[ G.R. No. 252119. August 25, 2020 ] 879 Phil. 507
EN BANC
[ G.R. No. 252119. August 25, 2020 ]
ABS-CBN CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION,* RESPONDENT. D E C I S I O N
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Before the Court is a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition (With Urgent Applications for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order [TRO] and/or a Writ of Preliminary Injunction [WPI])[1] assailing the Order[2] dated May 5, 2020 issued by respondent National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) which directed petitioner ABS-CBN Corporation (ABS-CBN) to immediately cease and desist from operating its radio and television stations (CDO) due to the expiration of its legislative franchise granted under Republic Act No. (RA) 7966, entitled “An Act Granting the ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation a Franchise to Construct, Install, Operate and Maintain Television and Radio Broadcasting Stations in the Philippines, and for Other Purposes."[3]
The Facts
On March 30, 1995, petitioner ABS-CBN was granted a legislative franchise to “construct, operate and maintain, for commercial purposes and in the public interest, television and radio broadcasting stations in and throughout the Philippines”[4] under RA 7966. The franchise was valid for a term of twenty-five (25) years from the law’s effectivity on May 4, 1995, or until May 4, 2020.[5] In 2014 and 2018, bills[6] for the renewal of ABS-CBN’s franchise were filed in the 16th and 17th Congress.[7] In the current (or 18th) Congress, eleven (11) bills[8] for the renewal of ABS-CBN’s franchise were submitted before the House Committee on Legislative Franchises, while two (2) bills[9] were filed before the Senate Commitee on Rules.[10] On February 26, 2020, another bill[11] was filed seeking the amendment of Section 1 of RA 7966 to extend the term of ABS-CBN’s franchise while Congress is still deliberating on the issue of franchise renewal.[12] In addition to these bills, several Resolutions were filed in relation to the renewal or extension of ABS-CBN’s franchise, particularly: (a) House Resolution No. 639,[13] urging the House Committee on Legislative Franchises to report, without delay, the pending franchise bills of ABS-CBN for plenary action; (b) House Joint Resolution No. 28,[14] seeking the extension of the franchise of ABS-CBN until the end of the 18th Congress, or until June 30, 2022, to give Congress additional time to review and assess the franchise bills; and (c) House Joint Resolution No. 29,[15] seeking to extend the franchise of ABS-CBN until May 4, 2021, to give Congress enough time to thoroughly study and debate on the pending franchise bills.[16] On February 24, 2020, the Senate Committee on Public Services called a hearing to “look into, in aid of legislation, the operations of [ABS-CBN] to determine compliance with the terms and conditions of its franchise under [RA] 7966.” During the hearing, respondent NTC’s Commissioner, Gamaliel A. Cordoba (Commissioner Cordoba), stated that the NTC has not withdrawn any Provisional Authority to operate under similar circumstances and has not closed any broadcast company in the past due to an expired franchise, pending its renewal. Commissioner Cordoba also declared that in the case of ABS-CBN, it will issue a Provisional Authority if so advised by the Department of Justice (DOJ).[17] On February 26, 2020, the DOJ - through Secretary Menardo I. Guevarra - replied[18] to the letter dated February 12, 2020 written by Commissioner Cordoba requesting a legal opinion on the matter of the congressional franchise of ABS-CBN. Citing a number of circumstances,[19] the DOJ Secretary refrained from rendering a formal legal opinion on the matter. Nonetheless, he made the following observations for the NTC’s “guidance”: (a) there is an “established practice” or “equitable practice” to allow a broadcast company to continue its operations despite an expired franchise, pending its renewal; (b) the plenary power of Congress includes the auxiliary power to define and preserve the rights of the franchise applicant pending final determination of the renewal of the franchise; and (c) the NTC may provisionally authorize an entity to operate.[20] On even date (February 26, 2020), the House Committee on Legislative Franchises sent a letter[21] to the NTC enjoining it to grant ABS-CBN a provisional authority to operate “effective May 4, 2020 until such time that the House of Representatives/Congress has made a decision on its application."[22] The letter was signed by the Committee’s Chairperson, Franz E. Alvarez (Chairperson Alvarez) with the concurrence of Speaker Alan Peter S. Cayetano.