Demokratiko Pilipino-Lakas ng Bayan deleted and/or diluted some nationalist provisions of our Constitution: Article II Section 19 and 21, and Article XII Section 1, 2, 3, 5 and 10. I may not have noticed, but he seemed silent on these people’s rights concerning Filipino ownership of public utilities and operation of enterprises implying inconsistency in consistent constitutional circumvention beginning from the People’s Initiative for Reform Modernization and Action in 1997.

Noe M. Santillan Assistant Professor of Philosophy and Social Studies University of the Philippines Cebu