Digest/Noriza Jean Daga/ABC, Inc. vs Republic of the Philippines, DTC and NTC

 ALLIED BROADCASTING CENTER, INC., petitioner,

vs.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS and NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, respondents.

 Yulo, Aliling & Macamay for petitioner.

 G.R. No. 91500 October 18, 1990

 

Facts:

            On January 19, 1960, Republic Act No. 3001 was passed granting petitioner the permit or franchise to construct, maintain and operate radio broadcasting stations in the Philippines.  Petitioner was able to construct, maintain and operate ten (10) radio broadcasting stations all over the country.  Under Section 10 of Republic Act No. 3001, petitioner's franchise or permit "shall be subject to amendment, alteration or repeal by the Congress of the Philippines when the public interest so requires . ..."

            On November 11, 1974, Presidential Decree No. 576-A entitled "Decree Regulating The Ownership And Operation Of Radio And Television Stations And For Other Purposes" was issued and duly published in the December 2, 1974.  One of its provisions provides the revocation of permit of corporation owning, operating, or managing more than one radio or television station in one municipality or city.  Pursuant to such provision the petitioner is left only with 3 radio stations, hence this petition.

 

Issue:

            Whether or not there is actual case or controversy involving the law between Allied Broadcasting Center, Inc. and the government.

 

Ruling:

            The petition should be dismissed on the ground that the petition seeks a declaration of the unconstitutionality and/or nullity of Presidential Decree No. 576-A. As such, it must be treated as one seeking declaratory relief under Rule 64 of the Rules of Court. Such an action should be brought before the Regional Trial Court and not before the Supreme Court. A petition for declaratory relief is not among the petitions within the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court even if only questions of law are involved.

            Moreover, there is no actual case or controversy involving the law sought to be annulled. Petitioner does not allege that it has filed an application for a license to operate a radio or television station in excess of the authorized number and that the same is being denied or refused on the basis of the restrictions under Presidential Decree No. 576-A. Petitioner does not also allege that it had been penalized or is being penalized for a violation under said Decree. There is, likewise, no allegation that any of the petitioner's stations had been confiscated or shut down pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 576-A. Obviously, the constitutional challenge is not being raised in the context of a specific case or controversy wherein the petitioner has asserted his rights. All that petitioner seeks is the nullification of Presidential Decree No. 576-A and the reinstatement of its rights under Republic Act No. 3001.

Judicial review cannot be exercised in vacuo. Judicial power is "the right to determine actual controversies arising between adverse litigants." The function of the courts is to determine controversies between litigants and not to give advisory opinions. The power of judicial review can only be exercised in connection with a bona fide case or controversy which involves the statute sought to be reviewed.