[23] On March 4, 2020, the Senate adopted Resolution No. 40,[24] “expressing the sense of the Senate that [ABS-CBN], its subsidiaries and/or affiliates, ABS-CBN Convergence, Inc., Sky Cable Corporation and Amcara Broadcasting Network, Inc., should continue to operate pending final determination of the renewal of its franchise by the 18th Congress."[25] This was an adoption of Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 6,[26] which was earlier filed, taking into consideration Senate Concurrent Resolution Nos. 7[27] and 8,[28] and Proposed Senate Resolution No. 344.[29] On March 10, 2020, during the preliminary hearing of the House Bills for the renewal or grant of ABS-CBN’s franchise conducted by the House Committee on Legislative Franchises, Commissioner Cordoba declared that the NTC “will follow the advice of the DOJ and let ABS-CBN continue [its] operations based on equity."[30] On March 16, 2020, the NTC, due to the mandated suspension of regular work in light of the Enhanced Community Quarantine, issued a Memorandum Order[31] declaring that “[a]ll subsisting permits [sic] necessary to operate and maintain broadcast and pay TV facilities nationwide expiring within the quarantine period shall automatically be renewed and shall continue to be valid sixty (60) days after the end of the government-imposed quarantine period."[32] On May 3, 2020, Solicitor General Jose C. Calida, through a press release, “warned the [NTC] against granting ABS-CBN provisional authority to operate while the approval of its franchise is pending in Congress.” He further declared that “the NTC [C]ommissioners could risk subjecting themselves to prosecution under the country’s anti-graft and corruption laws should they issue the ‘unlawful’ [provisional authorities] to ABS-CBN in the absence of a franchise."[33] For his part, the DOJ Secretary “[stood] by [his] position that there is sufficient equitable basis to allow broadcast entities to continue operating while the bills for the renewal of their franchise[s] remain pending with Congress."[34] Also, several lawmakers disagreed with the Solicitor General’s statements, including Chairperson Alvarez who said that “[w]ith the legal opinion of the [DOJ] and the authority given by the House of Representatives, there is no reason for ABS-CBN to discontinue or stop [its] operations."[35] On May 4, 2020, ABS-CBN’s franchise expired. Hence, on May 5, 2020, the NTC issued the CDO directing ABS-CBN to “immediately CEASE and DESIST from operating [the enumerated[36]] radio and television stations.” The CDO was based solely on the “expiration of RA 7966."[37] Consequently, on even date, ABS-CBN complied with the CDO and went off-air.[38] On May 7, 2020, ABS-CBN filed the instant Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition (With Urgent Applications for the Issuance of a [TRO] and/or a [WPI]) before the Court, claiming that the NTC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the CDO.[39] In its petition, ABS-CBN mainly argues that instead of issuing the CDO, the NTC should have allowed ABS-CBN to continue its operations pending Congress’ determination of whether or not to renew its legislative franchise based on the bills already filed therefor. In this regard, ABS-CBN posits that “the plenary power of Congress to grant or renew a franchise necessarily includes the corollary power to define and preserve rights and obligations pending its final determination of the matter."[40] Therefore, by disregarding the pending bills for the renewal of ABS-CBN’s franchise, the NTC gravely abused its discretion in issuing the assailed CDO.[41] Also, ABS-CBN asserts that the CDO violated its right to equal protection of the laws, pointing out that the NTC deviated from its past practice to allow broadcasting entities to continue operating pending Congress’ action on the renewal or extension of their franchises.[42] Furthermore, ABS-CBN decries a transgression of its right to due process since the NTC issued the CDO without any prior notice or hearing and by ignoring the serious and irreparable damage that the CDO will inflict on it and its employees.[43] Finally, ABS-CBN maintains that the CDO compromised the right to public information, especially in this time of public health emergency where it plays a significant role, and that it necessarily amounts to a limitation, if not, curtailment, of the freedom of speech and of the press with prior restraint.[44]
Incidents After the Filing of the Petition
