Why dual citizens cannot own or manage media

Eugenio “Gabby” Lopez III, board chairman emeritus of the ABS-CBN broadcast network, recently admitted to the House of Representatives of Congress that he is a dual citizen, i.e., he was born in 1952 to Filipino parents, which makes him a Filipino citizen pursuant to the 1935 Constitution (in force in 1952), and that he was born in the United States of America, which makes him an American citizen as well, pursuant to the US Constitution.

Lopez was president of ABS-CBN from 1993 to 1996, and its board chairman and chief executive officer in 1996. Thus, Lopez was both a Filipino citizen and an American citizen when he was an owner and a manager of ABS-CBN.

SAGIP Partylist Rep. Rodante Marcoleta is alarmed because Section 11(1), Article XVI of the 1987 Constitution states, “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.”

That creates a problem because Lopez is both a Filipino and an alien, and an alien is, as stated above, prohibited by the Constitution from owning and managing mass media in the Philippines.

Because Section 11(1) seems silent on dual citizenship, the question is, “May a Filipino citizen who, by reason of dual citizenship, is also an alien, own and manage mass media in the Philippines?”

A negative answer means ABS-CBN violated the constitutional ban against alien ownership and management of mass media in the Philippines when it allowed Lopez, a dual citizen, to be an owner and a manager of ABS-CBN.

The Lopez camp says all that Section 11(1) requires is Filipino citizenship, and Lopez satisfies that requirement.

That view is untenable.

Section 11(1), Article

XVI is lifted from the

1973 Constitution, which recognized the extraordinary power of the mass media to shape public opinion and influence public behavior, and which wisely provided that such a power should be kept in the hands of Filipinos, and Filipinos only.

There is Presidential Decree 1018 which acknowledges that the constitutional prohibition against alien ownership and management of mass media is also designed to protect the integrity and sovereignty of the Philippines. This decree has the force of law, and has not been repealed by Congress.

Moreover, the phrase “shall be limited to citizens of the Philippines…” used in Section 11(1) is written in prohibitory language, which clearly means citizens of countries other than the Philippines are not allowed to own and manage mass media in the country.

Undoubtedly, therefore, the intention of Section 11(1) is not only to keep the ownership and management of mass media in the hands of citizens of the Philippines, but to also keep such ownership and management away from the hands of citizens of other countries.

It is imprecise, even incorrect, to say that a Filipino with dual citizenship is a “citizen of the Philippines.” More precisely, he is a “citizen of the Philippines and of another country.”

There is a world of a difference between a “citizen of the Philippines” and a “citizen of the Philippines and of another country.” Based on Section 11(1), the first is qualified to own and manage mass media in the Philippines, while the second is not.

Because Lopez fits the description “citizen of the Philippines and of another country,” he is not qualified to own and manage mass media in the Philippines by reason of his dual citizenship. Therefore, his ownership and management of ABS-CBN is in violation of the Constitution.

The 1987 Constitution requires that at least 60 percent of public utility enterprises and educational institutions shall be owned by Filipinos. For advertising agencies, the minimum is 70 percent. That’s only partial nationalization.

In turn, 100 percent of mass media enterprises must be owned and managed by citizens of the Philippines. That’s full nationalization.

The fact that the mass media industry is the only business fully nationalized by the Constitution demands that Section 11(1) be strictly construed against aliens.

Evidently, Marcoleta has valid reasons to assert that ABS-CBN violated the constitutional ban against alien ownership and management of mass media in the Philippines when it allowed Lopez, a dual citizen, to be an owner and a manager of the broadcast network.

Marcoleta can further argue that because of that violation, ABS-CBN has shown itself undeserving of another legislative franchise, and that if Congress does enact another franchise for the network, that act will constitute a grave abuse of its discretion, which may invite annulment by the Supreme Court.

“Marcoleta has valid reasons to assert that ABS-CBN violated the constitutional ban against alien ownership and management of mass media in the Philippines.

“That

creates a problem because Lopez is both a Filipino and an alien, and an alien is… prohibited by the Constitution from owning and managing mass media in the Philippines.