EX-SC justice: Lopez’s dual citizenship forfeits privilege of mass media ownership

ARETIRED Supreme Court magistrate and incumbent member of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) has maintained that the failure of ABS-CBN Corp. chairman emeritus Eugenio “Gabby” Lopez III to renounce his US citizenship forfeits his privilege of engaging in the mass media industry.

In his 26-page position paper, former SC Associate Justice Noel Tijam also said ABS-CBN should cease from selling, or issuing, its Philippine Depositary Receipts (PDRS) to foreigners in favor of Filipinos as mandated under the Constitution. PDR is a security which grants the holder the right to the delivery of sale of the underlying share.

The retired magistrate also warned lawmakers against resorting to an “incomplete and vague” interpretation of the Constitution just to tailor-fit a disqualified enterprise.”

Tijam said such action could be construed as a “Constitutional shortcut that should not be encouraged but denounced as infidelity and treachery.”

“Failure to renounce US citizenship and to strip itself of foreign participation forecloses the privilege of engaging in a mass media enterprise. The only remedy is a Constitutional amendment, to be submitted to the Filipino people on a plebiscite for ratification. This is the equivalent of a Constitutional imprimatur,” Tijam said.

He noted that it has been established and admitted by Lopez himself that he was born in the US to Filipino parents; that he participated in US elections and Philippine elections; and that he carries both US and Philippine passports and uses the former when traveling to Europe and the latter for travel to Asia; he received education from the US, but later on managed a broadcasting network in Philippine soil and that he paid taxes to both countries.

Lopez maintained that, notwithstanding his dual citizenship, he is entitled to the full rights and obligations as Filipino citizens. He argued that a dual citizen is 100 percent Filipino.

“This is, literally, a half-truth for it conveniently cancels the fact that, as a dual citizen, he is likewise 100 percent American,” Tijam pointed out.

The former SC associate justice branded as “inaccurate” the argument that the Constitution recognizes dual citizenship and, consequently, dual citizens should be given the same rights and privileges as Filipino citizens.

He explained that the Constitution could only define who its citizens are, but cannot define who are citizens of other countries for the obvious reason that nobody has no absolute control over citizenship laws of foreign jurisdictions.

“If we are willing to cede easily and effortlessly our national sovereignty, economy, and patrimony to dual citizens, like Gabby Lopez III, we are likely to open a Pandora’s Box. If we recklessly do so, we are obliged to grant equal, or similar, rights to other permutations of dual citizens,” Tijam pointed out.

“Granting parity, or equal rights, to dual citizens solely based on the goodness of their heart, their good reputation, and the expected contribution to our national coffers will endear us to the international community but will disenfranchise and disillusion countless Filipinos born and raised in the Philippines from availing of and benefiting from the fruits of the motherland,” he added.

Tijam recounted that in order to place the national economy in the effective control of Filipinos, the Constitution further mandates the regulation of foreign investments and imposes upon the State the duty to “conserve and develop our patrimony” and ensure “a selfreliant and independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos.”

Such State regulation covers the grant of franchise to public utilities. Article XII, Section 11 of the Constitution.

The said provision states that “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.”

“The purpose of the limitation is self-evident—to prevent mass media, with its indelible reach, from being utilized, or exploited, to influence and sway public opinion in a manner detrimental to national interest,” Tijam stressed.

“The restrictive language of the Constitution should be sufficient indication that it admits of no further exposition, that the phrase ‘citizens of the Philippines,’ should not be unduly enlarged as to encompass other variations of citizenship,” he added.

Tijam noted that the Court’s ruling in Mercado v. Manzano that dual citizenship has to be terminated by those seeking any elective post is equally applicable to those seeking to own and manage mass media.

“Dual citizenship of those wanting to own and manage mass media has to be abrogated and cannot be indefinitely propagated. Dual citizens who refuse to terminate, or abrogate, their status as such clearly suffer from a Constitutional disqualification,” Tijam argued.

With regard to its PDRS, Tijam noted that during the Congressional hearings, ABS-CBN denied having issued PDRS and passed the buck to an investment company known as the ABS-CBN Holdings Corp.

But it was also admitted that ABS-CBN Holdings Corp. owns shares in ABS-CBN.

Tijam also contradicted the claim of ABS-CBN camp that the PDR holders would not own shares, or exercise any form of control in ABS-CBN.

He explained that ABS-CBN secures funding from ABS-CBN Holdings Corp., which, in turn, sold PDRS to foreigners, such as PCD Nominee Corp. (a PDR holder of 60.42 percent) and Prudential Singapore Holdings Pte. Limited, a Singaporean corporation which is also a substantial PDR holder.

Furthermore, Tijam said ABSCBN itself admitted that a PDR holder can trigger the transaction to sell the share, but was silent on whether ABS-CBN or ABS-CBN Holdings Corp. can trigger the transaction solely by themselves, without the PDR holders’ participation.

“These instances are clearly indicative that the actions of ABSCBN Holdings Corp. and ABS-CBN itself concern, if not subservient, to those of the PDR holders,” Tijam pointed out.

“When there is indication of subservience, even the slightest, the 100 percent Filipino effective control is compromised and diminished. Anything less than 100 percent Filipino is already a violation. Any appearance of foreign control is already a violation,” he noted.

Tijam reminded that it is the State’s duty to protect what the Constitution has expressly reserved to Filipinos, and not to allow foreign nationals to take ownership and control of mass media.