On May 11, 2020, the NTC received a Show Cause Order[45] from the House of Representatives, requiring it to explain why it should not be cited in contempt for issuing the CDO against ABS-CBN.[46] In a letter-response[47] dated May 12, 2020, the NTC explained that in view of the wording of the Constitution and related laws, as well as prevailing jurisprudence on the matter, it could not issue a provisional authority in favor of ABS-CBN pending the deliberations of the Congress on its franchise, as to do so would amount to an encroachment into the exclusive power of Congress to grant legislative franchises to broadcasting companies. Expressing regret over its failure to notify the House of Representatives of its decision to issue the assailed CDO, the NTC assured that it will abide by any law passed by Congress regarding the matter.[48] On May 18, 2020, ABS-CBN filed an Urgent Reiterative Motion for the Issuance of a [TRO] and/or a [WPI],[49] pointing out that on May 13, 2020, House Bill No. (HB) 6732, entitled “An Act Granting ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation a Franchise to Construct, Install, Operate and Maintain Television and Radio Broadcasting Stations in the Philippines, and for Other Purposes,” was filed before the House of Representatives, seeking to grant ABS-CBN a provisional franchise until October 31, 2020 to “give both the House of Representatives and the Senate [ample time] to hear the issues being raised for and against the renewal, and assess, with complete impartiality and fairness, whether or not the network shall be granted a franchise for another twenty-five (25) years."[50] While highlighting that HB 6732 had already been approved on second reading by the House of Representatives convened as a “Committee of the Whole” and that the members of the Senate had also expressed their willingness to act swiftly on the matter, ABS-CBN nevertheless lamented that it will still take some time before HB 6732 is passed into law. In this light, and in order to avert any grave and irreparable injury to it, its employees, various stakeholders, and the public in general, ABS-CBN reiterated its prayer for the Court to immediately issue a TRO or WPI to, in the meantime, restrain the implementation of the CDO.[51] In a Resolution dated May 19, 2020, the Court resolved to: (a) require the NTC to comment on the petition and urgent applications for the issuance of a TRO and/or WPI; (b) separately implead the House of Representatives and the Senate as parties to this case and require them to likewise comment on the petition and urgent applications for a TRO and/or WPI; and (c) require NTC to file a reply to the aforesaid comments of the House of Representatives and Senate. The Court further resolved to deny the motion to consolidate this case with G.R. No. 251932.[52] Complying with the Court’s directive, the NTC, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed its Comment (with Omnibus Motion)[53] dated May 25, 2020, raising both procedural and substantive arguments in support of the dismissal of the instant petition. In its Omnibus Motion, the NTC further prayed that the Senate and the House of Representatives should be discharged as parties to the instant case, since they are not real parties-in-interest or indispensable parties herein as no relief has been claimed by ABS-CBN as against them but only as against the NTC.[54] In response, ABS-CBN filed a Motion for Leave to File Opposition to Omnibus Motion and Opposition to Omnibus Motion,[55] positing that the Senate and the House of Representatives were rightly impleaded in this case, since the issue herein concerns their constitutional power to grant a legislative franchise, and the CDO is an incursion into the auxiliary power of Congress to preserve the rights of a franchise applicant.[56] For its part, the Senate filed its Manifestation (In Lieu of Comment Re: Resolution dated May 19, 2020)[57] dated May 28, 2020. Praying that it be discharged as a party to the case, the Senate echoed the NTC’s Omnibus Motion that it is neither an indispensable party nor a necessary party to the case, invoked the principle of separation of powers, and pointed out that there is no claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim against it.[58] On June 1, 2020, the House of Representatives filed its Comment Ad Cautelam,[59] similarly seeking to be discharged as a party to the case since there is no cause of action or any relief sought by ABS-CBN as against it in the petition. Moreover, the House of Representatives asserted that any inquiry into its actions at this stage in the deliberations on ABS-CBN’s franchise will be premature and offensive to the doctrine of separation of powers.[60]
The Issue Before the Court
The primordial issue for the Court’s resolution is whether or not the NTC gravely abused its discretion in issuing the assailed CDO against ABS-CBN.
