DOJ Opinion No. 042, s. 2000

DOJ OPINION NO. 042 , s. 2000 May 23, 2000 Congresswoman Imee R. Marcos Acting Chairperson Committee on Public Information House of Representatives 3rd Floor, Main Bldg., Constitution Hills, Quezon City M a d a m : This Department is once again requested to render an opinion on the issue relating to the category of cable television industry. It appears that the proposed measure intended to regulate the cable industry in the Philippines sponsored by the Joint Committee on Public Information and Transportation and Communications is presently under plenary deliberations in the House of Representatives. It will be recalled that while the proposed measure was still being deliberated at the committee level, the opinion of this Department was sought on "whether or not cable television should be classified as a broadcast or mass media, telecommunications, or a separate category altogether". In reply to the said request, this Department stated in Opinion No. 95, s. 1999 that "cable television is a form of mass media which must, therefore, be owned and managed by Filipino citizens, or corporations, cooperatives, or associations, wholly-owned and managed by Filipino citizens pursuant to the mandate of the Constitution". It is stated, however, that in subsequent deliberations of the Joint Committee on the matter, new information on the status of cable television, particularly in the United States, tends to separate cable television from mass media. This alleged new information is contained in the letter dated November 19, 1999 of Mr. Paul Brown, 1 st Secretary, U.S. Embassy, to the Joint Committee, "to clarify one matter raised in the Department of Justice's opinion on this issue". The matter sought to be clarified is the 1970 U.S. case entitled Allied Broadcasting, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission (435 F 2d 66, 70) wherein the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that cable television is a form of mass media. Mr. Brown said in his letter that: ". . . there has been significant and substantial change since that time, which DOJ's opinion does not reflect. While Section 309(I)(3)(C)(i) of the Act does include 'cable television' in the term 'mass media', this section was written before the Cable Act of 1992, and is therefore no longer relevant. In 1984, 1992 and 1996, the U.S. Congress passed federal laws concerning the regulation of cable television. The 'mass media law' and the 'cable law' are in completely separate sections of the Communications Act. Mass Media is in Title 3 of the Communications Act, as amended, in February 1996. Cable television is in Title 6 of that Act. Section 602 of the Act defines 'cable system', 'cable channel' and 'cable operator' but does not use the term 'mass media'. There are no restrictions on foreign ownership of cable operators in the United States." LibLex It is likewise stated that, in several committee meetings, it has been underscored that cable systems are mere conduits or transmission of facilities of film, video and other programs to subscribers. Thus, in the proposed measure, Cable Television Service "is defined as the transmission or delivery to subscribers of video and audio programming and/or other programming service for a fee, with or without subscriber interaction, through fiber optics, coaxial cable and other future technological means". It is in the light of "this new information on cable operations as well as developments in telecommunications and multi-media technologies" that this Department is requested to reconsider its opinion that cable television is a form of mass media. After a careful consideration of the instant request, this Department regrets that it finds no cogent reason to depart from or modify its opinion on cable television. It bears stressing, at the outset, that the existing law on cable television prescribes a nationality requirement for its operation in the Philippines. Section 1 of E.O. No. 205, s. 1987 (Regulating the Operation of Cable Antenna Television [CATV] Systems In The Philippines, And For Other Purposes) provides that: "SECTION 1. The operation of Cable Antenna Television (CATV) system in the Philippines shall be open to all citizens of the Philippines , or to corporations , cooperatives or associations wholly-owned and managed by such citizens under a Certificate of Authority granted by the National Telecommunications Commission, hereinafter referred to as the Commission." (Emphasis supplied.) While the said E.O. failed to define CATV, it, nevertheless, is categorical in its requirement that the operation of the CATV shall be open only to Filipino citizens or to corporations, cooperatives or associations wholly-owned and managed by Filipinos. It is a basic rule in the interpretation of statutes that when the law speaks in clear and categorical language, there is no room for interpretation, there is only room for application (Pascual vs. Pascual-Bautista, 207 SCRA 561, citing cases; Secretary of Justice Opinion No. 114, s. 1999). While there are no restrictions on foreign ownership of cable operations in the U.S., the existing Philippine law on cable television, however, prescribes a nationality requirement for the operation of CATV systems in the Philippines. The Philippines is not bound to observe the U.S. laws, rules and regulations on the subject matter. This much is acknowledged by Mr. Brown himself when he said that "U.S. law may not be germane to the Philippine context". With regard to the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Allied case which the letter of Mr. Brown alleges to have been rendered irrelevant by the subsequent enactment of laws on cable television, please be apprised that the Allied case which was justified and valid under the law then existing in the U.S., was cited as additional support for our conclusion that the operation of cable television is a form of mass media. The principal consideration for the opinion is the fact that there exists a Philippine law which prescribes a nationality requirement for the operation of CATV in the Philippines. There was a similar U.S. law at the time the Allied case was decided. Based thereon, we are constrained to reiterate Opinion No. 95, s. 1999 which is founded on the existence of a Philippine law (E.O. No. 205, s. 1987) which is valid and enforceable until modified or repealed by a subsequent law. In Opinion No. 95, s. 1999, we pointed out that E.O. No. 205, s. 1987 is a law because it was issued by then President Corazon Aquino in the exercise of her reserved lawmaking powers under the Constitution. In this regard, the Department wishes to point out that the propriety or wisdom of repealing or amending a law is a matter of legislative determination. prcd Very truly yours, (SGD.) ARTEMIO G. TUQUERO Acting Secretary