Case Digest (G.R. No. L-59329) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Eastern Broadcasting Corporation (DYRE) v. Dans, 222 Phil. 151 (July 19, 1985), petitioner Eastern Broadcasting Corporation, owner of Radio Station DYRE in Cebu, sought to compel reopening of its station after respondents—The Hon. Jose P. Dans, Jr., Minister of Transportation & Communications; The Hon. Ceferino S. Carreon, Commissioner of the National Telecommunications Commission; and other officials—ordered its summary closure on grounds of national security and alleged incitement to sedition. The station was shut down without prior notice, hearing, or presentation of evidence and petitioner was denied any opportunity for administrative reconsideration. Claiming a violation of its due process and freedom of speech rights under the then‐effective 1973 Philippine Constitution, Eastern Broadcasting filed a petition for a writ of mandamus directly with the Supreme Court. Before adjudication on the merits, however, on March 25, 1985 petitioner’s president, Mr. Rene G. Espina, mo Case Digest (G.R. No. L-59329) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Summary closure of Radio Station DYRE
- In October 1980, the Minister of Transportation & Communications and the National Telecommunications Commission summarily closed petitioner’s radio station DYRE in Cebu on grounds of national security, alleging it was used to incite people to commit acts of sedition.
- No prior notice was given to petitioner; no hearing was conducted; and no evidence was presented to substantiate the charge of sedition.
- Subsequent procedural events
- Petitioner filed a petition before the Supreme Court praying for a writ of mandamus to compel respondents to reopen DYRE, and raised violations of due process and freedom of speech.
- On March 25, 1985, before decision on the merits, petitioner moved to withdraw or dismiss the petition, stating that it had sold its radio station to Manuel B. Pastrana who was not interested in pursuing the case, and that respondents were willing to grant a license to the new owner.
Issues:
- Whether the summary closure of DYRE without hearing or presentation of evidence violated petitioner’s right to due process under the Constitution.
- Whether the closure infringed petitioner’s freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by the Constitution.
- Whether a writ of mandamus or other equitable relief lies to compel respondents to reopen the station or grant the license.
- Whether the petition became moot and academic upon the sale of the station and the willingness of respondents to license the new owner.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)