The Court’s Ruling
In light of the supervening denial of the pending House bills for the renewal of ABS-CBN’s legislative franchise, the Court finds it appropriate to dismiss this case on the ground of mootness. The Court explains. At the onset, it is imperative to point out that based on our Constitution and laws, a legislative franchise is both a pre-requisite and a continuing requirement for broadcasting entities to broadcast their programs through television and radio stations in the country. Broadly speaking, “a franchise is defined to be a special privilege to, do certain things conferred by government on an individual or corporation, and which does not belong to citizens generally of common right."[61] Insofar as the great powers of government are concerned, “[a] franchise is basically a legislative grant of a special privilege to a person."[62] In Associated Communications & Wireless Services v. NTC (Associated Communications),[63] the Court defined a “franchise [as] the privilege granted by the State through its legislative body x x x subject to regulation by the State itself by virtue of its police power through its administrative agencies."[64] On this score, Section 11, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution further states that “for the operation of a public utility,” no “such franchise or right [shall] be granted except under the condition that it shall be subject to amendment, alteration, or repeal by the Congress when the common good so requires."[65] With respect to the broadcast industry, Section 1 of Act No. 3846,[66] as amended, clearly provides that “[n]o person, firm, company, association or corporation shall construct, install, establish, or operate a radio station within the Philippine Islands without having first obtained a franchise therefor from the Philippine Legislature x x x."[67] It has also been clarified in Associated Communications that a congressional franchise is required to operate radio, as well as television stations, in light of the subsequent issuance of Presidential Decree No. (PD) 576-A.[68] In this relation, Section 6 of PD 576-A further imposes, as an additional requirement to operate a radio or television station, an “authority” coming from “the Board of Communications and the Secretary of Public Works and Communications or their successors [(i.e., the NTC[69])] who have the right and authority to assign to qualified parties frequencies, channels or other means of identifying broadcasting systems.” In Divinagracia v. Consolidated Broadcasting System, Inc. (Divinagracia),[70] citing Associated Communications, this Court ruled that the legislative franchise requirement under Act No. 3846, as amended, was not repealed by the additional requirement imposed in PD 576-A.[71] Instead, they coexist. Thus, in Divinagracia, it was explained that:
Broadcast and television stations are required to obtain a legislative franchise, a requirement imposed by the Radio Control Act and affirmed by our ruling in Associated Broadcasting. After securing their legislative franchises, stations are required to obtain CPCs from the NTC before they can operate their radio or television broadcasting systems. Such requirement while traceable also to the Radio Control Act, currently finds its basis in E.O. No. 546, the law establishing the NTC.[72] (Emphasis supplied)
In this case, ABS-CBN seeks that the Court annul and set aside the CDO issued by the NTC ordering it to cease and desist from operating its radio and television stations enumerated therein. The core of ABS-CBN’s petition rests on its argument that the NTC should not have pre-empted the will of Congress by directing it (ABS-CBN) to halt its broadcasting operations through said stations pending the determination of Congress on the renewal of its legislative franchise based on the bills specifically filed therefor. In other words, ABS-CBN banks on the fact that since Congress has yet to act on these pending bills, there is still a possibility that its legislative franchise would be renewed; hence, the NTC should not have overtaken Congress’ action on these pending bills by issuing the assailed CDO. In this regard, ABS-CBN claims that Congress has the “corollary power” to define and preserve rights and obligations pending its final determination on the matter.[73] Notably, ABS-CBN’s position is echoed in the “guidance” issued by the DOJ Secretary, which submits that the plenary power of Congress includes the auxiliary power to define and preserve the rights of the franchise applicant pending final determination of the renewal of the franchise.[74] However, the Court takes judicial notice of the fact that on July 10, 2020, the House Committee on Legislative Franchises had adopted the recommendation of the Technical Working Group (TWG) to “deny the application of ABS-CBN Corporation for a franchise to construct, install, establish, operate and maintain radio and broadcasting stations in the Philippines”[75] by an overwhelming 70 affirmative votes[76] from the 85 voting members present.[77] While ABS-CBN states that there are two (2) pending bills for the renewal of its legislative franchise authored by members of the Senate,[78] the Constitution provides that private bills,[79] such as those pertaining to the grant or renewal of a franchise, must exclusively originate from the lower house of Congress.[80] Accordingly, these pending Senate bills were referred to the Senate Committee on Rules,[81] and now, the Senate Committee on Public Services.[82] Pursuant to existing jurisprudence, these “substitute” bills are nonetheless only prepared in anticipation of the corresponding bill from the lower House, and that the action of the Senate as a body is withheld pending receipt of the said House bill.[83] The anticipated House bills raised in the petition, however, had already been passed upon by the House Committee on Legislative Franchises, and as mentioned, had already been denied. As explicitly stated in the TWG’s recommended resolution which was adopted by the House Committee on Legislative Franchises, the denial pertained to “all of the House Bills and House Resolutions relative to the grant or renewal of the franchise application of ABS-CBN Corporation [which were] hereby laid on the table,” clearly showing that the “committee action on a bill or resolution is unfavorable,"[84] viz.:
