G.R. No. 78389. October 16, 1989
JOSE LUIS MARTIN C. GASCON, FAUSTINO “BONG” L. LAPIRA, AND SPOUSES ALBERTO AND KARLA LIM, PETITIONERS, VS. THE HON. JOKER T. ARROYO, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE SECRET…
PADILLA, J.:
In this petition for certiorari and prohibition, with
prayer for issuance of writ of preliminary injunction or temporary restraining
order, petitioners seek to annul and set aside the “Agreement to
Arbitrate” entered into by and between the Republic of the Philippines,
represented by Executive Secretary Joker T. Arroyo, and ABS-CBN Broadcasting
Corporation, represented by its President, Eugenio Lopez, Jr., dated 6 January
1987, to settle the claims of ABS-CBN for the return of radio and television
stations (TV Station Channel 4), and to enjoin the Arbitration Committee
created under the aforesaid agreement from adjudicating the claims of ABS-CBN.
The record discloses the following facts:
The Lopez family is the owner of two (2) television stations,
namely: Channels 2 and 4 which they
have operated through the ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation.
When martial law was declared on 21 September 1972, TV Channel 4
was closed by the military; thereafter, its facilities were taken over by the
Kanlaon Broadcasting System which operated it as a commercial TV station.
In 1978, the said TV station and its facilities were taken over
by the National Media Production Center (NMPC), which operated it as the
Maharlika Broadcasting System TV 4 (MBS-4).
After the February 1986 EDSA revolution, the Presidential
Commission on Good Government (PCGG) sequestered the aforementioned TV
Stations, and, thereafter, the Office of Media Affairs took over the operation
of TV Channel 4.
On 17 April 1986, the Lopez family, through counsel, ex-Senator Lorenzo Tanada, requested President
Aquino to order the return to the Lopez family of TV Stations 2 and 4.[1]
On 13 June 1987, the Lopez family made a written request to the
PCGG for the return of TV Station Channel 2. On 18 June 1986, the PCGG approved the return of TV Station Channel 2 to
the Lopez family.[2]
The return was made on 18
October 1986.
Thereafter, the Lopez family requested for the return of TV
Station Channel 4. Acting upon the
request, respondent Executive Secretary, by authority of the President,
entered into with the ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, represented by its
President, Eugenio Lopez, Jr., an “Agreement to Arbitrate”,[3]
pursuant to which an Arbitration Committee was created, composed of Atty.
Catalino Macaraig, Jr., for the Republic of the Philippines, Atty. Pastor del
Rosario, for ABS-CBN, and retired Justice Vicente Abad Santos, as Chairman.
Thereupon, petitioners,
as taxpayers, filed the instant petition.
Before discussing the
issues raised in the present petition, the Court will first resolve the
question of whether or not the herein petitioners have the legal personality or
standing to file the instant case.
There have been several cases wherein the Court recognized the
right of a taxpayer to file an action questioning the validity or
constitutionality of a statute or law, on the theory that the expenditure of
public funds by an officer of the government for the purpose of administering
or implementing an unconstitutional or invalid law, constitutes a
misapplication of such funds.[4]
The present case, however, is not an action to question the
constitutionality or validity of
a statute or law. It is an action to
annul and set aside the “Agreement to Arbitrate”, which, as between
the parties, is contractual in character. Petitioners have not shown that they have a legal interest in TV Station
Channel 4 and that they will be
adversely affected if and when the said television station is returned to the
Lopez family. Petitioners, therefore,
have no legal standing to file the present petition.
In addition, the
petition is devoid of merit.
Under the Provisional Constitution of the Republic of the
Philippines (also known as the Freedom Constitution), which was in force and
effect when the “Agreement to Arbitrate” was signed by the parties
thereto on 6 January 1987, the President exercised both the legislative and
executive powers of the Government. As
Chief Executive, the President was (and even now) “assisted by a
Cabinet” composed of Ministers (now Secretaries), who were appointed by
and accountable to the President.[5] In
other words, the Members of the cabinet, as
heads of the various departments, are the assistants and agents of the
Chief Executive, and, except in cases where the Chief Executive is required by
the Constitution or the law to act in person, or where the exigencies of the
situation demand that he act personally, the multifarious executive and
administrative functions of the Chief Executive are performed by and through
the executive departments, and the acts of the heads of such departments,
performed in the regular course of business, are, unless disapproved or
reprobated by the Chief Executive, presumptively the acts of the Chief
Executive.[6]
Respondent Executive
Secretary had, therefore, the power and authority to enter into the
“Agreement to Arbitrate” with the ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation,
as he acted for and in behalf of the President when he signed it; hence, the
aforesaid agreement is valid and binding upon the Republic of the Philippines, as a party thereto.
