Title
Allied Broadcasting Center, Inc. vs. Republic
Case
G.R. No. 91500
Decision Date
Oct 18, 1990
A 1974 decree limited radio station ownership, forcing Allied Broadcasting to divest stations. It challenged the law as unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for improper filing, lack of controversy, and estoppel due to prior compliance.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 91500)

Background of the Issue

Allied Broadcasting Center, Inc. was initially granted a franchise under Republic Act No. 3001 which allowed it to construct, maintain, and operate radio broadcasting stations across the Philippines. The company established ten radio stations in various locations, providing essential public service and information. However, the issuance of Presidential Decree No. 576-A imposed restrictions on the ownership and operation of broadcasting stations, including a limit on the number of stations an individual or corporation may own.

Implications of Presidential Decree No. 576-A

Sections 3 to 6 of Presidential Decree No. 576-A mandated that no corporation could own more than one station within a municipality or city and imposed various ownership limits for radio and television stations. Effective December 31, 1981, the decree declared all existing franchises and permits, including those granted under Republic Act No. 3001, as terminated. As a consequence, Allied Broadcasting was left with only three operational radio stations.

Claims Against the Decree

Allied Broadcasting Center alleged that Presidential Decree No. 576-A was unconstitutional for several reasons. Firstly, they argued that it constituted an unlawful taking of their property rights without due process or just compensation. Secondly, they contended that the decree violated their right to free speech and the press by forcing them to divest their radio stations. Thirdly, they claimed it impaired their contractual obligations with the government. Lastly, they argued that the decree resulted in an unlawful restraint of trade.

Court's Procedural Decision

Upon review, the Supreme Court determined that the petition was not properly filed. The justices noted that a challenge to the constitutionality of a statute must arise from an actual case or controversy, which the petitioner failed to demonstrate. The petitioner did not assert that it had sought licenses beyond the allowed number or that any actions had been taken against them under the decree. Therefore, the court ruled that the petition fell outside its original jurisdiction and was not filed in the correct venue, as such declaratory relief actions should be brought before a Regional Trial Court.

Estoppel and Prematurity of the Petition

The Court concluded that the petitioner was estopped from challenging the decree due to its prior compliance and lack of

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.