RESOLUTION
DENYING THE FRANCHISE APPLICATION OF ABS-CBN CORPORATION TO CONSTRUCT, INSTALL, ESTABLISH, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN RADIO AND BROADCASTING STATIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES WHEREAS, Republic Act (RA) No. 7966 granted ABS-CBN Corporation (formerly ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation) a franchise to construct, operate and maintain television and radio broadcasting stations throughout the Philippines; WHEREAS, prior to expiration of RA No. 7966 on 05 May 2020, several House Bills and House Resolutions were filed including House Bill Nos. 676, 3521, 3713, 3947, 4305, 5608, 5705, 5753, 6052, 6138, 6293 and 6694, and House Resolution Nos. 639 and 853 relative to the grant or renewal of ABS-CBN Corporation’s franchise; WHEREAS, the Committee on Legislative Franchises sought the position of the stakeholders, relevant government agencies and constituencies on the franchise application of ABS-CBN Corporation; WHEREAS, the Committee on Legislative Franchises conducted its initial hearing on March 10, 2020 and the Joint Committees on Legislative Franchises and Good Government and Public Accountability conducted extensive hearings from May 26 to July 9, 2020 to discuss the various issues raised against ABS-CBN Corporation; WHEREAS, the Committee on Legislative Franchises created a Technical Working Group (TWG) to discuss the findings and recommend a decision of the Committee on Legislative Franchises on the franchise application of ABS-CBN Corporation; WHEREAS, the TWG, after due consideration of the testimonies, documents, submissions and arguments has come up with its findings and recommendations contained in the TWG Report; WHEREAS, the TWG recommended to deny the franchise application of ABS-CBN Corporation and the Committee on Legislative Franchises to adopt its recommendation; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED AS IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, that the members of the Committee on Legislative Franchises deny the application of ABS-CBN Corporation for a franchise to construct, install, establish, operate and maintain radio and broadcasting stations in the Philippines; RESOLVED FURTHER that, pursuant to Section 49 of the 18th Congress Rules of the House of Representatives, all of the House Bills and House Resolutions relative to the grant or renewal of the franchise application of ABS-CBN Corporation are hereby laid on the table; and the authors thereof shall be notified in writing and, as far as practicable, through electronic mail of the action within five (5) days stating the reason(s) thereof. x x x x (Emphases and underscoring supplied)
Indeed, the adoption of the TWG’s recommendation by the House Committee on Legislative Franchises is considered as the official expression of the legislative will that has dispelled any previous uncertainty regarding ABS-CBN’s franchise status insofar as the pending franchise renewal bills are concerned. Hence, the supervening denial of these bills means that ABS-CBN cannot any more invoke the same as basis for continuing the operation of the radio and television networks covered by the CDO issued by the NTC. Accordingly, the issue on the “corollary/auxiliary” powers of Congress pending the renewal of these bills had already been rendered moot. To expound, “[a] case or issue is considered moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that an adjudication of the case or a declaration on the issue would be of no practical value or use. In such instance, there is no actual substantial relief which a petitioner would be entitled to, and which would be negated by the dismissal of the petition. Courts generally decline jurisdiction over such case or dismiss it on the ground of mootness. This is because the judgment will not serve any useful purpose or have any practical legal effect because, in the nature of things, it cannot be enforced."[85] Because of the aforementioned supervening event, there is no actual substantial relief which petitioner ABS-CBN would be entitled to regardless of this Court’s disposition on the merits of the present petition. To demonstrate, should the Court dismiss the petition on the merits, the dismissal would only validate and sustain respondent NTC’s CDO and hence, accord ABS-CBN no relief at all. On the other hand, should the Court grant the petition on the merits, the nullification of the CDO will be of no practical consequence since based on our Constitution and laws, a legislative franchise is necessary for a broadcasting entity to legally operate its radio and television stations. Thus, even if the CDO is annulled as prayed for, ABS-CBN cannot altogether resume its broadcast operations through its radio and television stations because its legislative franchise therefor bad already expired and that, considerh1g the denial of the House Committee on Legislative Franchises, has not been renewed. While indeed Congress has the plenary power to grant or renew legislative franchises and that this power has no time limitation, it must be borne in mind that ABS-CBN’s petition against the NTC is specifically anchored on the uncertainty that the then-pending