Moreover, the settlement
of controversies is not vested in the courts of justice alone to the exclusion
of other agencies or bodies. Whenever a
controversy arises, either or both parties to the controversy may file the proper
action in court. However, the parties
may also resort to arbitration under RA 876 which is a much faster way of
settling their controversy, compared to how long it would take if they were to
go to court. In entering into the
“Agreement to Arbitrate”, the Executive branch of the government
merely opted to avail itself of an alternative mode of settling the claim of
the private respondent ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation for the return of TV
Station Channel 4.
Nor can the immunity of the state from suit be invoked against
the claim of the Lopez family for the return of TV Station Channel 4. In
Amigable vs. Cuenca,[7] the
Court held that where the government takes property from a private landowner
for public use without going through the legal process of expropriation or
negotiated sale, the aggrieved party may properly maintain a suit against the
government without thereby violating the doctrine of governmental immunity from
suit without its consent. That is, as it should be, for the doctrine of
governmental immunity from suit cannot serve as an instrument for perpetrating an injustice to a citizen.[8]
Finally, neither the “convening of Congress” nor the
“recent declaration of the President that PTV-4 shall remain as the information arm of the
government” can render “ineffective and unenforceable” the
“Agreement to Arbitrate” because at the time of the signing of the
said agreement, the President was exercising both the legislative and executive
powers of the Government, and since the “Agreement to Arbitrate” is
valid, it is “enforceable and irrevocable, save upon such grounds as exist at law for the revocation of
any contract”.[9]
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Cruz, Paras, Gancayco, Bidin,
Sarmiento, Cortes, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea, and
Regalado, JJ., concur.
Feliciano, J., see separate
concurring opinions.
Fernan, C.J., in the result.
Gutierrez, Jr., J., on leave.
[1]
Annex “C”, Rollo, p. 21
[2]
Annex “B”, Rollo, p. 20
[3]
Annex “A”, Rollo, p. 16
[4]
Province of Tayabas vs. Perez, 54 Phil. 257; Pascual vs.
Secretary of Public Works, et al., 110 Phil. 331; Gonzales vs.
Hechanova, etc., et al., L-21897, 22 October 1963, 9 SCRA 230; Philippine
Constitution Association, Inc., et al. vs. Gimenez, et al., L-23326, 18 December 1965, 15
SCRA 479; Pelaez vs. Auditor General, L-23825, 24 December 1965, 15 SCRA
569
[5]
Sections 1 and 2, Article II, Provisional Constitution
[6]
Tecson vs. Salas, G.R. No. L-27524, 31 July 1970, 34 SCRA 275, 280
[7]
G.R. No. L-26400, 29 February 1972, 43 SCRA 360
[8]
Ministerio vs. CFI, G.R. No. L-31635, 31 August 1971, 40 SCRA 464
[9]
Sec. 2, RA 876
6 pt
6 pt
0
3
CONCURRING OPINION
FELICIANO, J.:
I concur in the result reached by the Court, that is, that the
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with prayer for a writ of
preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order should be dismissed. I reach this conclusion on the same ground
adduced by my learned colleague, Padilla, J., i.e., that petitioners
“have no legal standing to file the present petition.” A decision on
the merits rendered in a case where
the petitioners do not have the necessary legal standing, would in essence be a
decision not rendered in a proper, justiciable controversy or case. Such a decision appears to me to be very
close to a decision rendered in a petition
for declaratory relief or for an advisory opinion. The Court, of course, has no jurisdiction ratione
materiae over declaratory relief cases or petitions for advisory
opinion. It seems to me that disregard
of the requirement of legal standing, where such requirement is applicable,
would in effect amount to the Court acting in cases where it has no subject
matter jurisdiction.
I believe that is all that is necessary to decide this case. Accordingly, the statements made by the
Court in respect of the substantive issue raised — that is, the validity of
the agreement to arbitrate said to have been entered into between the
Government of the Republic of the Philippines and the ABS-CBN Broadcasting
Corporation — are, I submit with respect, unnecessary and therefore obiter. That substantive issue is important; it,
among other things, would presumably affect the validity and enforceability of
any award rendered by the arbitral tribunal. But it should be litigated in a proper case or controversy, between
parties who have legal standing to file the case and legal interest in the
subject matter of the case if only for the reason that then the Court might
hope to have the benefit of thorough analysis by counsel of the substantive
issues raised.