G.R. No. 91500 - Allied Broadcasting Center, Inc. vs. Republic

Allied Broadcasting Center, Inc. was granted a franchise under Republic Act No. 3001 on January 19, 1960, authorizing it to construct, maintain, and operate radio broadcasting stations throughout the Philippines.
The petitioner utilized its franchise to build and operate ten (10) radio stations nationwide, contributing significantly to public service by disseminating important governmental and public information.

On November 11, 1974, Presidential Decree No. 576-A, titled “Decree Regulating the Ownership and Operation of Radio and Television Stations and for Other Purposes,” was issued and published in the Official Gazette on December 2, 1974.
Key provisions under Sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the decree include:

Limiting the ownership or operation of radio/television stations in a single city/municipality and across the country (no more than five AM/FM stations and five TV channels nationally).
Mandating divestiture of excess stations if the limits are exceeded, with specific deadlines for compliance.
Providing for penalties including cancellation of the franchise and confiscation of the station facilities in the event of non-compliance.
Termination of all existing broadcast authorizations effective December 31, 1981, with subsequent operations requiring new authorizations from designated government authorities.

As a consequence of Section 6, the petitioner’s franchise under Republic Act No. 3001 was terminated as of December 31, 1981, reducing its operational stations from ten (10) to three (located in Iloilo City, Bacolod City, and Roxas City).
The petitioner claims that this termination and forced divestiture caused:

A deprivation of its property rights without due process or just compensation.
A violation of its rights to free speech, expression, and freedom of the press.
An impairment of contractual obligations between the state and itself.
An unlawful restraint on trade by restricting operational capacity and expansion possibilities.

The petitioner filed a petition declaring Presidential Decree No. 576-A unconstitutional and null and void ab initio, seeking remedies including a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction.
The petition was intended to reinstate its rights under the original congressional franchise and remedy the alleged damages.
The procedural history involved submission of respondent comments, petitioner’s reply, and subsequent rejoinder by respondents, prompting the case to be set for resolution.

Whether the petition for declaratory relief, seeking the nullification of Presidential Decree No. 576-A, falls within the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court or should have been filed before a Regional Trial Court.

Whether there exists a bona fide case or controversy, as the petitioner did not allege any current operational denial, confiscation, or penalty under the decree.
Whether the petition amounts to an advisory or preventive remedy, lacking an actual adverse judicial proceeding or imminent harm.

Whether the petitioner is estopped from challenging the decree due to its prior compliance – having operated under the decree’s restrictions without protest since its effect.

Whether the petition’s prayer for the reinstatement of its franchise and rights constitutes an affirmative remedy that must be pursued through proper channels different from prohibitory or declaratory relief.