franchise renewal bills may be granted by Congress and hence, in the meantime, should ·have precluded the NTC from issuing any interim CDO pending Congress’ determination on the matter. However, since these bills had already been denied, ABS-CBN’s position lost its foundation and more so, legitimizes the current state of affairs that ABS-CBN cannot legally operate its radio and television operations absent a legislative franchise therefor. Suffice it to say that any future favorable action upon a newly-filed franchise renewal bill goes beyond the scope of this case, which is anchored only on the franchise renewal bills pending in Congress at the time the NTC issued the assailed CDO. Besides, a broadcasting entity with an expired legislative franchise cannot simply bank on the speculation of any future favorable congressional action on its expired franchise since to do so would permit it to indefinitely circumvent the constitutional and statutory requirement of a valid and subsisting legislative franchise altogether. At any rate, the Court finds that ABS-CBN failed to provide sufficient legal basis to support its theory on Congress’ so-called “corollary/auxiliary” powers pending determination of the renewal of its expired franchise. On the contrary, what is sufficiently clear to the Court is that, under our present legal framework, a legislative franchise granting broadcasting entities the privilege to broadcast their programs through television and radio stations in the country must be in the form of a duly enacted law. The congressional deliberations on pending bills are not equivalent and cannot take the place of a duly enacted law, which requires the entire constitutional process for legislation to take its full course. Neither can it be inferred from our Constitution and our present statutes that temporary statutory privileges may be accorded to a franchise applicant pending deliberation of a franchise grant or renewal. Indeed, it is only upon the completion of the full law-making procedure in accordance with the parameters prescribed by the Constitution can it be said that Congress has granted a broadcasting entity the statutory privilege to so broadcast its programs through its television and radio stations. Absent a valid and subsisting legislative franchise embodied in a duly passed law, no such statutory privilege, even if temporary, can be enjoyed. On this note, it is apt to explain that it was actually because of ABS CBN’s argument on Congress’ so-called “corollary/auxiliary” powers that the Court deemed it necessary to implead[86] the two (2) Houses of Congress as parties to this case if only to accord them the opportunity to be heard. Notably, the Court’s directive to implead was made prior to the denial of the franchise renewal bills as above-mentioned. Nonetheless, both the Senate and the House of Representatives requested not to participate in the proceedings, considering that petitioner ABS-CBN has not, in fact, asked for any relief against them but only against the NTC which issued the assailed CDO. As the Court’s only intention was to accord its co-equal branch of government due process because of the prospect of tackling a delicate constitutional issue, and considering now that the pertinent issue affecting them had already been rendered moot, the Court therefore grants the requests of both Houses to be discharged as parties to this case as prayed for in their submissions. “Parties may be dropped or added by order of the court on motion of any party or on its own initiative at any stage of the action and on such terms as are just."[87] Finally, the Court recognizes that ABS-CBN also raises grounds other than its theory on “corollary/auxiliary” powers. These are: (a) violation of the equal protection clause given that the NTC has in the past allowed broadcast entities to operate pending renewal of their franchises; (b) violation of due process as it was not given the opportunity to be heard before the CDO was issued; and (c) violation of freedom of the press and the right to public information because of its “significant role” in disseminating news during this public health emergency.[88] All the same, however, the resolution of these issues cannot yield any actual practical relief in favor of ABS-CBN because, by force of our Constitution and laws, it cannot be allowed to legally operate the television and radio stations covered by the said CDO absent a legislative franchise for this purpose, and considering the fact that the pending bills for its renewal had already been denied through official congressional action. In closing, while the Court understands the plight and concerns of ABS-CBN, its employees, and its supporters in general, it wishes to emphasize that the act of granting or renewing legislative franchises is beyond the Court’s power. Congress has the sole authority to grant and renew legislative franchises for broadcasting entities, such as ABS-CBN, to legally broadcast their programs through allocated frequencies for the purpose. As it presently stands, the legislative branch of our government has yet to grant or renew ABS-CBN’s legislative franchise, which decision - whether fortunate or unfortunate - this Court must impartially respect, else it violates the fundamental principle of separation of powers. WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to: (1) DROP the House of Representatives and the Senate of the Philippines as parties to this case; and (2) DISMISS the petition on the ground of mootness. SO ORDERED. Peralta, C. J., Caguioa, Gesmundo, J. Reyes, Jr., Hernando, Carandang, Lazaro-Javier, Inting, Zalameda, Lopez, Delos Santos, and Gaerlan, JJ., concur. Leonen, J., See separate concurring opinion and concur in the result. Baltazar-Padilla, J., on official leave.